Loading...
6 Wetland Alter Per/Boeckermann ~ - CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager ICityCtnltrDrillt,POBox147 FROM: 'lutnh4JStn, M;nntsoto 55317 Phont 612.937.1900 GtI1lTa/FItX612.937.5739 DATE: ¡ginttring FItX 612.937.9152 'blK Saftty FItX 612.934.2524 SUBJ: 7tb www.ci.chonh4JStn.mn.us Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator February 23, 2000 Wetland Alteration Pem1it·- Marilyn & Daniel Boeckmann 7310 Kurvers Point Road BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to create an access to Lotus Lake through a wetland as part of a new home construction project. In addition, the applicant is proposing to convert the aglurban, seasonally flooded wetland into an open water wetland. This would require the excavation of approximately 300 cubic yards of material from the wetland. The walkway would require filling approximately 650 square feet of wetland to gain access to the lake. This lot is the only remail\Ïng unbuilt lot in the Kurvers Point Development. When the original site plan was submitted, it was noted in the staff report that three lots, Lot 1, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, would need to receive a wetland alteration permit to gain lakeshore access. At time of the original staff report, the requirement was that a wetland alteration permit would be applied for at time of platting so that it would be determined if access to the lake was reasonable or even possible. This was not done. ANALYSIS The wetland in question is an aglurban wetland which is currently dominated by reed canary grass. It is seasonally flooded and currently does not have any stanping water in it. This wetland is connected to the stormwater pond for the Kurvers Point development. Water goes to the stormwater pond then overflows into this wetland and into Lotus Lake. A large area of wetland divides a strip of shoreland to Lotus Lake and this homesite. A shared dock with the neighbors is not an option since the neighbor's to the south have a connection to the lake without going through the wetlands. If they were to share a connection, it would be the beach association lot to the north. This would require the applicant to make some connection from their yard to the path which is now heavily wooded. Once on that path, the applicant would have to walk through the beach lot to the westerly point of the beach lot and then cross over to existing upland at the end of their property line. . Gty of Chanhosstn. A grow;ng commun;ty w;lh "'an lakts, qua/jty schooh, a charn¡jn~ downtown. Ihrivin~ bu,;1JtS!tf, and btauri(ù/ parks. A ~al platt 10 /jilt, work, and p/av. Wetland Alteration Permit Marilyn & Daniel Boeckmann Page 2 The third option that was explored at the time of platting was that it was recognized that a dock would have to cross this wetland to get to the upland before an access to the lake would be possible. At time of development, it was thought that a floating dock (to be removed seasonally) over the wetland would be the best option. However, this is a seasonally dry wetland SO there are extended periods of time when there is no standing water and a floating dock would not work. If a normal dock were to be placed, footings would have to be placed deep into the wetland to support any structure out to the end. of the property. The applicant would like to do two things. They would like to gain direct access to the lake and also create a more aesthetically pleasing wetland on their property. What they have proposed to do is create a berm along the south edge of the property line halfway and have a bridge crossing and another berm connected to the end piece of property. They would then excavate the wetland area that is currently dominated by reed canary grass to create an area which will hold standing water and convert this to an open water wetland. Because the lowest point of excavation is above the ordinary high water-1evel, this permit will be run through the City and not the DNR. Because this project is in the shoreline impact zone (1,000 feet from the shore land of a recreational lake ), the maximum filling of a wetland in this area is 400 square feet under the diminimus rule. Any extra excavation or filling of a wetland will require mitigate or newly created wetlands. I have enclosed in part of my packet, DNR guidelines for excavating ponds for waterfowl and environmental purposes. If you will notice in the iustructions for doing so, they create an environment that will allow wet meadow vegetation in addition to open water to accumulate in this area. As far as the City is concerned, our belief that converting this to open water could benefit the lake. Since the hydrology of this area would be fed from the storm pond overflow, creating an open water pond will provide additional water quality treatment before street runoff enters the lake. This area has been heavily impacted by agricultural activities in the past. There are very little native plants in this particular wetland. It has been choked out by reed canary grass and some cattails. There is a possibility of restoration if the right plant seed mixes are used in conjunction with this excavation project. The·Cityagrees that by creating a berm to allow access rather than a dock, this will allow some control over water levels and allow settling of nutrients in this area. Therefore, City staff recommends the following motion: PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE This item appeared before the Planning Commission on March 1,2000. The Commission voiced concerns about the depth of the altered wetland and its affect on the lake. The staff is recommending that the proposed alteration be deeper than 8 feet. While the Commission voted in favor of the motion, there were still some concerns as to whether or not a floating boardwalk Wetland Alteration Permit Marilyn & Daniel Boeckmann Page 3 over the wetland with no alteration to the wetland would be satisfactory. The applicant stated they would not buy the lot if their proposal were not approved. The conditions have been modified to reflect the planning commissions motion. RECOMMENDATION "The City Council approves wetland alteration permit #00-1 subject to the following conditions: 1. The area shall be mitigated to make up for the 250 square feet of wetlands above and beyond the diminimus requirement. 2. The wetland be constructed in such a fashion that it will allow native plants to grow and follow the DNR guidelines for wetland conversion (see attached). 3. The applicant shall not be permitted to put in a fountain or any chemicals to control the environment of this area. 4. The applicant shall use a native wetland seed mix to complete the restoration or conversion of this area to a more natural setting . 5. The excavation process and the access to the site be reviewed or at least communicated to the staff (the alteration will occur before the house is built). 6. A tree preservation plan shall be reviewed by staff. 7. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission within one year from project completion as to the impact of this project. 8. Staff and the applicant will meet to review the depth of the pond (staff is recommending 8 feet)." ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map. 2. Application. 3. Description of proposed alteration. 4. DNR guidelines for excavating ponds for waterfowl. 5. Survey and excavation plan. 6. Public hearing notice and property owners. 7. Letter ITom Ladd Conrad dated March 10, 0000. 8. Planning Commission minutes dated March 1,2000. \\ers I \vo12\eng\phillip\wetlands\boeckmann wap.doc 1\ I\~\ ~~ '-l/ .......¡..-.. ..-- ~~ .-~~I( - I"'---- ~~ ~ UI 1Jì- êj ~. ~ ~ "-L l-l ~ ~ ~v "- \ ~i!s(,. ~ \ Lotus Lake , ~ ()~\ B¡ S~ ( Ç>/ ~ ø l'ltir _\ :Ubt...l\ Q) v r- ~ r 5- / I rlDJvø I \ _ ~I....Þina~ \ ~--( \ ~~b~ ~ ~ \ /--.:. - ----l¡ Y ¡: r~ - ~" )-~ I'---' ~., àI... ~ yc .~ _~ _ ~ r- h I., -- \ ~ R iI c: \ L- r- lG:"""'¡f .".11 IS1 P - .If" L; ';:il .---1 ~ I .N'~ J>7, ~<! - -~ ,.. ::: 0 J ~ I-- ç :; 7r7th //Í t I-- 2 t.. ~ :J: ITJJ \ %~ - - -........-: '----- - - [6iª¡HiJ~ l? ~ ~/~~ -. Î n-c -E3J]llj/ ~ I om rIT7 ~ ~ ------------------.. . MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVA TION ACT/CHANHASSEN WETLAND ORDINANCE WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN APPLICATION APPLICANT: Daniel A. and Marilyn A Boeckermann ADDRESS: 14980 Ironwood Court. Eden Prairie. MN 55346 PHONE NO. (daytime): 612.934-5498 Authorized Agent(s)/Consultant Involved With Project Name: Dean Carlson - Coldwell Banker Burnet Address: 7820 Terrv Pine Court. Eden Prairie. MN 55346 Phone No.: 612.701·5419 or 612.949-4715 Wetlands Consultant Name: Rob Merila - Aouatic EcoSolutions. Inc. Address: 2116 Marouis Rd.. Golden Vallev. MN 55427 Phone No.: 612.545-0912 A. Provide the following information for the imDacted Wetland(s) (1) A recent aerial photograph or accurate map of the impacted wetland area is attached? (2) The location of the wetland: Carver County, Rilev Puraatory. Bluff Creek watershed name «~ ) public land survey and/or UTM Coordinates of the approximate wetland center 4969000m N.. 458600m E.: SE% of NE% of Sec 12. (3) The size of the wetland: 0.36 acre or 15.525 square feet; (4) The type of the wetland: ~ Circular No. 39 PEMC/F NWI Aa/Urban City (5) A list of the dominant vegetation in the impacted wetland area: (for example, 50 percent willow, 20 percent cattails, and 30 percent sedge) 60% reed canary arass 20% Durole loosestrife 20% aiant burreed (6) A soils map of the site is attached? x Yes No. Page 1 of 7 Wetland Conservation Act/Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance Wetland Replacement Plan Application (7) The size of the surface drainage into the wetland is aoorox. 3 acres. (8) a.) The locations of any surface inlets or outlets draining into or out of the wetlands are noted? X Yes No. b.) Is the wetland within the floodplain of a watercourse? Yes X No (If Yes, the distance and direction to the watercourse is a direction.) feet in (9) Is a map, photograph, or written description of the land use of the immediate watershed within one mole of the impacted wetland attached? X Yes No. (10) Is the nature of the proposed project, its aerial extent, and the impact on the wetland shown in sufficient detail on the materials submitted? X Yes No. (11) Has evidence of ownership or rights to the affected areas by all applicants been demonstrated? X Yes No. (The applicant has a purchase agreement on the lot contingent of approval of permit to create pond.) (12) List all other local, state, and federal permits and approvals required for the activity . (13) Attach buffer strip widths, If applicable that will be provided to the impacted wetland following alteration according to the City of Chanhassen. (14) Attach other necessary information (I.e. historical aerials, etc.) Page 2 of 7 -------- - Wetland Conservation Act/Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance Wetland Replacement Plan Application B. Provide the following information for the ReDia cement Wetland Site: Will replacement be accomplished via wetland banking (if Yes, only complete items 2,3, and 8) Yes X No The project is an excavation within an existing wetland so WCA replacement is not necessary. The minor fill for the walkway above the 400 square feet is proposed to be replaced via wetland bank credits (0.01 acres at 2:1 ratio). (1) Timetable: project will begin on 03/01/00 IMo/DavlYr and be completed by 11/15/02 IMo/DavlYr). (2) Size 0.01 acres and type 3 Circular 39, PEMC NWI of wetland that will result from successful completion of the replacement/banking plan. (3) The location of the replacement wetland: Carver County, Minnesota River (Shakopee) #33 watershed and public land survey and/or UTM coordinates of approximate wetland center (in the northwest corner of the impacted wetland located at: 4969000m N.. 458600m E.: SEi4 of NEi4 of Sec 12.1. (4) A recent aerial photograph or accurate map of the replacement site is attached? X Yes No (5) A soils map of the replacement site is attached? X Yes No (6) The size of surface water drainage into the replacement wetland is aDDrox. 