1b. Wetland alternation permit for right lane turn 1 k CITY O F PC DATE: Aug 5, l99�
' C H A 1 H A C E CC DATE: Aug 24, 1992
.4
1.
_......, CASE #: 92 -10, WAP
1 • n son:v
1 STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for a Right Turn Lane Adjacent to a Wetland
1
LOCATION: Entrance to Colonial Grove Subdivision, Cheyenne Trail and Hwy 101
I z
Q
V APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen/MnDOT
I ,J 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 °'
Q
1
1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
1 ACREAGE: Additional turn lane 2,440 square feet
DENSITY:
1 ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; Residential Single Family
1 S - RSF; Residential Single Family
Q E - City Of Eden Prairie, Single Family
W -RSF; Residential Single Family
I 0 WATER AND SEWER: Not applicable
1 W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is a road ditch adjacent to a wetland. This wetland has an
Ag/Urban classification under the city proposed wetland
I (n classification.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Single Family Residential
1
1
1 Cheyenne WAP
July 28, 1992
1 Page 2
1 PROPOSAL
The City is working with MnDOT to create a right turn lane into the Colonial Grove Subdivision.
1 The purpose of this project is to improve safety along Hwy 101, and is similar to improvements
made last year to Sandy Hook Road and Choctaw Circle on Hwy 101. The proposed turn lane
on Cheyenne Trail would require filling the existing ditch along TH 101, approximately 2,440
1 square feet adjacent to a wetland, and installation of a storm sewer. This lane would be
approximately 200 feet in length and 12 feet in width, and then tapers 150 feet back to meet the
existing road surface. This city's ordinance requires a wetland alteration permit when there is
' any activity within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. There will be no loss to the wetland because
all activity will be adjacent to the wetland, therefore mitigation is not necessary.
1 This site was inspected as part of the current wetland inventory the city is undertaking as a part
of the Surface Water Management Plan. It was noted that this wetland is an isolated wetland,
' and that there is sedimentation entering the wetland from a road -side culvert. In addition, there
is sedimentation entering the wetland through the ditch. The survey also noted that the
dominant species was narrow leaf cattails and sedge grass, and there is also an abundance of
1 purple loosestrife.
The edge of the wetland has been determined to be at the 917.0 contour. Construction of the
' turn lane proposes filling out to the 918.0 elevation. The ditch would be filled and a storm sewer
pipe would be extended beyond the turn lane. The plan proposes the storm sewer to have an
outlet elevation of 917.9. Staff would recommend that a sump catch basin be placed at the pipe
outlet to reduce the sediments flowing into the wetland. This sedimentation should help improve
the quality of the wetland. Staff is having the city's storm water management consultant
(Bonestroo) review this to determine the sizing for the pond.
1 SUMMARY
' All proposed construction activity is adjacent to the wetland, except for excavation of the
sediment basin and extension of the storm sewer. There will be no reduction to the size of the
wetland. Staff is recommending that at the end of the storm sewer outlet a sedimentation pond
1 be created at the 917.9 elevation. This sedimentation pond should improve the quality of the
wetland.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland alteration permit with the
provision that staff consider other ways to improve water quality into the wetland. The city's
storm water management consultant, Bonestroo, as well as the city wetland expert, Frank
1 Svoboda, have reviewed this proposal and have recommended that the trade -off constructing a
sedimentation within the wetland would not significantly increase the water quality. The runoff
into the wetland is controlled by the storm sewer system located on the westerly edge of the
wetland. Therefore, the wetland is generally dry year round. The inventory of this wetland also
confirms this description of this wetland. Therefore, staff recommends the use of the sump catch
basin as the most effective alternative for improving the water quality without effecting the wetland.
1
1
Cheyenne WAP I
July 28, 1992
Page 3 1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -10 to allow construction within 200
I
feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane adjacent to a Class A wetland
with the following conditions:
1. All filling shall be limited to the 918.0 contour, project shall install a sump catch basin 1
to improve water quality.
