4 Wetland Permit/Robt Boecker
CityCmterDrivt,POBox 147 FROM:
ianhassm, Minneso/4 55317
Phont612.937.1900 DATE:
;tntral Fax 612.937.5739
~n",ingFax612.937.9152 SUBJ:
,lic Saftty Fax 612.934.2524
;b www.ci.chanhasstn.mn.us
CITY OF
CHANIlASSEN
if.
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager
Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator
November 21, 2000
Wetland Alteration Permit Application 2000-3
Mr. Robert Boecker
610 West 96th Street
This report has been updated. All new information is in bold type.
OVERVIEW
On August 17,2000, Mr. Robert Boecker (610 West 96th Street) submitted a
wetland alteration permit application for the conversion of 5,000 square feet -
of aglurban, seasonally flooded wetland into open wâter wetland. The
Planning Commission reviewed the application on September 19, 2000. The
application was tabled and the Planning Commission requested additional
information. Staff has not received the information requested by the
Planning Commission. The applicant has not withdrawn the application.
The City must render a decision by the 120-day deadline: December 17,
2000. Since there is insufficient information on the proposed project, staff is
recommending the City Council deny the application.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-410 outlines standards for dredging, excavating or grading
wetlands.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to convert a portion of an ag/urban, seasonally flooded
wetland into an open water wetland. The proposed pond will be 100 feet by 50
feet by 6.5 feet deep. This requires the excavation of approximately 1,200 cubic
yards of material from the wetland. Excavated materials will are proposed to be
spread over upland areas on-site or hauled off-site. The applicant should provide
the City with a haul route and desûnaûon for any material to be hauled off-site.
The applicant has not provided this information. No wetland fill is proposed.
City of Chanhassen. A f!Owin¡ community with cItan lakts, quality schook, a channinr downtown, thrivinr husintSSes, and btautifùl parks. A mat via" to liot. work. and via.
,;j
-
Wetland Alteration Permit
Robert Boecker
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The wetland in question is an aglurban wetland. The portion of the basin in which excavaûon is
proposed is currently dominated by reed canary grass. However, other portions oftIie basin
support more diverse plant communities. The basin is predominantly seasonally flooded, with
some deeper areas near the center of the basin. Staff does not anticipate that the excavation of
the proposed pond will affect the hydrology of the rest of the basin.
For safety purposes, the pond must have either 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 bench at the normal
water level or 4: 1 side slopes overall. The applicant has not provided documentation that
reflects this requirement.
Silt fence should be installed between the wetland basin and the proposed excavation as well as
around all spoil piles. Spoil piles should not be placed within the 10-foot side yard setbacks.
The applicant has not provided documentation that reflects these requirements.
The applicant will be required to re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25
A, or a similar seed mix which is approved for wetland soil condiûons. Following excavation of
the wetland, a 0 to 20 foot wide wetland buffer should be established (minimum average width df
10 feet). The buffer should be composed of a mix of wetland and upland species and should
include several species of grasses, forbs and shrubs. The wetland buffer area should be surveyed
and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant will install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direcûon of City staff, and will pay the City $20 per sign. The
applicant has not provided information consistent with these recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On September 19, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this wetland
alteration permit application. (The minutes from that meeting are included as Attachment
6.) At that time, staff recommended the Planning Commission forward the application to
the City Council with a recommendation for approval. The application was tabled by the
Planning Commission with a vote of 7-0. The commission requested the applicant provide
a compelling reason as to why the City should allow pond construction.
STAFF UPDATE
Since the Planning Commission meeting on September 19, 2000, the following events have
transpired:
September 22, 2000
Staff spoke with the applicant and advised him that the Planning
Commission tabled his appfication because there was not a
compelling reason for pond construction.
Wetland Alteration Permit
Robert Boecker
Page 3
October 3, 2000
October 17, 2000
October 26, 2000
Telephone conversation between staff and the applicant. The
applicant indicated he was planning to submit the requested
information for the November 14 Planning Commission meeting.
Staff sent a letter (Attachment 7) to the applicant notifying him
that the City would be taking an additional 60 days to complete
the review of the project. The letter added that the application
was scheduled for Planning Commission review on November 14.
The letter also reminded the applicant that the Planning
Commission had requested additional information.