3 m§.. (7) a.) The locations of any surface draining into or out of the wetlands are noted? X Yes No (appears to be sheet flow on parcel) b.) Is the replacement wetland within the floodplain of a watercourse? Yes X No (if Yes, the distance and direction to the watercourse is direction.) feet in a (8) Has evidence of ownership or rights to the replacement site by the applicant(s) been demonstrated? X Yes No. Page 3 of 7 Wetland Conservation Act/Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance Wetland Replacement Plan Application (9) Attach scale drawings showing plan and profile views of the replacement wetland and buffer strip as required by the City of Chanhassen and fixed photo-reference points for monitoring purposes. (10) Describe how the replacement wetland shall be created. For example: · Excavation or restoration by blocking an existing tile: · The type, size, and specifications of outlet structures; · Elevations, relative to Mean Sea Level or established bench mark, of key features, for example, sill, emergency overflow, and structure height; and, · Best management practices that will be implemented to prevent erosion or site degradation . The reolacement wetland shall be created bv excavatina within the uoland adiacent to the wetand. and lowerina the around elevation to brina in wetland conditions. The excavated area will be sliahtlv oversized so that oraanic material from the adiacent excavation can be olaced within this area. The Wet Meadow Seed Mixture shown in Table 3 (or similar) is recommended for both the reDia cement wetland area and the Public Value Credit area. PUrDie loosestrife within the existina wetland. and in the reolacement wetland shall be removed bv hand and disoosed of orooerlv. (11) For created wetlands only, list additional soils information sufficient to determine the capability of the site to produce and maintain wetland characteristics. The reolacement wetland shall be excavated deeoer than necessarv and oraanic material shall be olaced on too of the excavated area. The Wet Meadow Seed Mixture (Table 3 or similar) shall be olanted to orovide a seed source. (12) Has a monitoring plan been developed and attached? X Yes No (13) Attach other necessary information. (14) Sworn Statements: Daniel A. and Marilvn A. Boeckermann (Aoolicant) states by signature below that: (i) the replacement wetland was not previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan; AND, Page 4 of 7 Wetland Conservation Act/Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance Wetland Replacement Plan Application (ii) the replacement wetland was not drained or filled under an exemption during the previous ten years; AND, (jjj) the replacement wetland was not restored with financial assistance from public conservation program; AND, (iv) the replacement wetland was not restored using private funds other than those of the landowner unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. (15) Has proof of replacement wetland recording notice been submitted to LGU? X Yes No Special Considerations To the best of the applicant's knowledge, are any of the following factors applicable at the impact or replacement site? Note whether present or not by indicating as follows: (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) federal or state·listed endangered species rare natural communities special fish and wildlife resources including: (a) fish passage and spawning areas (b) colonial waterbird nesting colonies (c) migratory waterfowl concentration areas (d) deer wintering areas (e) wildlife corridor areas archaeological or historical sites ground water sensitive areas sensitive surface waters le.g. DNR designated trout waters)_ educational or research sites waste disposal sites is the project consistent with local plans (e.g. watershed management plans, land use plans. IS zoning and master plans) Impact Site (IS) Replacement Site (R) Both (B) Neither (N) (1) (2) (3) Page 5 of 7 YES NO IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS Wetland Conservation Acr/Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance Wetland Replacement Plan Application Replacement Assurance Daniel A. and Marilvn A. Boeckermann (Aoolicantl confirms by signature below that: 1.) The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. or 2.) An irrevocable bank letter of credit or other security acceptable to the local government unit to guarantee the successful completion of the wetland value replacement has been provided. I hereby affirm that the information above is correct and truthful to the best of my knowledge. (Witnèss/LGU Official signature) (Date) Page 6 of 7 · _._._._._--~----- ., Wetland Conservation Act/Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance Wetland Replacement Plan Application Monitoring Plan According to a Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) representative (as referenced from the WCA Monitoring Plan section (8420.0620, page 60)), the following outline details the WCA Monitoring Plan requirements. I. Annual Report A. Site Description 1 . Project location (impacted and replacement wetland areas) 2. Monitored wetland a. size b. current wetland type (Cowardin & Circular 39) c. desired wetland type (Cowardin & Circular 39) B. Comparison of planned wetland to resulting wetland (first year only) 1 . What the differences were 2. Rationale fOr those differences C. Hydrological measurements (msl or referenced to known bench mark) 3 times per year 1 . April-May 2. June-July-August 3. September-October D. List of dominant vegetation (1 time per year) 1 . Common name 2. Percent cover E. Color photographs from photo reference point noted on the replacement plan (1 time, June-August) II. Final Report A. Summarization of the annual reports The monitoring plan would require only one field visit by an ecologist during the growing season. The other two field examinations could be done by someone familiar with reading water levels. The monitoring plan can include a tool such as a gauging stake from which to measure water levels in the spring and fall. A photograph at this time would be helpful to verify these measurements. Page 7 of 7 "__·___u._ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION Location: 7310 Kurvers Point Road Purpose of Proposed Alteration The purpose of the aheration is to give the purchaser of the property a useable access to the shoreline. There is land that is not wetland just at the shoreline of the lot. The size of neither the wetland nor the land at the shoreline would be changed. These improvements would improve the property as mr as appearance and improve the use of the property for the purchaser without effecting the purpose of the wetlands or shoreline. In addition, these improvements would enhance Lotus Lake, as this would create an open body of water to provide a spawning environment for fish. We feel at one point this wetland was covered with water and this improvement would return the area to its original state. Pond 1 )It is our hope to dredge an area of the wetland to be 10-15 feet deep and approximately 50 feet wide. This would not decrease the size of the wetland. 2) There is a natural channel at this time from the lake to the wetland. This channel would be expanded to 5- 10 feet (left open or perhaps with a culvert, covered with soil and returned to its natural condition). 3) We hope to create a narrow berm, which would allow us a walkway to the shoreline (no more than 4-5 feet in width). 4) We hope to build a small wooden bridge over the channel to give us access to the shoreline. 5) If appropriate, we would install an aeration system (fountain) to keep the water from becoming stagnant. We have a purchase agreement with the current owners of the property. The purchase of the lot depends on the approval of a wetland aheration permit for the pond improvements, as the lot 'as is' is not useable. The finished pond project would look similar to the pond to the right of the property with the address 7280 Kurvers Point Road. Marilyn and Daniel Boeckermann 14980 Ironwood Court Eden Prairie, MN 55346 612/934-5498 Cell 612/804-9721 Realtor® Dean Carlson Coldwell Banker Burnet 6121701-5419 ·;;:::t:""::: Aguatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecological Solutions to Environmental ChaUenges Lakes' Streams' Riparian' Wetlands' Watersheds 2116 Marquis Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 TeIephone/Fax: (612) 545.0912 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT - SEQUENCING LGU's FINDINGS OF FACT Addendum Proposed Plan The purpose of the proposed plan is twofold; 1) to provide useable access to the upland along the shoreline of the lake; and 2) to excavate the central portion of the wetland so that it has a more diverse fish and wildlife habitat. The proposed activities would allow the desired use of the parcel, minimize impact to the wetland, and benefit the surrounding fish and wildlife. It appears as though the wetland may have been deeper in the past, and has filled in over time; the excavation would restore this open water habitat. The walkway would be located along a corridor that is currently dominated by reed canary grass and purple loosestrife (both undesirable plant species); the area would only be approximately 650 square feet. Since reed canary grass and purple loosestrife are both considered "invasive species," the walking path alignment through this area would provide minimal ecological detriment, since the dominance of purple loosestrife and reed canary grass is a/ready a shift ITom . a naturally'existing plant community. As additional mitigation, the applicant would agree to hand-remove the existing purple loosestrife located on this parcel, and re-seed the exposed areas with the Wet Meadow Seed Mixture as described in the Wetland Replacement Plan Application. A bridge is proposed to cross the deepest portion of the walking path alignment, at the location ofa historic channel location. Silt fence would be installed on both sides of the walkway until things become stabilized. The pond is proposed to be 8 to 10 feet deep and approximately 50 to 60 feet wide. This would not decrease the size of the wetland. Most of this area is currently dominated by reed canary grass and purple loosestrife. If appropriate, the applicant would install an aeration system to keep the water in aerobic conditions. Benefits Provided Since the proposed excavated pond has a direct connection with Lotus Lake, it provides increased habitat for fish Pike, Largemouth Bass, Sunfish, and Crappies. This proposed open water area would provide a warmer feeding area for early-season fish, spawning and nursery habitat for bass and