2. Type II e rosion control be in place around the construction boundaries of the wetland." I
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Plans dated June 25, 1992. I
2. Map of subject site.
3. Wetland Observation date May 6, 1992.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated August 5, 1992.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City of Chanhassen
Wetland Observation Records
I Wetland No.: 1 (Field Review): AI 7. - 1-4 C 1 (Official Map)
I Location t (, N T; Z3 ) R; 1z_ Section USGS NWI: �Y N
Observer Initials: K k .►A Date Visited: 5 / 6 / _ 't Z
1 Picture Number(s)/Roll #: 1- t jarit I Picture Nos.: t, 2 C see, of ,'acv a w.
1
Classification
Wetland Type: PE - (Cowardin); 3 (Circular 39)
1 Wetland Location:
Lakeside Streamside
I Headwaters t/ Isolated (upland)
E dge of Wetland Contour qr -� , 0 ; varies
I City Class:
(P)ristine ; (N)atural ; (A)g/Urban ✓ -i ; (U)tilized
- Watershed Characteristics
1 Wetland Size: acres Direct drainage area: acres
Total drainage area: acres Open water area: acres
1
Vegetation
I Dominant Plant Species:
Reed canary grass _ Cattail ti�a.r,ra w — L e&C— c a �F-f -'
.1 5 U
irY, n , ,iutir_, _A1. .5 �)- t`tt-D 0 (.64-1-6 00cd
j'',,. , , , , , — S DurtcA ®bundant; . (r ,,,_ s�_ I w P urple Loosestrife: (D)ominant; (S)ome; (I)ndividuals; (N)one
Plant Diversity: No. Species Dominant -1; 3 -5; 7
' Percent open water: S';',;
E 2,123,000 E 2,123,500 E 2,124,000
i
J 1 � ,. f: - 1 . r
•i" `i11�_. } �; _ .` ` Q0.' . • . , � , .• • ` ` I O N I5C
_ may ' (F' y . � (P:� �. �, C _ - ; ;_
1
y. ", L'C < _ l , :, ' ^ f ` l am !• 4 . \ �� v -:-.- - • ' f
1... $ ( ? E, 4 , � } d t ' 1 • t)
T t - J 1 u ` , 1 - .,-.4 t f + , I . '' � ` J lip •
- J % - / . = •' r i, s•� 5 , .gg j _� . -, r -- a s i . '' A Da ' s lit 1 ` �
4 a b ��.`- y,. � �' 'i - j .9238 y � ' . .` . . : !
'.;_:. _ 1 L � a p t YY / - � 1
\.."
-� J ` i y`� ` s ~ I I I
\ } '`.` 1`,rS"` -i -!� rho: y , s � ,Lr,. s i r �t `?'j •
h * ' — v im ` L \ \` `� Q l+ t a - ts• y`�� � .t' y ° I p / r { 1111' jt
----
r a • 7 t ? , / t -yi' •i ".:,,I, S t
�� �, ' ti WI 7 }�� + R. �= t �t # { iii
-.' '-- -,--. -, ..' ) — ‘. t t
- +�, � - i s � C :."k / ,,r;:' ,. '
r ll � 0,,-C t r + ? � '',�
�Y ' 4 _ tiyf ' . � h ` _
` l `\ . � F. � '' �, t _.� � • \ �1�
' --. '.....k. . - I '; `-. /p , - , _ ✓ � E ri, ,at1 111( N6B3 O
\,
'N.. V:c ,,,, -4-.4:-.44„,:-"fr-'?'-'i.: -_—;....7,)A ,,,---,... '''41, --. t z- f ---t, :_ - .</;'-','"-!'.'!"--.: i ...---,,. i .k:'
p
s ....-ict ,..', ;-; - , -.- „zn,I,-d-. •:'.._,.. ..A -.."- .-- , — "Thza y�iE - t , K t '. s -, �\ i t - - s , / .�,,. 'K- --.-' .� 1'ti ir ...H,, r 4 S t r` ; a ;I
. '�
N 1 • Nrm. Y f ',7'; ,1 '%`.•;, ... - C - >a. K 'yt. - �. -r r 'fit " _ • - _ 926 9" r < 11 , • i . _�,