Staff sent another letter (Attachment 8) to the applicant stating
that because the City had not received the information requested
by the Planning Commission, the application would not be
reviewed at the November 14 Planning Commission meeting. The
letter also stated that the application would be reviewed by the
City Council in order to meet the statutory requirement that
findings be made within 120 days of submittal. The letter
indicated that staff would recommend denial ofthe application
due to insufficient information.
The applicant has not provided staff with any additional information since the Planning
Commission meeting on September 19,2000. Therefore, staff does not support the current
proposal for pond construction and is recommending denial of the application.
FINDINGS
The City Council shall not approve a wetland alteration permit unless it finds the following
facts:
a) The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological
characteristics of the wetland.
Finding: The dredging will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and
hydrological characteristics of the wetland.
b) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
Finding: The dredging will be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. The
dredged area will be located in an area dominated by reed canary grass, a non-native
species.
c) It shall not adversely change water flow.
Wetland Alteration Permit
Robert Boecker
Page 4
Finding: Placement ofthe dredge material may adversely change water flow. No plan
has been provided for the location of the dredge material.
d) The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed
action.
Finding: The applicant has not provided information to demonstrate that the size of
the dredged area is the minimum required for the proposed action.
e) Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area.
Finding: The applicant has indicated that dredged material would be spread over the
upland area and a portion would be removed from the site. It is unclear if the material
leaving the site would be placed in a wetland area.
t) Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient
retention measures.
Finding: No erosion control or nutrient retention measures have been provided for the
dredged material.
g) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish
spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for
waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
Finding: Since the applicant proposed to complete the project during the fall of 2000, it
is unclear whether dredging is proposed during waterfowl breeding season or fish
spawning season.
h) Dredging in wetland areas will be required to be mitigated in accordance with the
requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of functional wetland.
Dredging to create water quality improvement basins may be allowed by the city where
reasonable alternatives are not available or where the wetland is of low quality and
designated for this purpose by the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan.
Finding: Due to lack of information provided by the applicant, staff cannot safely
conclude that there will not be a loss offunctional wetland. Should there be a loss of
functional wetland, mitigation will be required.
Based upon these findings, staff is recommending this application be denied.
Wetland Alteration Permit
Robert Boecker
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies the request for wetland alteration permit #2000-3 based upon the
findings presented in the staff report."
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Location map.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Wetland Replacement Plan Applicaûon.
4. Aerial photograph showing proposed pond.
5. Diagram showing lot, proposed pond and cross-sèction.
6. Minutes from September 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
7. October 17, 2000 letter from staff to applicant.
8. October 26, 2000 letter from staff to applicant.
G:\ENG\lori\ WETLANDS\Boecker W AP.doc
D
~
~
\ri ()!!::èj, '-, tre t
!¡; . \,1'\)1. f L-<
(
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
\PPUCANT:~Oßi3'-T ßDa:\l.ER.
\DDRESS: IoID WE5T '11DL!! S 1lEE'ï
c.W'I\,J\-\-J\5Se.t.J . MtJ SS'31Ï
.
ŒlEPHONE (Day time) QS2 -<-1-1 S' - $'9 Y t.j
OWNER: P..cßÐLT ßDECJLE.t¿,
ADDRESS: tolO U,)eST "'\C 1.tI ST~ï
CJtAIù.iAS.SEtV ,MIù ~3n
TELEPHONE: 9S2-'¡'-IS-ß'-fßIo
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
- Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements
- Interim Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit  Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
.
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
- Site Plan Review* ...x.. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAPlMetes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
- Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $
A fist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
BuIlding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"'Twenty-six full size ~ copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8'12" X 11" reduced copy of
tnmsparency for each plan sheet.
- Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
IDlE - When muhipte applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PRDJECTNAME ßcE:c.1ŒR Pbt-JD
1OCATlON tolD WEST '1(r,D:! STr2a::I I CHA~tt#\SSé:1\.J
1.EGA1.DESCRJPTION '5ECï-ZÇ Iu.>P-llln RAtù<ce: - O'2.~
S.OC Pcae;,<> ~ 155 of W iOß5' "51iV 1/--1 ~W '/4
TOTALACREAGE S'.DC #\c.2.E~
WEllANDS PRESENT X YES NO
PHESENTZONING A?..