panfish, and a rearing area for young of the year fish. In addition to fishery habitat, an open water zone here would provide waterfowl with an additional courting, nesting, and rearing of the young. Page lof3 Wetland Conservation ACT - Sequencing LGU's findings of Fact Addendum The open water would allow turtles, amphibians, and other critters shelter from the lake, yet have direct access to the lake. The open water of this proposed pond adjacent to the lake would also allow dragonfly and damselfly larvae to grow and mature into adults. These species (along with frogs) are nature's "mosquito patrol," feeding on mosquito larvae and adults. Impact Avoidance Alternative 1. Alternative Sites: For the walkway to the upland along the lakeshore, an alternative site would not be feasible because lake access to the upland along the lakeshore would not be possible from another alternate site. If the wetland excavation were performed at a different location, the benefit to Lotus Lake would not be as strong. Alternative 2. Alternative ConfilZUrations: An alternative location of the walkway would be along the northern side of the property. This alternative would cause a portion of the deeper water within the basin to be filled for the walkway and increase impact to the wetland. An alternative configuration to the excavation would be an excavation of the entire basin that would leave no tTinge vegetation along the wetland tTinge. Impact Minimization Size The size of the walkway has been minimized to a four-foot width; any narrower and it would be difficult to use. The size of the proposed excavated pond is kept small enough to allow the tTinge vegetation to remain as wildlife habitat while allowing for the enhanced benefits of the open water. Scope The scope of the walkway stays within the parcel and does not effect the surrounding properties. . The excavated pond will benefit the surrounding neighbors as well as the fish and wildlife that lives in the lake and along its shores. Confi~ration The walkway takes the least detrimental route to the upland along the lakeshore. The dominant vegetation at the location of the proposed path alignment is reed canary grass with purple loosestrife as the secondary species. Removal of purple loosestrife along the path would be a benefit to the wildlife habitat since it becomes inferior wildlife habitat. Page 20f3 L. Wetland Conservation Act - Sequencing LGU's findings of Fact Addendum . The proposed pond excavation configuration includes a natural shape that fits into the natural habitat. Density Since this is a single residential lot, the density issue has already been resolved. The better the graphics, the better the potential for a positive opinion. Page 3 of3 ,TABLE 3 "-'ET MEADOW SF:.ëu MIXI't1RE Common Namc (Species) SceA;'1i Rate (pounds/acre ) Wüd millct (Eclùnochloa ausgaIIi) Annual rye (Lolb.un 11Udtiflorum) PeremûaI rye (Lolb.un ~) AJsike clover (Trifolium hybridum) Native Seed Mb: (see below) 5.0 5.0 12.0 5.0 .lQ.Q 37.Q Minimum of 2 Gasses/ Grasses and Sedges: Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensir) Prairie cord-grass (Sparrina p«tŽ1It1la) 1 Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) Switch grass (PaJÙt:uno¡ vir¡ruum)2 Green bulrush (Scùpus atrovirens) Fox sedge (Cara vu/pûwûka) Forbs: Swamp IIIilkweed (A.rckpias in.camaœ) Angelica (Angelica arropurpurea) Blue vervain (Vriena hasta14) New England aster (A.rrer novae-angliae) Manh aster (Aster simpla) . Joe-pye weed (EupalOriwn maculatum) Numerous other locally native species - consult nursery staff and tailor election to site specifics ~Planting rhizomes is prefer&ble to ..eding because Some seed s~ocks h ve very low germination rates 2Use only locally-collected seed _"__h".___._._ . . i··...... . i···..... . . .. . . . . .. ........ . i········ . i········ . I........ . j......... ~ . . . . . . . . . ¡/iJ~ P/;¡~1õ ~....~oO-O"~<-(.. ~C)íl'\t ß~~e-rV"YI...."""" PrrelÏc:..~.., ~ 'O::;:t-:- -- - ':: Agnatic EcoSolntions, Inc. '. Ecological Solutions to Environmental ChaUeDges Lak..· Stram.· Riparian. Wetlands. W.lcnhcds 2116 Marquis Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 TetephoneIFax: (612) 545-0912 Excavated Ponds fòr Waterfowl "landowners frequently ask natural resource agencies how mey can improve their land for waterfowl. Specifi- cally, many people wondet if excavating ponds will help. This brochure will outline when and whete dug ponds, or "dugouts"; can be l>eneficial, and provides construc- tion guidelines for optimum waterfowl benefit. Refer to our "Ecology ofWedands" brochure for more informa- tion. SHOUID YOU CONSIDER A DUGOUT FOR YOUR PROPER1Y? Dugouts should be considered only where omerwetland management options are not possible. Before you decide to excavate a pond. you should survey me site to derermine if:omer options, such as ditch plugs, tile breaks, or dikes would work. Wetlands restored by reducing drainage are always preferable to dugouts. In general, dugouts should only be constructed if mere are omer open-water wetlands wimin one-half mile. --~_." .. .- Waterfowl use dugouts primarilý for courtship and territorial sites, and must have other wetlands to fulfill feeding and brood-rearing needs. Small dug- outs (less man one-half acre) are used mostly in spring or fall migration. less so in summer. Larger dugouts will get more summer use, if mey're the right depm (1. 5 - 3 feet). You should not excavate a dugout in an existing wetland, especially one with open water. This can destroy me existing wetland by draining surface water off. Excavations should be outside the: edge of me wetland. where me water table is still adequately high. Cattail-choked wetlands are an exception to this rule, where vegetation covers the entire surface of the wetland, and surface water is rarely present. In these cases, it may be acceptable to dig in the wetland basin, but you should still stay close to the edge. For these projects. you will need to observe permit requirements described below and should talk to the local DNR Wildlife Manager. , , '-..-' CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES . 1. PERMITS. Wedands are protected by several laws, and a permit may be required for your project. Four government agencies regulatewedands, and should be contacted if you will be working in an' exi.stini wet- land. These agencies are: U.S. Army Corps ofEngi~ neers, USDA - Agriculrur.i.l Stabilization and Conser- vation Service (ASCS), me DNR Division of Waters, and your city or county zoning office or local water- shed districr. Phone numbers for me first 3 agencies are given at the end of this brochure; check your local directoty fo~ the number of your local office. 2. DEPTH AND SLOPES. Waterfowl need shallow water. When filled with water, your dugout should be no more than 5 feet deep. In mid-summer, much of your dugout should be less than 3 feet in. depth. Your 'pond should generally have the following depths when it is full (as in spring): Pet. of Pond Water Depth at this Depth Likely Result o to 1 foot 5 to 15 Cattails! emergent vegetation, usually dry by July. 1 to 3 feet 40 to 70 Mixed emergent vegetation and open water, dry in drought. 3 to 5 feet 25 to 40 Mostly open water, dry in severe drought. If you are constructing a dugout in cattail-choked 'wetlands, you will not be able to achieve the above depths. In these cases, the slopes of your dugout will have to be fairly steep. This is okay as these dugoutS will funcrion mosdy as territorial sites, and may not be heavily used for feeding. Maximum depth still shoUld not exceed 5 feet. In mineral soils, steep slopes prohibit growth of desirable vegetation, encourage erosion, and . reduce waterfowl use. As much as possible, grade the £lopes of your basin at a 3:1 (steep) to 10:1 (Har) ratio. Flatter slopes are better, which is not the same as a flat bottom. ) ...1/- .."1.. ..111. . ""1. " "'", "..... ..n/.....,.. _ . ... ,u" ..11.. """,",,,, . ",01" ....... ""." "". ..,';:: .1. ..11.. ,\I., ..U.., .,,,,,""" . .,'10., """" . ...11., ..11 .'4 "1. ...". ..If,. 'I" ',' I" ..u. "":" ...U", ""',11" .011/.,' 'IIf" _Uf, ..11, ""'. .U'., ..' 1\1" ..,11, .,\1.., .....'.. . "'"\I,, ,..'II., ,,0\ .\11" . ...;.'...., ....',.. ..1., .111" .\\1/. ,II Figur~ 1. Topographic diagram of a good basin design; this design emphasizes shallow slop~s and d~pths (~ach lin~ r~pments on~ foot of dq>th), and good shor~lin~ ftatur~s. Adjac~nt uplands ar~ s~~d~d to nativ~ grass~s. A pond bottom with variable depths (i.e., an undulat- ing bottom) is very desirable. This allows an intersper- sion of vegetation and open water which is very attractive to waterfowl. Some biologistS prefer to construct dugouts with one deep side to ensure water availabiliryand allow forvicwing of waterfowl. Figure 1 shows an example of a good basin design from the pe~spective of slopes and depths. 3. SIZE. Waterfowl use all sizes of wetland, but usually, bigger is better. In building your pond for waterfowl you should consider a minimum size of 2500 square feet (equal to a square with 50 foot long sides). Larger, irregularly shaped ponds are prefetred, however costS get quite high. 4. SHORELINE FEATURES. A pond with a shore- line which is irregular, and has many points and bays, is more atrractive to waterfowl than a dugout with a straight shoreline. Plan your dugout to have as much shoreline as possible, as in figure 1. 5. NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION. As explained above, your dugout should be neat an existing shallow nwsh for brood-rearing purposes. If you have ad- equate space and funding, you can consider digging more than one dugouL In general, two closely-spaced sma1l dugours will receive more use than one larger dugout. If you construct more than one pond, space them about 100 to 300 feet apart. Ponds can be closer if tall vegetarion screCns the ponds from each other (breeding ducks are territorial and won't tolerate oth- ers of the same species if they can see them). 6. ISlANDS. Dugours less than twO acres are too small to include an island. As an alternative you can use nest baskers, boxes or floating rafts for nesting. A . floating log, anchored in place, provides an excellent sire for waterfowl and rurrle loafing. See our brochure entided "Artificial Srructures for Waterfowl. " 7. SPOIL Excavating a pond means you end up with a lot of soil removed from the dugout; this is called "spoil." Spoil mUSt be carefully dealt with to optimize warerfowl use. In peat soils and cattail-choked wet- lands, you should remove the spoil from the wedand if at all possible. Again, check with rhe appropriate agencies (see list at end) to determine if you need a permiL In mineral soils, the top 6"-12" will probably be black ropsoil, high in organic matter. This should be saved separarely for later spreading over the excavated bot- tom. The underlying nonorganic soils (days, sands, erc.) should be moved to an upland site and sptead evenly. It is important that this material be removed from the wetland basin and not piled adjacent the dugout. The edge of the dugout should not have a discernible "rim"; that is, the slope should be continu- ous bdow and abOve the water surface, as shown in the cross-section in figure 2. Finally, all disturbed uplands and spread spoil should be seeded to native grasses for a minimum of 150 feet around the dugout. This will provide waterfowl cover, minimize weed growth, and prevent sedimentation within the basin. Providing 4 acres of upland nesting cover for each acre of wetland is best for duck produc- tion. Do not plant trees neat your dugout; these serve as predator perches and dens, and will reduce water- . fowl use. Use nest boxes to attract wood duCks. Remember to get any necessary permirs before you starr digging! 