p
# `' .` R C S ' �t T - s � ' . / F D . . y a�''. cis- Y 930:4 ",,:';''',ite* ". . 4 - ' 0 .
`( a 928, 7
- - , : a ` ; v ' r �y �� - Vii.. • : 4 ' f
. -. . , - ' J , . r� :11 /• 5 r, „ ems { i �'
. y 7 ,4 , 4 . F f% 4 C: t - �; `1f11 ,fi _ 3,`� ',
\ _` I �� t�' t ai t: r f
t \t � " 'mil r ` r - i - ' I
- - or' 'L i � r y i / t l'fb-
4,
..... . _�. s
, -, . , „, .\ , ,--, A ,, , . ‘ ".,.,:
-.,-, : , -:,: ,.. v" , ,:(,7 ' ';:-,f' . 3 ', ' %:--, - .. ' , . --:, --: .,‘,..,. . st*/.. ., :-.1,,, . .
�
7
'as � Y _ •1 *L -� .9455 f 1 • •
1
07 -23 -1992 10:46AM FROM VANDOREN HAZARD STALLINGS TO 9375739 P.01
Post -It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of pages ' /
li — -1111f 61"11111111111 .
Dept. Phpne #r�3 f/
Fox # rx.. -In 7
1 COLONIAL
IL__ . •
..
______________________
/
I _____...
______ _ ...__ .._
______._._ ,._ . ,
-
I SEED DISTURBED AREAS
L
I LOT 13 4" SOLID LINE /
320' ' (WHITE) - 7 wiz , , [) _
, v.- •Ng.,..sleog....■•■•0
PAVEMENT MESSAGE `
"1G1
WWiLAPJb 4t41rr5 . (WH1TO / f SIGI
-' IL-- $:
300' ` TUR .. LANE geFiFD W4-vn
. , i Mill
EASEMENT * *
ARY CLASS 7a l
*c �c
AN,•LE
II ` UTILITY EAS "'' l0
. .- --- _ —
r` •
``■ -- Ufa & - 14 - NL‘kSt\ NV A ..■,. •
.— ,•- = ` 1L:& .ion \'�\\ \ \ \�► \ \ \ �`.:� \ \ � �• `� 8 � 'l
Vf �n
�...: • i� ��� - ,ar= = fix - -- - —.
1 1 VI 1 1 2 -TRAVELED WAY 13
STATE HIGHWAY
IE II --
1 -o P NOTE:
f SAW CUT LEFT EDGE OF
WAY. MAINTAIN MIN, DIS
SAW -CUT LINE'
Q 15 3 .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 17 1
1
Batzli: Is there discussion? '
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -8 as shown on the plans dated
July 1, 1992 with the following conditions:
1. A grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Chanhassen.
2. Type I erosion control shall be installed between the existing wetlandll
area and the entire fill area, and shall be removed once the vegetation
has been re- established. ,
3. A swale shall be created between the area of fill and the wetland edge
at approximately the 960.0 contour to maintain the existing
neighborhood drainage pattern. Staff shall inspect the final grade
prior to seeding.
4. Clean up debris. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: ,
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE ADJACENT TO A WETLAND,
CHEYENNE TRAIL AND HWY 101, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. '
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: So Dave, speak to us about this sedimentation catching dealybob. ,
That's a technical term guys.
Hempel: This is what was employed at Lundgren's development up at
Trapper's Pass where there was just simply no area to build a sedimentation
pond due to the terrain. The sediment basins were recommended on behalf of
the Watershed and staff. They do help from a water quality standpoint by II
removing the larger sediments that wash through the pipe and so forth.
It's not as desireable as a sedimentation basin or a NURP pond which
removes a lot more of the nutrients and so forth but this is much better II than what is currently transpiring out there right now with an open ditch
section and it's been continually eroding into the wetland. So the
improvements that we're proposing here will definitely help from a water
quality standpoint, as well as a traffic safety standpoint with turning
movements on TH 101 and Cheyenne.
Batzli: So this will improve the current sedimentation problem that's
running into the pond but it otherwise won't improve the water quality
other than to catch the large sedimentation currently going in there throug
the existing culvert kind of thing? Whatever's there now. '
Hempel: That's correct, yes.
Batzli: Okay. Is there anything that we could do that would improve the II
water quality or potential for spills off the roadway or something? Is
there something we could be doing that we're not?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 18
Hempel: A sedimentation basin or NURP pond would be a little bit more
' beneficial than what we're proposing but also would require mitigation of
the wetland and DNR approval and possible Army Corps of Engineer approval
also.