RECUESTEDZONING S#\IV\E:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
FiEASONFORlHISREQUEST WeTLAÜD ÂLTEAATIOtJ
This appDcation must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
äI1d plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Depa¡ menl to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
no1iœ of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
'ThiS is 10 certify that J am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
1he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tjtle, Abstract of nle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
1his application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 wi111œep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that add~ional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The c1ty hereby notifieS the applicant that development review cannot be completed w~hin 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
~~
S~U~~
Signafure of Fee Owner
AppTu:ation Received on
7/I.P¿OO
ate
-, I io{OO
ate
Fee Paid
Receipt No.
The appUcant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prIor to the meeting.
Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT/CHANHASSEN WETLAND ORDINANCE
WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
Rc&RT ßOEc..\l.E.R.
ADDRESS: LoIO UJE~T 910 1Ji STR.e!1
PHONE NO. (daytime) C S2 - Lj< .S'-S9~t..(
Authorized Agent/Consultant Involved With Project
Name:
Address:
Phone No.:
A.
Provide the following information for the Impacted Wetlands:
(2)
A recent aerial pþ.otograph or accurate map of the impacted wetland area is
attached? -A- Yes No
:-rJßOfÓC/lJ:£l<-
The 10C~f the wetland: CÞ,~\JER. county, I?ILE'< /~~watershed
name 0% r <80%?) public land survey and/or UTM èoordinates of
approxima e wetland center '>500/0
(1 )
(3)
The size of the wetland:
15'
acres or
square feet;
(4) The type of wetland: 3
City
Circular No. 39
NWI
(5) A list of the dominant vegetation in the impacted wetland area:
(for example, 50 percent willow, 20 percent cattails, and 30 percent sedge)
~ c",tVf&"1' ~""
Se:t.,.t,F- ~ Þ .
(6) A soils map of the site is attached?
Yes
X. No
(7) The size of the surface water drainage into the wetland is \bl. ~ 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 >< No
(If Yes, the distance and direction to the watercourse is
in a direction.)
feet
(9) Is a map, photograph, or written description of the land use of the immediate
watershed within one mile of the impacted wetland attached?
X Yes No
Does the description note the presence and location, if any, of wetland
preservation regions and areas, wetland development avoidance regions and
areas, and wetland deficient regions and areas as identified in the
comprehensive water plan? -'f., Yes No
(10) Is the nature Of the proposed project, its areal extent, and the impact on the
wetland shown in sufficient detail on the materials submitted?
)( Yes No
(11) Has evidence of ownership or rights to the affected areas by all applicants been
demonstrated? )<. Yes No
(12)
List all other local, state, and federal permits and approvals required for the
activity. \o.)~I\)t> "'~otJ 9ê1LM\T I flJLt:'lI&t.u¡:¡:~""'d~TC>OL'f ~
. \::>'::'T1l.Ic.T I AtlJM.y CbflP OF -ÐJbtll:&!1l-.... /c#\W~ CO!.>l\)ry ~IL 1;Lu"'~ þlsPl.'o.'
. -'
(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.)
TU'\e:L\IVE:: PIU>Jœr I='t..I'INf\)~ TD e£ COM9'-=-"'\'
~,t:.~ IÞ.) 'THe: F'I'tLL Cf: 2r:c:o
REYv\we: W'erL.Þ,tVb SoIL- --rc &e: 50....-
,-It-CII.\;:> O\)t.fL ()Pl...I'I.Ub ¡o.."'..... '" ....
" n... . ......". ",tv"",
T'\ nA..T\O"-l t'::o TO e. I2e;
\:> MC\Jd> rf'ù:>",",,- 1ï'E f>n-oP~Y.
2
t
t
f
o
)
J
"
..... - .
-......
I
¡
i
\1 I
I §
§ \i Ii
Ii
\
\
"
!ij
".:
L REIIIVtD nu.
PDRTIDN IF OVER LPLAND D
TO I£~ST TC It 1WLE7
~"SITE
...""'-..
.", 1L'Ii'PI1WI..Ø
---=:.~
...""'-..
----
....
8....... 0
. ,..
DCJS11IIIi
." MHJ$ ~St£I -
~LKS1DE
....... ;
,..
o 0 0 0
.......
. ~o 0
I
§
c::J Ii
"""",-
--
I
s I . ;
R --, 5
.
§
!§
.
'/01
~i 11
~
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Alison Blackowiak,
Uli Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resource
Coordinator; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REOUESTING TO EXCAVATE A 100' X 50' POND IN A
WETLAND AREA ON A 5.0 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 610 WEST96TH STREET,
ROBERT BOECKER.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of staff?