8. FINAL TREATMENT. The day and sand under- lying most mineral soils are very sterile and won't suPPOrt plant growth. In order to establish a food chain in your dugout, you must provide an organic , base. This can be accomplished by spreading 4" -6" of black topsoil over the entire excavated area. This can be the topsoil you originally removed (and stockpiled) from the site when you starred digging. Another technique is to spread 2"-6" of dean upland hay over the excavated surface (wild hay can spread noxious weeds). Both can. be used simultaneously. Once covered with water, either of these bases will quickly allow vegetation and insects to grow, providing the building þlocks for a desirable marsh. Don't worry about planting aquatic plants in your basin - they will establish themsdves naturally in time, given a suitable site. I o , 10 1 20 Feet I 30 I 40 I 50 Figurt 2. Cross-stction of pond bottom showing smooth, shallow grade at wattr/int, and undulating bottom contours. SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In general, a bulldozer or scraper is best èapable of consuucring ponds as they can be fairly precise in ·sculpting" thc landscape.' A backhoc (powcr' shovcl) or excavator can do a good job. and a draglinccan produce fair results. Thc naturc of your projccr willlikc1y determinc ro a largc degree exactly which equipmcnt is uscd. If you havc a dry sitc, usc a dozer, scraper, or backhoe. If it's a wet sitc, a ;backhoc or draglinc must bc used. Minimize thc disturbance to cxisring vcgcrarion :!round your dug- .out or you will cncouragc undcsirable wecd growth. Blasting with dynamitc or ammonium nitratc givcs unsarisfactory results, is dangcrous, and should not bc used. . . t ) ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Most resourcc agencies discourage thc usc of dug ponds for waterfowl because of their high COSt. Howevcr. you may bc ablc to gCt somc furthcr technical or financiiJ. . assistance. Somc county ASCS offiCes will cose-sharc construction costs through thc Agricultural Conscrva- tion Practices (ACP) program.· Locà1 SCS or 'Soil and Water Conscrvarion District offices may bc ablc to providc furthcr technical advicc. Thc DNR Secrion of Wildlife can givc gcncral advice for your area, and should be checked for pcrmit requircmcnts. In forested areas of thc seatc, your D NR forestcr may be ablc to providc COSt- . sharing through the Forcst Stcwardship Program. Fi- nally, local and statcwidc clubs may offer cose-sharc assistancc; chcck with thcm for specifics. AGENCIES WHICH REGUlATE WETIANDS OR PROVIDE TECHNICAL OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR WETlAND PROJECTS AGENCY FUNCTION PHONE NUMBER Agriculrural Stabilizario.n Regulatory & (612) 290-3651 and Conscrvarion Scrvice financial assistance Army Corps of Engincers Regulatory (612) 220-0375 DNR - Forestry . Technical & (612) 296-4491 financial assistance DNR - Wildlifc Technical assistancc (612) 296-3344 DNR- Waters Regulatory (612) 296-4800 Soil Conscrvation Servicc T cchnical assistancc (612) 290-3675 . Ifi· . !tJ C 1992. SO". ofMinnesoa. Dopamn..' ofNatunI Resources. Printtd on recycled paper. (j KURVERS POINT "IN", )1H c'!> N POINT --- -- - ... " , '" . I ~ _ ¿:":_"1:~:: :::..---- '- .,..~ ...... ,...~ "'''->-:- '. ----- -- /' --~- .. J ~ ~--- "." 6 I- o ..J I- ::> o ( --- ,/ " .' .' ,-- . 'A",,~ " » (' ",.-' ( £I..H~ / .. , j¥ ð " .,.... " ,..,..~.':f" .~ ", Q ~--- ------ .-' ~ v .,. ~ C>. <. [ 1 ' ~ i ~ ~ ,\ " 11 " fl~m~ T DTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE #'J.l (:"~/'" ~ -;'~~~ PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Pennlt APPLICANT: Marilyn and Daniel Boeckennann LOCATION: 7310 Kurvers Point Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Marilyn and Daniel Boeckermann, have applied for a wetland alteration permit to excavate approximately 6000 square feet of wetland and filling approximately 600 square feet wetland to access lakeshore located at 7310 Kurvers Point Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project, 3. Comments are received from the public. 4, Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Phillip at 937-1900 ex!. 105. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 17,2000. ~. Lj/~ \ .~~ '. ..... ..... -----\ \'0 ~~ø~~//(".Ch.e~~. '- ~,\~\\õ¡ ~ -'-~---- '--..---- "- WillQW View C -~-~ - ~~ '= '\ _:':ò~_ . ~'~~\~fi7; { . . \ ('-; Basswood ~' '---' :'.! ["Cir.' ;sj j \~\\~ -r¡" 0- ~ t;~ ~~0~~ \ . · ~/\'\ ~o~ ~ -1-\\ , ---II.. ~ \=d TT~)/~ '-~ ~ 7! L--,-:;;~---~, '\1 ~- ~~~ .~ co' I >'1 \O'"'~ I '-I \ - \ ' æ---__-,"L--1~~11 I ~__ -- "\ ~ ~ ~ ,--.g¡ r-ì-~\ -- ---"I' ShOh" \ r ~ ,'-. -~e, -' Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 5160~ URVERS POINT HOMEOWNER SSN :/0 MELVIN KURVERS 240 CHANHASSEN RD HANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DHN P & JANE. THIELEN 65 PLEASANT VIEW RD :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTC 690 CITY C R DR PO BOX 147 CH SEN, MN 55317 STATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR TAX SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL, MN 55155 OSEPH J SMITH o BOX 213 YA, MN 55368 KENTON D KELLY 6539 GRAY FOX CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUNRISE HILLS C/O CHARLES ROBBINS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ITY OF CHANHASSEN /0 SCOTT BOTC 30 CITY CE R DR PO BOX 147 HAN SEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOT 690 CITY ER DR PO BOX 147 CH ASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS 570 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 JTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN )5 SANDY HOOK RD HANHASSEN, MN 55317 GERALD R & JANICE M STRAND 18909 KINGSWOOD TER HOPKINS, MN 55345 RICHARD W & KATHLEEN A DENMAN 6661 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 REG H & BARBARA L HEDLUND 18 LAKE PT HANHASSEN. MN 55317 FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN C/O WILLIAM KIRKVOLD 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES C/O ADRIAN JOHNSON 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 HARLES E & DIANE BOHLlG 200 RIDGE RD DINA, MN 55436 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTC 690 CITY C R DR PO BOX 147 CHAN EN, MN 55317 RUTH L KALANQUIN 20 BASSWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JHN C & TANYA Y GLATTL Y 1 BASSWOOD CIR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY S & LORI A MCMILLAN 30 BASSWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & DEBORAH A WOLFF 31 BASSWOOD CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ONALD W & PAMELA M GOON J BASSWOOD CIR HANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY A & JULIE M KOCH 471 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANNE F JONES 480 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1ARTIN IMMERMAN & NN HOGAN 31 BIGHORN DR HANHASSEN. MN 55317 DONALD N & CAROL J MEHL 490 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LEONARD P & NANCY M KISKIS 491 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ~ Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160i) DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON 510 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 GUY L SWANSON 610 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL J & KARl J ROMPORTL & WILLIAM G & VON CILE GARENS 620 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN C & JOYCE M HAGEDORN 630 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JON ALAN LANG 640 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CONSTANCE M CERVILLA 650 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HENRY & G SOSIN 7400 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL 7410 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLlN 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IRVING RAYMOND 7440 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH 7450 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY P MON & FELIX MON PO BOX 39553 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55439 HARVEY L JR & CAROL PARKER 7480 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHAD ALAN KOEHLER 7490 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LOUIS S TESLER 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY J LINDSLEY & MARIA J STOFFEL 7510 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NANCY A ENGASSER 7000 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS J & TONIE FLAHERTY 7004 DAKOTA TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CAROLYN BLOOMBERG 7008 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN M & MONICA M POSNICK 7010 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HENRY & SANDRA NEILS 7012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK W JR & MARGARET M HETMAN 7014 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EVAN M NIEFELD 7016 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER K LARUS & HEIDI M GARCIA 7018 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CATHERINE S HISCOX 7500 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 DENNIS C & JANIS I FISHER 7501 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL J & JACQUELINE HAMMETT 7506 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT IAN AMICK 581 FOX HILL DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID B SANFORD & MARIANNE M MCCORD 6440 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 51~ IICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK 460 FOX PATH :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN 6470 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GREGORY DEAN CRAY 200 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VILLlAM & IVY KIRKVOLD 01 FRONTIER CT :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 JEFFREY W & MARY L BORNS 7199 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 !OLF G ENGSTROM & AWRENCE P LEEBENS 201 FRONTIER TRL :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL 7337 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ,RLlS A BOVY 339 FRONTIER TRL :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ;EORGE J & DIANNE H PRIEDITIS LORNA G TARNOWSKI BLAIR PETER ENTENMANN & 401 FRONTIER TRL 7405 FRONTIER TRL PO BOX 382 NANCY ENTENMANN :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7407 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WBERT M & LILLIAN H SOMERS THOMAS W HAROLD ROGER & MARJORIE L '409 FRONTIER TRL 7411 FRONTIER TRL SW KARJALAHTI :HANHASSEN. MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 7413 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 UCHARD J GILLESPIE & JOHN R & KRISTI J SESTAK JEFFREY A & LlZA A HILDEN mCHELE M KOPFMANN 7417 FRONTIER TRL 20 HILL ST '415 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 IOHN F & DONNELLA R SEGNER ROBERT FLYNN RONALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX -RUSTEES OF TRUST VALERIE FLYNN 6605 HORSESHOE CRV 10 HILL ST 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 IOHN D & ANN M DANIELSON RAYMOND P & ALICIA L RAYMOND P & ALICIA L ì607 HORSESHOE CRV BROZOVICH BROZOVICH :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 6609 HORSESHOE CRV 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ;YNTHIA ANN BRICTSON JAMES E & ELEANOR KEIPER LADD R & SUSAN M CONRAD ì613 HORSESHOE CRV 6615 HORSESHOE CRV 6625 HORSESHOE CRV ;HANHASSEN. MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .-~ Smooth Feed Sheets™ HAROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL 6631 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PHILIP 0 & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON 6633 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK A & DONNA M KUZMA 6651 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EVELYN ALBINSON 6655 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 YORIKO M PRICE 6663 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN M & SANDRA L CUNNINGHAM 6665 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DORIS A ROCKWELL 6677 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFF OR IE A KVILHAUG & JUDIL YN W KVILHAUG 6681 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 HELEN R HARTMANN 6687 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 SANDRA LEE OLSON 6691 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & CAROL W HAMMETT 6697 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN & LINDA K KRAMER 531 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MELVIN & JACQUELINE D KURVERS 7240 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL W & JODY L SPERDUTO 7261 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS R & JEANNE E MACLEAN 7280 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANNY J & BRENDA L VATLAND 7290 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALFRED A & SUSAN K HENDERSON 7330 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD C & SHAWN P HAINES 7340 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE & SUSAN R APPLEGATE 7360 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK G & LISA M MENDEZ 7361 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ..... Use template for 5160fD DOUGLAS J & ELIZABETH K BITNEY 6645 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD W & KATHLEEN A DENMAN 6661 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID & BEVERLY KOPISCHKE 6675 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN & BEVERLY RYAN 6685 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES C & JANET C HURD 6695 HORSESHOE CRY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVERS TRUSTEES OF TRUST 7220 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG A & SANDRA A CARLSON 7271 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY & MITZI VANTHOURNOUT 7320 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE & SUSAN R APPLEGATE 7360 KU NT RD C HASSEN, MN 55317 SEYMOUR S RESNIK 7370 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 51~ OBERT W J & JOANNE ORTENSON m KURVERS POINT RD HANHASSEN. MN 55317 CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON 708 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS ZHU & ZUO ZHI 716 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK 24 LAKE PT HANHASSEN, MN 55317 TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT 732 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TODD D ELFTMANN & SUSAN L ERICKSON-ELFTMANN 740 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 REG H & BARBARA L HEDLUND 48 LAKE PT HANHASSEN. MN 55317 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX 7300 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 )ANNE LlPE. BRUCE BAIRD & HRISTOPHER J BAIRD 345 LEXINGTON CT HASKA. MN 55318 ROBERT & LINDA SATHRE 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RANDY R & RAYMA LEE SMITH 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 '\NICE LANDRUS 19 PLEASANT VIEW RD HANHASSEN. MN 55317 MICHAEL & KATHRYN SCHWARTZ 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT L & SANDRA J POST 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 URTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON )0 PLEASANT VIEW RD HANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN R & KATHLEEN A VONWALTER 510 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS J & LANA HABERMAN 520 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ARVE'( W & KAREN E ROBIDEAU 40 PLEASANT VIEW RD HANHASSEN. MN 55317 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 JOHN & JANIS R NICOLAY 608 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ¡ARY J SCHNEIDER & YNTHIA CALHOUN SCHNEIDER 40 PLEASANT VIEW RD HANHASSEN. MN 55317 JOHN P & JANE THIELEN 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER 695 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 OHN C ARMITAGE & HONDA K WARNER & MONA J AHL 45 PLEASANT VIEW RD :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN W & CAROL LENHART 6575 PLEASANT VIEW WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRIAN H & JEANNE M BATZLI 100 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 'ETER A MOSCATELLI 02 SANDY HOOK RD :HANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT D NELSON & CATHY HULL NELSON 106 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS V & DARLEEN TURCOTTE 108 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -- Smooth Feed Sheets™ JOHN S & MARIE F KERN 109 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT B & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 JAY H & SHELLEY H STROHMAIER 80 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE PO BOX 714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY A & PIA E SCHUTT 40 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY B & KATHLEEN M GROVER 60 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN T MESTITZ & PEGGY L NAAS 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ~ MARK C & NANCY A ENGASSER 7000 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM & MARJORIE SPLlETHOFF 4041 GULFSHORE BLVD N #312 NAPLES, FL 34103 GREG S & LINDA WILKES 7632 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARY C MAURICE & SANDRA M SEDO 7644 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD C & DIANNE DANTON 41 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS S & JEANNETTE K PARR 71 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Use template for 5160@ ROBERT B & SUE MIDNESS 112 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS & MARILYN PALMBY 114 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN 7636 SOUTH SHORE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GERALD R BELL & JANE M BECKER 21 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- DAVID & ELIZABETH HARRINGTON 51 TWIN MAPLE LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK 0 & SUZANNE SENN 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 t; { OF CHANHASSEN CITY CENTER DRIVE ~SEN MN ,:>5317 ae: MARILYN BOECKERMANN a: 02/11/2000 Time: 8:26am eipt Number: DW / 73 rk: DANIELLE M REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------- AP RE-00-1 WAP BE & VARIANCE IGN RENT EGAL ESCROW EZONING ECORDING ESCRW IGN ESCROW ETLAND IGN PERMIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 ------------ Total: 150.00 ck 6192 150.00 ------------ Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! March 10, 2000 TO: Chanhassen City Co~ncil Nancy Man~ino, tJI¡ Engel, Linda Jansen, Steve Labatt, Mark Senn Ladd Com" ' WAP - 00- The Boeckmanns FROM: RE: I feel uncomfortable with a notion made regarding the Wetland Alteration Permit submitted by the Boeckmanns, Hopefully you can review this with more thoughtfulness than I did. Staff recommended approval, and if some problems are resolved, and if we had control of the wetland, I think the project could be OK for the lake. However: 1. There is a real simple solution for lake access, and it is a floating deck that sometimes would not be floating. Neighbors use this system. 2. Allowing WAP should be considered only if there are significant benefits with little risk and if it works in the long run. Please note: Their consultants only talked about wildlife, not lake water quality. They talked about dredging down eight to 10 or 15 feet - shouldn't this depth be reviewed by a neutral agency to insure there are no serious problems - breaking the seal of the lake? Should there be a bond required? How is the dredging monitored? What control do we have to insure it retains the wetland look and usefulness in the long run? Our report said no fountains, but does this mean 'aeration system'? Does the submitted 'Monitoring Plan' extend past one year, and if so, can it ensure the site is not converted to a private pond? Overall, I got nervous about the real benefits in the long run vs. deep dredging, and looking like a private pond and not a functioning wetland in the future. Hopefully you can asks these questions before you make a decision. Thanks! cc:, Kate Aanenson \ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 1,2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson; Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO EXCAVATE APPROXIMATELY 6000 SOUARE FEET OF WETLAND AND FILLING APPROXIMATELY 600 SOUARE FEET WETLAND TO ACCESS LAKESHORE. 7310 KURVERS POINT ROAD. MARILYN AND DANIEL BOECKERMANN. Phillip Elkin presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Okay, questions of staff anybody? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I have a question. In our packet there's a drawing, let's see if there's a number. There's no number on it. This drawing Phil. Elkin: Got it. Kind: And it shows an opening underneath the bridge. Will that opening go out into the water? Elkin: Right. That would be the, it would just act as a culvert or, that would be the low point so as the water rose in the wetland it would overflow into the lake. Kind: That's the outlet so to speak and it would be kept at a certain level so sediment can settle down and then go out that way. Elkin: Right, right. So it is above the ordinary high of the lake. So you'll have the water reaching the level and then out over into the lake, which is at a lower elevation. Kind: And then the bridge will go up even higher over that? Elkin: Yeah, over the water. Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 2000 Kind; Is that considered shoreland alteration because it's along the? Elkin: Well it's a wetland in the shoreland impact zone because this was in so many hundred feet of the lakeshore. The DNR is not involved because it's above the ordinary high water mark and all the excavation so it's right in that area. Where the City, it is in an area which could be, or you know is in a natural environment area so we want to be cautious in what we recommend and what we do in that area. Kind: My concern is that a future homeowner might say ooh, this is a neat protected harbor. IfI excavate it more and make that channel bigger, I can get a boat underneath it there. Elkin: That wouldn't be a weekend project. That would be a lot of excavation because like I said, it is, if you look, OHW of the lake is 896 and I believe, let me look at the grading plan. They are going down 8 feet from the existing elevation and they're still not reaching the OHW so to get a boat in there would be quite difficult. And someone would notice what was going on. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Mr. Chair. One question about the notation on that same map. What is, we were talking before the meeting about mitigation areas and what is the notation PBC and MBC. What is that? Elkin: Okay. Within the shoreland impact zone you are the diminimus for filling in a wetland. To build this berm out to the lake they need to fill in the wetland. Now the diminimus or the minimum amount offill you can fill in this area without replacement is 400 square feet. So I believe it's 650 cubic feet offill. That will be made up in the mitigation area. Now there are two, to make things more complicated, there are new wetland credits and public value credits. New wetland credits replace, physically replace the wetlands you took out. And public value credits make up the second, in the 2 for I replace, make up the second area of replacement. So they do have to do mitigation on site. Sidney: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a few questions. Phil, on this wetland replacement plan application, page 5 on. If you go down to number 9 it says is the project consistent with local plans. And then it says no and it says yes. I'm assuming it's a typo. I'm assuming it is consistent but I just want to clarifY that. Elkin: Okay, I'm sorry. Which page was that? Blackowiak: Page 5 of7. Right at the very bottom. Number 9. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March I, 2000 Elkin: Okay. Blackowiak: So, is it consistent or isn't it consistent? Elkin: This is not, I think what they mean there is this in a local water management plan. This is not part of any plan that the city has right now because we don't own the property and wouldn't, this would be, it is consistent. Using the conditions that we have put down, it would be consistent in our policies and the wetland cons~rvation act as far as restoration. But this is specifically asking you if it's consistent with our local water management plan which is not a part of our local water management plan. Blackowiak: Okay. A couple more questions. In the background, second paragraph they talk about the fact that there was to be a wetland alteration permit at the time of platting and it wasn't done. So what happens then? Elkin: I think at the time it was platted the City Council recognized that these lots would need a wetland alteration permit to gain access and they were trying to expedite it rather than come back for the same issue. Now if this would have been done at that time, it would already be determined which type of access the lake and we wouldn't be going through this right now. But what has happened is each of the lots affected have had to come back in for a wetland alteration permit at the time they proposed to build a house there. Blackowiak: Okay, so the other two lots in question then both have wetland alteration permits and something in place? Elkin: Right. Blackowiak: Okay. And finally, condition number 4 talks about restoration or conversion of the area. Often we have some type of a stipulation in terms of a one year guarantee or something on trees. Is there any type of a time ftame associated with this? Elkin: Before they would put together a letter of credit, at the time the work was done and after the work has been established. After the seeding has been, has come up and it's done to satisfaction, then that letter would be released so I can. Blackowiak: Any kind of a guarantee after that or once it's established you're comfortable that? Elkin: Right. I mean this area, you know you may want to go in and replant some things but it's just to be left alone. That's the biggest recommendation is to get it reseeded. Get stuff growing and then see what happens. Blackowiak: Okay. And then my final question has to do with precedence setting. Is there any reason we would worry about somebody else coming and saying, well such and such a lot was 3 Planning Commission Meeting - March I, 2000 able to do this. We want to do it too. Are there other situations that this might apply to or is this just the unique? Elkin: Well I think it's unique that a lot of, you know there's not that many lots on the lakes anymore that cross a wetland to get to but it, yeah. That's why I've been, that's why I have the conditions as I do. Just to make it clear that yes, we are allowing you to alter a wetland in this area but we feel it's (a), it's for the benefit of the lake and water quality and (b), you did it under the guidelines that have been set up. It's not a beautification. It's not a landscaping project but it's a conversion. An improvement on a natural wetland area. Aanenson: Can I just add a comment to that too? I think Phil already pointed that out but when this plat was recorded, we recognized that these lots more than likely would need a wetland alteration permit so that was addressed and I think if you look at what the standards that we're applying today are more stringent and would have been applied when the plat was originally done. But that's a good question but I think we recognized when the plat was done that they would need an alteration permit. Blackowiak: Right, and maybe I'm looking more towards just trying to add a condition or something just to say that we understand that this is a unique situation and that it was anticipated when the lots were platted. Something to that affect so that that's very clear that it was a special situation that was anticipated and not just something that we would do because it's convenient or for whatever reason. So that's kind of where I'm going with that I guess. Peterson: Other questions or comments for staft'? Sidney: Maybe one quick question Mr. Chair. I guess we talked about this a little bit. I'm wondering if you could address the type of equipment that might be used to dig out this wetland. I guess I'm concerned that bringing a backhoe down or some other large piece of equipment would impact the site unnecessarily. Elkin: Yeah. I would imagine that at least a small backhoe and a truck are going to have to gain access to the site. We can mark an area. They also have to build a house in this area and build an access path to the site so we could probably add that the access route be just for one access route be established and used throughout construction. I think that would be reasonable. Peterson: Thank you Phil. Conrad: Can I Mr. Chairman? Peterson: Sure. Conrad: Proposed to dig out 8 to 10 feet deep? Elkin: Yeah it would be 8 feet at the deepest point, right. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 2000 Conrad: And why so deep? Elkin: Well I think to, you know 8 feet is above the OHW. I don't know that it has to be 8 feet deep. We can certainly they want to, some areas to be, vegetation will grow in probably up to like 4 feet deep so allow some areas for open water. It doesn't, there's not reason it has to be that deep, no. Conrad: The benefit Phil is what? Elkin: Well I think that the benefit is right now the only, it is dominated by reed canary grass. The aerial I showed ftom 1987 showed that it was farmed as late as 1987. So it's very monotypic wetland right now in that you have one species of plant dominating, an evasive species. By introducing open water and reseeding it with native plants, you have marsh emergents coming up. You have lilies coming up. You also are creating an additional area. As I mentioned earlier this is the outlet for the storm water ponds in this area so it creates another cell that the water goes through. Detains it for longer, up and over before it goes into the lake. So it's not, and it's not, 1 want to be clear that's not for aesthetic reasons that I'm recommending it. It's that we could really improve both the quantity and the value, public value of this wetland by doing it that way. Conrad: I'm trusting you on this one. That deep, I'm trusting that there's not a problem going that deep and really having, as you dredge down you have other problems and that bothers me a little bit. Especially when I see 8 to 10 feet. When the lake out in front at the max right there might be 20 feet so you're, I don't know. That one, the article you attached said never do this unless there are no other optioris. So that's why, you know you attach an article that says this is not good, but if you have to do this, and I think I recognize we do have to let them have access to the lake and that, I think we understood that when Kurvers Points was developed. We knew that would happen so now we're trusting you as a scientist or as somebody that knows more than we do that this is the right thing to do given they need access. But the article you attached gives me some concern. I sound like that guy on Ally McBeal. But it gives me, I worry that we're doing something rather significant when I hear about 8 to 10 feet of dredging coming out of that site. Elkin: As I mentioned before, if the city owned this property, this is the type of project I think that we would encourage or undertake. The depth is going to be determined out, you know by the slopes and how well the soils stay together out there and that's going to be determined in the field when they start excavating. Conrad: Okay. And the floating boardwalk, there's just so much sledge there that you really couldn't put any kind of permanent that was. Elkin: If you're going to make a floating boardwalk, then you have to excavate the entire area at the lake level because it's at a higher elevation so if those water is going to stand. It's going to be just muck out there like it is right now. So if you're going to, you're going to have hydrology for the floating, it will require more excavation for a floating boardwalk. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - March I, 2000 Conrad: But let me just summarize. It is a, in your mind it is a benefit. The way it's been designed it is going to be a benefit to the lake. It's going to be a benefit. It's not a negative. It's a benefit and we have some control on how it's going to be monitored or implemented. Elkin: Given the conditions I have put on, it is a benefit. It is still a wetland. It's still, once they're done constructing, walking back and forth is the only activity allowed back there. Conrad: Okay. I'd sure like to have staff report back, after this is implemented, I'd sure like to have a review of this. And it might be a year Phillip but I'd really like to revisit this one. Just to know. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Robert Merila: Hi. I think what was discussed here pretty well covers. Peterson: Name and address please. Robert Merila: Okay, I'm sorry. My name is Robert Merila and my address is, I'm representing the applicant for this particular project and my address is 2116 Marquee Road in Golden Valley, Minnesota. I'm with Aquatic Ecosolutions. An ecological consulting firm that deals with wetland related types of things such as this. And basically the things that were being discussed here were things that we had kind of talked about. I had talked about with the applicant and we had kind of worked up this particular application such that we would be able to accomplish the desired result and the goal would be to be able to access the lake. The upland portion of the lakeshore that's along the lakeshore without having to go off the property and things like that. And also to provide an additional benefit to the, to Lotus Lake and the surrounding area by providing a diversity in habitat rather than having the monoculture, you know monotypic reed canary grass and cattails and such that was there to open things up to, to allow there to be more of a something where ducks and amphibians and things like that would be able to live as well as providing further treatment for water as it's coming down through the system. So that's basically where those things came in and I'm sure if there are concerns with the depth and things like that that are conveyed to city staff, that we would defmitely make those modifications and incorporating those things. One other thing that was mentioned as a concern was, is there any kind of a monitoring plan that goes through the process and since this project does have on site mitigation, the wetland conservation act requires a 5 year monitoring plan with annual reports so that is incorporated with that and if need be, you know a monitoring plan could be included, could be provided that would not only have the mitigation portions but that could have all of them. The whole excavated area. So just in case for the concern that was raised with .that, there is already a mechanism in place to address those things. I really can't think of anything else to bring up. Everything was covered very thoroughly. I would be able to respond to questions that would be raised. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? 6 ¡ Planning Commission Meeting - March 1,2000 Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. As you go down 8 to 10 feet, what are the potential risks? Robert Merila: Potential risks. One of the things that's referred to in the Department of Natural Resources, you know when they talk about ecological ponds is they talk about having a shelf along the edges so that, to respond to your question I'm going to answer it in kind of round about way and get to it. One of the risks ofleaving it as it is, you know just a monoculture, reed canary grass and/or common cattail. Wetlands that stay in that type of a habitat type have very little, offer very little in the way of wildlife habitat. I've been involved with wetland inventories and have inventoried more than 1,400 wetlands across, you know throughout the Twin Cities area here and the wetland that have observed the least amount of wildlife have been the reed canary grass, common cattail monocultures. So that's the type of wetland that's there currently. Ifit goes deeper, you know when there's open water associated with a wetland, and this is, I can't back this up scientifically but just more just by being around this many wetlands, I've noticed that wetlands that have open water in them tend to have ftogs and other amphibians and they also tend to have dragon flies around them. And those are two things that eat mosquitoes. And I've noticed that, and I can't document this you know quantitatively but I have noticed that there's few mosquitoes around wetlands that have open water in them. And I would, I correlate that to the fact that there's frogs and dragon flies in that type of, you know dragon flies, damsel flies in that type ofa habitat. And when there's this type ofa habitat improvement done, that would open, that would provide a habitat for more things such as, things I just mentioned and then also turtles and things like that. Whereas the type of habitat that it is now does not have those types of things. And so at any rate, that's kind of a round about way to answer the question but to answer it directly I don't, I can't think of any strong reasons why it would be a strong detriment because with the slopes that come down, it's not like it's a storm water pond with slopes that have, where children can be walking. And if you've got a settling pond you have to keep certain slopes so that if someone falls in let's say, that they're able to crawl out. You know we don't have those kind of issues because $ere's going to be vegetation around it that will be growing tall and there won't be kids crawling into there. And if there's a shelf where vegetation can grow and then it drops down into the open water in the middle, I guess I don't really see a lot of detrimental harm with that. The thing that happens on some open water ponds is if there's not the depth in the middle, what happens is it just grows back with cattails and they get so thick that nothing can, that you can't have ducks and things like that don't have open water. And that's something that would be a detriment. Conrad: The biggest issue would be water quality versus habitat. You're talking about habitat but water quality again in your perspective there's no detriment here in terms of water quality? Robert Merila: Right. And with water quality, ftom that aspect, I'm not a water quality engineer but 1 do know the concept behind the NURP ponds and that is they have certain depths so that the water, if you have it too shallow and the water flows in and flows out quicker, you know too fast for things for suspended particulates to settle out. And if it's deeper, it allows it to hold there longer and allows more time for things to settle out. Conrad; Breaking the seal of a lake, is there any risk in that? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 2000 Robert Merila: I really wouldn't think that that would be the case because it's not like in some wetlands you've got, you have a case which is called or a situation which is called a birched condition where you're up higher in the landscape and the wetland is there because there's a seal, a clay seal. And if you go too deep, if you're higher up and do too deep you might be able to puncture that and let these drain down. But where the lake is, that's pretty much where the ground water is. You know if the ground water goes down, then the lake level will go down and things like that. So the only thing that I could foresee happening is if there. . . are springs and things like that on lakes. I'm not sure about Lotus Lake. I haven't examined it really closely but typically there are places where springs come into the lake and if this is higher than where the lake is, I wouldn't really see a harm in that situation. Peterson: Thank you. Robert Merila: You're welcome. Peterson: May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Brenda Vatland: Hi, my name is Brenda Vatland and I live at 7290 Kurvers Point Road. We'd be the property just to the north of the Boeckmann's that has a wetland that drains through our back yard and I'mjust here tonight to fmd out a little more about the project and how it might impact our property. My first question would be, how would this change affect our lot and the adjoining parkland for the homeowners association? I'm trying to understand the water flow and where does all this water come ITom that's going into the pond. Would it create more of a creek or dry up some of the existing wetland? If someone could address just the flow of the water. Peterson: Phil, can you handle that one? Elkin: Sure. The water from this development first, there's two different types of watersheds. First it hits this pond right here which is connected to this pond. So this pond takes most of the runoff, a percentage of the runoff. The overflow ITom this pond goes through this area... same type of wetland. It's going down. Brenda Vatland: So that's our lot that it's going through. Elkin: It's going through right here. It will continue to go through this area and then exit in the lake right now. Building a berm right here. The exit point is right here. Now they're going to excavate, you're going to have the same hydrology going through here. It will stop at this point but as more water comes in, so you'll have established, you'll have like a bowl right here and it's attracting water. The water's going to collect. As more water comes into this area the overflow will go up and out. So you won't see any change in the water here. It will just be another stop 8 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 2000 along the way for a quantity of water. The height of this water will be determined by the elevation on the down side. So it's all running down hill. As more water comes in, water will escape in this way. Brenda Vatland: Okay, but it's going to be escaping more through a creek like under the bridge where now it filters out through and now this whole area is marsh, cattails that it trickles through. By putting this walkway in you're going make a lip or mouth that it's flowing through. And there's also a little bridge through that neighborhood park. What I'm wondering is if this area is becoming a pond, is that going to take the water level down all around here. You know the width of this marsh. Elkin: It's still the same hydrology. The same water. All the water that's going to get to this point will first go through here and then in through here. Now in extreme events, you put in a small pipe. Lay a 12 inch pipe. This is going to be an opening with a bridge across it so we have a wide mouth. But you restricted the flow from here. It would be a possibility of it backing up here but you still have, this is the low point here so it's still going to overflow at the point of elevation. The lowest point of elevation. Brenda Vatland: I'd be real concerned if there was a back-up of water. Elkin: Well it's. Brenda Vatland: By reducing this amount now that can filter out through a wide area into one area then it would rush through or. Elkin: Well again, you're going to, ifit backs up to this point, it's still going to go over here first or it's going to go over here before it's going to back up in here. It's a wide area. Everything is flowing down to this point right here right now. This is going to be at least a 4 foot channel. You're not going to be restricting, you're not.. . back in the water. It's too big of a, this is all low area. For any reason you can go over through this area, through this area. There's other options. It would be an extreme event for it to overflow on those bartks. I don't see that as being a problem at all. It's not going to affect the hydrology up here at all. Brenda Vatland: Okay. I'm just trying to understand the flow. I also have a comment about the desirable plants. I think it's great that they want to replace some of it but what I've seen from the 8 years that we've lived there is that purple loosestrife is going to choke out whatever you put in there. It's really taken over everything in our lot in just a couple of years and even if they replace what's there it's going to move right back in and that will be very hard to get rid of. And then another question would be the ongoing maintenance of the pond. We've had the city out to dredge the two storm water ponds this past fall and they had really filled in quite a bit with dirt and sediment during the construction phase of the project. So they would never function as they were designed to until last October when they were dredged so the question is once you put a house in front, how would you ever access it if the pond gets sediment and fill in it that you could maintain it or keep it so it's working as it's designed to? 9 J. ~'M Planning Commission Meeting - March 1,2000 Elkin: This is a wetland. This is not a storm water pond. We don't anticipate ever, you know there'd be no reason to go back with another wetland alteration permit to excavate. This is a wetland project. Not a storm water pond. Peterson: Okay, thank you for your questions. Anybody else? Dan Vatland: Dan Vatland, 7290 Kurvers Point Road, Chanhassen. I just wanted to know on the elevation that was being maintained through this, you talk about some berms being built up. Are there any other areas that are actually going to be built up higher than those points? At the berms. So when you dredge are you building up anything throughout that whole wetland beyond just berms? Above it's current level today. Elkin: No. The applicants only proposing to build the berm. Everything else is excavation. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Conrad: Can 1 ask staff a question? Peterson: Sure. Conrad: And the dredge, the material is put into the, what we take out of the pond is put into the berm? Elkin: It's either put into the berm or taken off site. Mitzi Vanthoumout: Hi. Mitzi Vanthoumout. I live on the property on the other side of the proposed site, 7320 Kurvers Point Road. And my question is regarding the canal that you're going to build under the bridge to the lake which as it looks like on this it will be going through our property. And how that's going to be maintained and you jus said it's a 12 inch pipe that's going to be there. Elkin: No, no, no. Everything they're building is going to be on their property. Everything, it will just be, think of two berms with a bridge across it so there won't be, my reference to a 12 inch pipe is, if were putting in a 12 inch pipe that would restrict flow. It's going to be an open, it will be an opening between two berms with a bridge across it. Mitzi Vanthoumout: Will that need to be re-dredged through time or you're saying that once this is done it's never going to need to be, once it grows in it grows in and? Elkin: Where you have sediment collecting is off the sand from the streets and that will collect in this first pond right here. You're not going to have. Peterson: Phil, why don't you go up and do it on the camera again. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 2000 Elkin: This is the function of these ponds. This is why they built is sand off the road is collected right here. It's going to, this is where it settles out. The water separates, the sand separates from the water and the water overflows into this area. The sand is long gone before it reaches this area. There will be erosion control when they disturb this site but there shouldn't be any undisturbed soil or any silting in this area at all. Enough to clog. .. Mitzi Vanthournout: But this where you're seeing.. .and that's my property there. I mean it would be down here. Elkin: Well it'd be over here. It would be on the property line. Mitzi Vanthournout: But I mean the channel going to the lake. From the pond to the lake. Elkin: Okay. It's right there. Yeah, okay. Just as it does now. Mitzi Vanthournout: Okay, well I was just under the understanding from some paperwork that I had that we would have to okay this and it would be going through our property from their property to this point. And I understand that that's not right. Elkin: This is where it's going right now. It overflows into this area. It doesn't collect in this area. That's just seasonally flooded but all the drainage run offs this site right now. Aanenson: Well maybe the answer to the question is the alteration is occurring on the applicant's property. The water will continue to go across the property as it does today. That's not changing. Does that answer your question? Mitzi Vanthournout: Yeah. That was my concern when he said... 12 inch pipe... Aanenson: The water will still continue to flow as it does today. Mitzi Vanthournout: That was my main question, thanks. Peterson: Phil, never mention 12 inch pipe again. Anyone else? Fred Oelschlager: Fred Oelschlager, 7410 Chanhassen Road. I've been a lifetime resident of Chanhassen on Lotus Lake. I used to run around in that wetland when 1 was a kid. Up to my knees and so forth. I've got no objection with anyone using the lake itself and running, running from their property out to the water, but I really do not understand why we have to put a wetland, or build another pond in there and destroy what's there already. They can take and put a, in fact the DNR recommended years back to put a walking platform across that area. They don't want to do that, you can take like Houlihan's up here or make a nice walking bridge over that whole section. Driving pilings like this into the ground, even though it's muck. Keep it out far enough to find stable ground, and they could work those so they can use the lake and leave everything natural. 1 just don't see any really sense in putting an extra pond there. Everybody's complained about the goose control and the geese that are using the lake. It's going to draw more wildlife, 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March I, 2000 which is great. Wildlife is great but people are getting really fed up with geese. I hunt them and that's not a problem but people that have landowners and walk around their yards, it's going to increase it even more. I mean that's just my personal viewpoint. I do not think we need another holding pond there. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners, any respective thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question of staff before we get started. The floating dock, the thing that I think it came up with Ladd as well. Why does it have to float? Could be, it could just be stuck there when it's not floating and it's still is a way to get down there. Elkin: Sure. Or you could put in, as he said, put in pilings and have a dock access across that area. Kind: Or it could be floating but not floating all the time. Like the one in front of Houlihan's is a floating dock, but right now it's not floating. Elkin: Sure. I mean there's a number of ways you can access, yeah. Certainly. Other structures, yeah. Kind: Okay. Peterson: So your opinion, environmentally to your point this is the most prudent way? Elkin: Well this, again this is not a holding pond. This is a wetland restoration. This area has been heavily impacted. It's an opportunity I think in combining what they want and getting better water quality. An open water marsh, wetland is of higher both water quality and has a higher wildlife value. So that's why, you know with the conditions. The plantings. That's why, that's a way I would recommend this project. It certainly can be accessed other ways. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners. Any thoughts on this? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I already alluded to the fact that I guess I was a little concerned about the impact to the site in general. Getting equipment down to excavate the area that they're talking about so whoever makes the motion I guess I'd like to see a condition where we would have the applicant only use one access route to the area of excavation. And then also if we could consider too, putting another condition in where the applicant would work with the city to develop a tree preservation plan that would impact the site to the least amount. Those are my comments. Peterson: Okay. Anyothers? I'll entertain a motion. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 1,2000 Conrad: I'd like to make a motion. Freddy, we'll try to project the lake but. Fred Oelschlager: No, Ijust...I'm really concerned about the depth of that pond...bothers me. Conrad: Yeah, that one. 1'11 precede my motion. We do have a Water Resource Coordinator. We're one of the few cities that has one. In fact we spend more money to protect our environment. I think that's one of the things that we're pretty good at doing, and Phillip is making a recommendation. I think it does make sense. I think the concern is breaking a seal and there's huge impact on breaking that seal but I think on the other hand we have an opportunity here. I have to trust our resource coordinator here rather than saying don't do anything. I think Phillip is saying this is something that has a chance to improve the quality of the water. That's what I heard. And therefore I'm going to make this motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-1 because staff believes it will be an improvement to the habitat and to the water quality of the lake. Subject to the following conditions I through 4 in the staff report. 5 would be that the excavation, and some of these may be done anyway but just to make sure that the excavation process and the access to the site be reviewed or at least communicated to staff and approved. That number 6, that there's a tree preservation plan given to staff. And number 7, that staff will report back to the Planning Commission within one year from project completion as to the impact of this project. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind: Do you want to say anything about the pond depth? Conrad: I don't know enough about it. Thanks for bringing it up Deb but when you go down that far, at least in the report, when you go down 8 to 10 feet, man. I don't know. I don't know how we manage that but I guess there are bad stories about breaking the seal. I guess Phillip should really take and make sure, he's our protection on this. He's the expert. We can't take, it's not, I think it's real easy to put a floating boardwalk across here. It's real easy. It doesn't have to float. That's what we envisioned. And based on staff saying we have an opportunity to improve the quality, I'm going along with that. But there's a lot of trust in that one and that's why we have staff to tell us some of this stuff. But that 8 to 10 feet is a real concern and some, you know I guess, I don't know what we do about that. I'd certainly accept a suggestion in terms of having some review of that. Kind: Under condition number 7 that the applicant and staff. Is it 7? Or is it 8? I'm adding another one. Aanenson: 8. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March I, 2000 Kind: 8, thank you. That the applicant and staff review the depth of the pond. Conrad; I'd certainly accept that as a ftiendly amendment. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded with an amendment. Conrad moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #00-1 because staff believes it will be an improvement to the habitat and to the water quality of the lake, subject to the following conditions: I. The area shall be mitigated to make up for the 250 square feet of wetlands above and beyond the diminimus requirement. 2. The wetland be constructed in such a fashion that it will allow native plants to grow and follow the DNR guidelines for wetland conversion (see attached). 3. The applicant shall not be permitted to put in a fountain or any chemicals to control the environment in this area. 4. The applicant shall use a native wetland seed mix to complete the restoration or conversation of this area to a more natural setting. 5. The excavation process and the access to the site be reviewed or at least communicated to staff and approved, 6. A tree preservation plan be reviewed by staff. 7. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission within one year from project completion as to the impact of this project. 8. Staff and the applicant will meet to review the depth of the pond. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 13.117 SO. FT. EXPANSION TO A 9.161 SO. Ff, BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD OFFICElINDUSTRIAL. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE INDUSTRIAL LOCATED ON LOT 2. BLOCK I. CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION: 8360 COMMERCE DRIVE. HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. 14