' Aanenson: Can I just speak to that a little bit? When we first looked at
this issue, we were concerned because there is drainage and utility
' easements all around this entire wetland area. And basically the wetland
goes beyond the edges of all the drainage and utilities so there's not, in
this area if we did go in there and do some work, there's not a lot of area
' to mitigate. We'd have to take the mitigation elsewhere and that was part
of the concern I guess. That's why we originally thought about the
sedimentation basin may do a better job. In looking at it there's nowhere
to mitigate so we felt this was the best alternative.
Batzli: But really the fact that the road has gone through or what have
you has probably eliminated the natural whatever you'd call it of the
' nutrients and other things in the water and currently, all this is going to
do is take the particals out. The big chunks. But it's not going to do
any other filtering that would normally be done prior to entering this type
' of a wetland.
Aanenson: Well, there's two drainage that goes in there. One from the
Eden Prairie side. Storm water and then one that runs through the ditch.
I So those two are the ones that we're trying to trap. You're right. The
ones that are running off the road, the sheet flow.
Batzli: Yeah.
Aanenson: You're right. We probably wouldn't be catching those.
1 Hempel: This is a rather small area actually contributing to the storm
drainage system here. A ditch a few hundred feet each side of the culvert.
And a little bit of the backyards on the Eden Prairie side. So it's not a
' very large area that we're talking about contributing to the wetland. The
wetland is essentially pretty much a dry wetland and it's very heavily
cattailed and so forth. To do the filtering through the cattails.
Batzli: Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission on
this wetland alteration permit?
Aanenson: I was going to say. We did receive phone calls from some of the
residents that were concerned about impact•to the wetland and whether or
not there was a need for the right in turn lane. I guess they were
' concerned we were going to be taking out some of the wetlands. I spoke to
quite a few of them so I don't know if we answered their questions.
' Batzli: Okay. The record shows there's no one else in the room.
Aanenson: I was expecting quite a few people here actually.
Batzli: Well, there's no one else in the room that wishes to address the
Commission. Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 19
4
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Joan, do you have any comments?
Ahrens: Dave, essentially you're saying that it's just too much of a
hassle for the City to put the sedimentation pond or NURP pond in because
you'd have to go through the DNR and possibly the Army Corps.
1
Batzli: But then there might be mitigation as well required somewhere
else.
Aanenson: But there's no where to pick up the mitigation. Yeah, we can't
pick up the mitigation on site. The wetlands gone beyond the easements.
We'd have to take it off site. '
Batzii: 5o you're going to have a net loss. You'd have a net loss so
you'd have to take your mitigation to another wetland and enlarge it or do
something else somewhere else, so yeah.
Ahrens: So what?
Batzli: Well yeah. Is it a hassle, is that your question?
Ahrens: Thanks for restating my question.
Batzli: I'm sorry. I didn't understand it. Anyway Dave...
Hempel: Not necessarily expense. The project is being funded by MnDot's
checkbook if you will so the whole issue though I guess is, are we from a
water quality standpoint maybe enhancing or improving that somewhat but on
the other hand, actually constructing a pond in the wetland areas. Is that
an equal trade off, I guess. You've got the natural wetland right now.
Going in and actually dredging it to create a NURP pond. It's a balancing
act I guess. Kate.
Aanenson: I was just going to add that if we did mitigate it on site,
because we've gone beyond that boundaries, there'd be impacts to increasing
that wetland itself and what it would do to those homeowners. They'd
obviously lose less of their backyard and that was an issue too because it
is a large wetland as far as how much it encroaches into the property
owners and I'm not sure, at this point if they want a larger wetland or
less backyard.
Ahrens: In the long run, what's better for the wetland? 1
Aanenson: As far as the quality of the wetland, it's not that great of a
quality wetland right now.
Batzli: We could make it better.
Aanenson: We could. We always can. '
Ahrens: Yeah. Anybody want to answer that question?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 August 5, 1992 -'Page 20
Aanenson: Well we are right now. We feel like with the sump catch basins,
that we are improving it from what it is right now.
Ahrens: But of all the alternatives that are available to you, what is the
best alternative in the long run?
Hempel: I guess that would be the sedimentation basin. From a water
quality standpoint. For nutrient removal.
Ahrens: ...bigger hassle.
' Hempel: It's the expense and time delays. We are on kind of a time
constraint here. MnDot, we applied for this project last August and it's
taken until now basically to get through the hoops from MnDot. To get this
project in their books and so forth and if we delay it beyond the
construction season this year, we could possibly lose the funding mechanism
for this project.
' Ahrens: Okay. I have no other comments.
Batzli: Thank you Joan.
' Ahrens: Unless you have a question for me to ask.
' Batzli: Yeah, would you ask them if it's. Steve.
Emmings: I'd just resort to general principles here and that is, I give
' the City anything they want as long as it doesn't involve a special
assessment on my property.
Ahrens: I suppose you get a cheaper water and sewer bill.
Emmings: If it works out that way, that's fine with me.
Batzli: Matt?
Ledvina: Looking at the staff recommendations, they were considering the
installation of a sedimentation basin, is that correct? 5o we should
modify those?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. 5o should we substitute the word catch basin where it says
sedimentation pond? Would that be appropriate? Okay.
' Hempel: I was going to suggest that we just maybe modify it, condition
number one to read, all filling should be limited to the 918 contour. The
project shall implement a sump catch basin to improve water quality in the
II
wetland. Just strike, except for the extension of storm sewer pipe and
sedimentation pond.
' Ledvina: Okay.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 21 1
Batzli: Did you want to say something Kate? You really looked like you II
did.
Ledvina: Okay, then for condition number 3. It says, there shall be no '
filling or dredging permitted within the Class A wetland except for
sedimentation pond or do we say, except for the catch basin construction.
Aanenson: I don't think it's applicable anymore.
Ledvina: It's not applicable at this point? Okay, so strike condition
3...and that would be it. The catch basin now, obviously you're catching II
sediments and what is the capacity for that? Do you have an anticipated
schedule for cleaning and are there similar type structures? Is there
equipment for cleaning?
Hempel: Yes. The City does have a VacAll truck that will have to, staff
will have to monitor as the sediments accumulate. We do have a number of
these type of catch basins in the city now so it will require an annual
cleaning.
Ledvina: Annual cleaning? Do you think there's enough capacity in that '
for an annual basis?
Hempel: We periodically will check them and see if there's house
construction nearby or some other kind of construction which will increase II
the amount of sediments washing into them but typically it's on an annual
basis.
Batzli: Ladd. '
Conrad: Dave, how much water is draining from Eden Prairie into this area ?'
Hempel: I would say probably a couple hundred feet in each direction on
the culvert, backyards east of TH 101.
Conrad: This wetland used to be a lot bigger. The house...basically built'
into the wetland. And I think the wetland has deteriorated in quality in
terms of what it can do. It's such a pretty wetland. So on the one hand, '
it's probably an area that's, 200 feet? See this one really is balancing
act. On the one hand I start and I say, hey well the developer basically
built, put more houses in there than maybe...built right into the wetland. •
Yet we don't have a whole lot of drainage going through this. I don't
know, I guess I'm going to have to go with staff report on this. It is
a balancing act. I guess in this case I'd go with the staff
recommendation. '
Batzli: In general principle Ladd, do you agree with the notion that
because of hassle or because of expense or something else, we shouldn't do
what's best for the wetland here?
Conrad: Well you know, we are improving it. I think Dave's right.
Things, we could improve it more and that's the issue. We are making it a
little bit better. And so from a philosophy standpoint, I can go with
that. If I thought that spending x number, don't care where the money's
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 22
' coming from really...if it makes good economic sense, and if Dave's done
the limited drainage that they think it can...I'm not sure that I would
spend a tremendous amount of money...It's just sort of a gut reaction as to
how much money is being spent and how much it would cost to do. I
' certainly don't feel that the City should get by with anything but I think
our standard has always been, do we improve it? Is this situation being
improved and we are meeting that standard and I guess I don't feel that we
' need to push it beyond that. A little bit of me is saying primarily
because I know how this area was developed a couple years ago and basically
a lot of the wetlands...and I don't know. That was probably more damaging
' than anything else.
Batzli: Would you like to see staff at least be able to provide some idea
to City Council as to what would be the significance of making it much
' better? How much money does it cost? At least in terms of around tens of
thousands of dollars or hundreds of dollars. If it costs $200.00 more to
do this and 6 more weeks, than I say do it. If it costs $50,000.00 more
' and it can't get done in 3 years, then I say let's improve it a little bit.
But we don't know that and that's what I have trouble with. Anyway, that's
what I have to say. Is there a motion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -10 to allow construction within 200 feet of a
Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane adjacent to a
' Class A wetland with the following conditions: Condition 1. All filling
shall be limited to the 918 contour. The project shall implement a catch
basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the associated wetland.
Number 2. That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction
boundaries of the wetland.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Emmings: I'll second it.
' Batzli: Okay, discussion. Would anyone like to see added to that motion a
direction to staff to look into the costs or other, further ways that water
quality might be improved into the wetland?
' Conrad: Yeah, I would like to do that Brian. I don't know how to word.
The motion is to approve it as worded but to also have staff. The motion
reads to approve it per the staff report. And you would suggest that that
also advises the Council on the cost for an alternative.
Ledvina: Should I amend the motion then?
Conrad: Dave, what kind of exercise do we get you playing when we ask you
to do that?
Hempel: It would just take some rough calculations on the area of
excavation.
11 Conrad: Are you talking about an hours worth of your time?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 23
Hempel: Couple hours. Couple phone calls. Maybe consult the City's storm
water consultant on it too and see what their input is to the improvements
or the sedimentation pond would be significant.
Conrad: I'd like you to do that. Yeah. ,
Ahrens: It's kind of ironic the City, you know we have this pond committe
and we have a lot of lip service for preservation of wetlands and we're
going through all this effort to identify wetlands and then we have this
wetland and maybe it's not the highest quality wetland. Maybe it's not the
biggest wetland. Maybe it's not the greatest wetland in the city but just II
because the City's the applicant, and the City comes in and says the
timing. Because the timing is short, we need to get this project moving
and we may lose the funds. And this seems to be the most, easiest way to
get it done at this point because we don't have to spend as much money
mitigating someplace else. And it seems ironic that we push this along
like this when Dave himself said this is not the best solution for this
wetland. What are we looking at? The immediate solution or a solution 10 '
years, 20 years down the line.
Aanenson: First of all, we're not in the wetland. We're within 200 feet. II
That's the reason why we're here. We're not in the wetland.
Ahrens: But it's impacting the wetland.
Aanenson: No we're not. The catch basin's outside the wetland. The
reason we're here is because we're within 200 feet. We're outside the
contours of the wetland. What we're saying is, as long as we're next to I
it, we'd like to improve it. Okay, that's why. Originally we thought we
could put the sedimentation then we realized we're in the wetland now.
Okay. But our goal was to stay out of the wetland. Not to even touch it.
But we said, as long as we're next to it, what can we do because we've got
two ditches running in there. What can we do to improve it. We were
trying to be proactive. And our original thought was that we could do the
sedimentation but then we realized wow, we haven't got any room to pick up II
the mitigation. This wetland. Maybe those lots shouldn't have been there.
I know that we've got concerns from some of the other neighbors that those
homes didn't belong there because they impacted the wetland to begin with I
so. We thought we were being proactive.
Ahrens: The City is trying to...okay but if the City's going to go to the '
effort to correct mistakes made in the past, why not do the best job they
can do? If it's not going to cost a whole'lot more money. If it can be
done in a reasonable way. Why make the effort?
Krauss: We can look at that certainly. The potential for additional costs'
comes about the need to mitigate 1 for 1. There's no room to do any
mitigation on this wetland which means westhen wind up having to buy other '
land someplace else and expand a wetland on that property.
Ahrens: Is that something that has to be done immediately or is that
something that could be done in conjunction with another plan when you have
to mitigate?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 24
' Krauss: Well we've done that in the past but.
Ahrens: It doesn't mean that the City's going to have to come up with a
whole lot of money immediately out of pocket and buy other wetlands.
' Krauss: But we're setting up that kind of a wetland banking program.
We've done it in the past.
1 Ahrens: But it's not in place right now?
Krauss: But there is a State law in place that says you have to do it now.
Ahrens: You have to do it at some point right?
' Krauss: Or you have to post letters of credit to say that you are doing it
and do it within a certain time frame.
Ahrens: Well, sometimes it's maybe more beneficial to find out ways to do
it than to find out ways why you can't do it.'
' Hempel: Let me just add also I guess, as you're aware, the wetland has
been reduced in size over time with development. Development adjacent to
this wetland also has reduced the amount of runoff going to the wetland and
in some cases actually are pre - treating. Like Kurver's Point Addition used
' to drain towards this area and now it's being pre- treated and taken towards
Lotus Lake so the overall drainage area contributing to the wetland has
been significantly reduced with the area development. As Kate stated, the
' improvements that we're proposing are cost effective. It's something
better than what's out there right now. The overall, to go that extra
step, it may be feasible for us to do it. On the other hand, it may delay
' the project until next year and jeopardize doing nothing out there.
Batzli: I don't think anybody disagrees that what you're doing is going to
improve the wetland. Our question is, have we looked at the alternatives.
Can we be doing something else? I'd even love it if you'd come back and
say well gee, yes. We should do this. We can't do it right now but we
will phase it in and we'll try to do it next year when we can mitigate it
by buying another piece of property. I'd at least like to see the City
look at it in order to be fully responsive to the wetland that we're
spending so much time on in other committees.
L Conrad: Matt, would you amend your motion to add a point 4 that would ask
staff to examine.
' Ledvina: Point 3. 3rd condition.
Batzli: We got rid of number 3 last time.
1 Conrad: Ah. Okay. 3rd point that would ask staff to examine the cost and
feasibility and benefits to improving it with a holding basin. And staff
should spend no more time than 2 hours. Is that appropriate?
11 Ahrens: Then we're back to the same problem where we're approving this and
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 -'Page 25 1
then adding another condition. I mean either we have to do one or the
other.
Batzli: We have approved it and as part of the approval, staff is going to
present alternatives to the City Council. I don't see a problem with that I
personally. We've asked staff to do things.
Emmings: I think there is a problem. '
Batzli: Why's that?
Emmings: First of all, I guess my position on this would be that, I agree II
with what Joan has said in principle, and Ladd and Brian. All of you I
guess. But I don't think it ought to be applied in this case. It doesn't
seem to me to be a case that requires all of this attention. And I think II
if you want to do what you're saying, I don't think you should approve this
because then it goes up there saying, we approve this but we want
alternatives presented. When in fact what you're saying is, if there's a I
cheap alternative, you think the alternative ought to be taken and not
this. So I think you've got a problem there. I would approve what's here.
Ahrens: I agree with what you're saying. Either we approve this or we
don't approve it.
Emmings: Yeah, I agree. That's the way it's got to go.
1
Ahrens: Although I don't agree with your first statement.
Batzli: What was the first statement? That it shouldn't be done in this I
instance?
Emmings: Yeah.
1
Batzli: Is that the first statement? Well, I disagree with both
statements but that's besides the point.
1
Conrad: The point is, if you two decide you don't like it this way, you
could potentially could delay the project.
Ahrens: We don't know.
Conrad: We don't know but you potentially could. And the City Council's
going to make their decision. All we're doing is saying hey staff, you've
improved the situation a little bit. And in the process, in the next 2
weeks you could look into another alternative and they're going to give
City Council a chance to take a look at a broader picture. Versus kicking II
it back to us and us kick it back to City Council. Which staff would give
them two alternatives, a second alternative that might be less possible.
Batzli: We've done this a billion times in my opinion that we've asked
staff to look into something and settle something. I'm convinced.
Emmings: Yeah but not something that's contrary to what you're approving.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 5, 1992 - Page 26
Batzli: No. I don't think this is contrary. What my point is, is that
they have improved the wetland. I would like them to examine to see if
there are other ways that would even further improve it. That doesn't
necessarily mean that it has to be part of this approval process. Because
' I would like to see them get into the habit of excelling rather than just
saying well, we've improved it a little bit right here. See that's what I
think we have to do with the wetlands eventually.
Emmings: If they were working in the wetland, I'd agree with you. If they
were going to do anything in the wetland, I'd agree with you.
' Conrad: But your point is, you think this is, now I don't know where you
stand.
' Emmings: I think this is, for what's being done here, I think they're
doing enough.
' Batzli: No but see, I disagree from the standpoint that when you look at
the non -point source pollution, you're looking at the stuff coming down the
whatever they are and that's what they're working on. That's what they're
' trying to get rid of. They're trying to get the sediment coming down the
dealybops on the side of the road. Whatever those are.
Emmings: Ditches.
1 Batzli: Thank you. And you know, we're looking at the non -point source
pollution. We're looking at the runoff off the streets. We're looking at
this stuff and this is when you fix it. They shouldn't go into the wetland
to fix it. That's the whole point.
Emmings: But that's what you're asking them to do by building a
1 sedimentation pond.
Batzli: Well if it can help further remove the non -point source pollution,
they should look at doing it because it will improve the wetland. Even by
going into the wetland.
Emmings: Okay.
Conrad: Call a question.
' Emmings: Well now wait.
•
Batzli: Well no one ever finished it, seconded it.
1 Emmings: No one ever seconded it and I won't. I won't change my second.
' Conrad: I will.
Emmings: Well, is that procedurally what happens?
Batzli: If you don't withdraw your second, we vote on that motion as it
stood before this amendment. So we will call a question on the motion
before us which was prior to his amendment.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 - Page 27 1
Ledvina: The original motion with the 2 conditions. '
Batzli: The original motion. You have to approve the friendly amendment.
So we'll call the question.
Conrad: What was the motion?
Batzli: The motion was to approve this, I'm sorry.
Ahrens: Approval with the first 2 conditions right?
Batzli: Approval with first 2 conditions except it was rewritten to get
rid of the sedimention pond.
Conrad: No, don't you have to approve the motion. See I'm not going to
approve that unless I know that I've got the votes for my addition. Don't
you have to approve the amendment first?
Emmings: Technically yeah. You're supposed to vote on the amendment first'
if you've got a second to the amendment.
Conrad: You don't. '
Batzli: Well, we might. Okay. So I'll withdraw calling the question.
Your amendment was what? Give me your amendment again. 1
Conrad: Geez, this may not be worth the whole time.
Emmings: I thought Matt had made the motion.
Ahrens: Matt had amended.
Emmings: Matt amended his motion.
Ahrens: Can't we just start over? Come on guys. '
Batzli: I tried to call a question. Nobody let me.
Ledvina: Should I start over?
Batzli: No, just give me what your amendment was again please.
Ledvina: Okay. The third condition to the motion was to direct staff to I
evaluate the cost and the time schedules of constructing a sedimentation
basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland. '
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: I second that. ,
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded an amendment adding a third condition to
read as follows: 1
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 5, 1992 —Page 28
' 3. Direct staff to evaluate the cost and time schedules of constructing a
sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland.
All voted in favor of the amendment except Emmings and Ahrens who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Batzli: Okay, it passes 3 to 2. We'll vote on the full motion now which
' includes conditions 1, 2 and 3. Is there any discussion first?
Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -10 to allow construction within
1 200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a right turn lane
adjacent to a Class A wetland with the following conditions:
' 1. All filling shall be limited to the 918 contour. The project shall
implement a catch basin to mitigate the water quality concerns with the
associated wetland.
2. That Type II erosion control be in place around the construction
boundaries of the wetland.
' 3. Direct staff to evaluate the cost and time schedules of constructing a
sedimentation basin to provide additional improvement for the wetland.
' All voted in favor except Emmings and Ahrens who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Batzli: And your reasons for opposing.
Emmings: I would simply approve the original motion. I don't think they
should go to the time and effort of looking into a sedimentation pond in
this case.
Batzli: Okay. Joan.
Ahrens: I think they should just look into the idea of approving or the
idea of sedimentation ponds period and forget approving this original
motion. It doesn't make anything, it's contrary to approve this
' application and at the same time tell them but go ahead and find out if
there's something better we should do. Do one or the other. I don't
understand that reasoning.
1 Batzli: Okay. Sounds good.
1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated July 15, 1992 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
1 Krauss: Well I didn't give you the City Council update because there
wasn't much on the agenda and I was in Seattle.
' Aanenson: Wait a minute, I was there.
1