Conrad: Sure. Why does staff want this?
Haak; Well, I wouldn't say staff, you mean the proposal in general?
Conrad: No. You're saying that this is good. Usually we expect something to be improved and in your
staff report nothing says we're improving anything. So I've got to be straight, it's not a good staff report.
I don't know why we want to look at it right now. Usually we have a reason to alter a wetland and
there's not a reason. So Lori you've got to be an advocate. I expect you to tell me that we're going to
improve something.
Haak; Well I believe this will improve the quality of the wetland in that area. I think that excavating will
provide an opportunity for some other species to grow in that area. It will, right now as I said it's a
monotypic stand of reed canary grass in that particular location where the applicant has proposed the
wetland alteration and I think deepening the wetland at that point will provide additional habitat for
plants.
Conrad: So it's an improvement. Bottom like you're saying that's an improvement. We don't have a
problem with, you're not worried. Okay, you're not worried about any downstream situation.
Haak; No. Once we.
Conrad: You feel that the diversity of wetland vegetation will be improved, even though you're digging
it to 6 feet which is a pond. What are we going to get out of the pond?
Haak: It provides additional habitat. It's diversity. Correct. With the grade on the side slopes, the 3 to
1,4 to I, or the 10 to I side slopes, it provides variation in topography which allows different types of
plants to grow.
Conrad: Around the edge?
Haak: Around the edge, correct. Right.
Conrad: So in the staff report, the applicant shall reseed wetland, okay. Where do I Know that? Lori,
how do I know that?
Haak: In reseeding those areas, that is what will occur. The seeding of the sloped areas will encourage
different plants to grow because of the changes in hydrology.
Conrad: Okay. Again, when we screw around with the wetland, I want the staff report to tell me why.
And you're an advocate right now so you're telling me that this is a better, this is better than before and
that's your position. So it's real important that you're an advocate. It's not an applicant came in and
wanted to do it and we couldn't figure out why not to let him do it. It's real important that we say this is
a better mix and, 1 buy what you're saying right now. I didn't see it in the staff report. Didn't see a
reason for doing it. Your comments are valid but I really want you to be an advocate for this versus just a
passing it along to us. That's all.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, Ijust had one quick question. It's not clear to me why the applicant's doing this.
Is it just for aesthetic purposes?
Haak: That is not part of the application that we receive. We don't require that information ofthe
applicant and I haven't been provided with that at this point. So I can't speak to that. I don't see the
applicant present so. The applicant may show up and be able to answer that question but wè don't
require it in the application at this point.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Is this my mic?
Peterson: It is now.
Kind: Okay. I don't want to steal your's. Lori, do you feel that the excavation, the alteration will impact
drainage on the neighboring sites and that's why you're adding a condition or, tell me a little bit more
about that.
Haak: Well, there is potential for the spoil material. The applicant has not quantified the amount of
material that will be left on site versus the amount that will be taken off site. So that condition is being
added in hopes, well in the expectation that staff will be able to determine whether or not storm water
patterns will change because if the applicant leaves 1,200 cubic yards of material on site, there could be a
significant impact to other properties adjacent to this particular parcel.
Kind: So in your condition are you including language that says something about drainage patterns
won't be changed ftom what they were prior to the alteration?
Haak: That's correct.
Kind: Something like that?
Haak: Yep. The condition that I would recommend would be that the applicant shall maintain the
neighborhood storm water drainage volumes and patterns that existed prior to April, 2000. To ensure
this condition is met the applicant shall provide a grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing
existing and proposed 2 foot contours prepared by a professional engineer for staff review and approval
prior to pond construction. And that April,2000 is a date prior to the original cease and desist order that
was ordered on the property. So it's prior to any ofthe alterations that have occurred on this parcel.
Kind: Okay. And then I did go take a look at the site today. I'm assUlning.the wetland is that area that is
low and it looks like it's been mowed so it's not real wet right now. Am I looking at the right area?
Haak: Yes. The area is not particularly wet first of all primarily because we've had a fairly dry year.
The winters have been fairly dry for the past several years as you may be aware if you like Snowmobiling
and that sort of thing. But there has been mowing that has occurred on site and that was, that occurred I
believe last evening and I was not aware of it until this afternoon so.
Kind: So it's a new deal?
Haak: Yes.
Kind: I mean are there rules about mowing dry wetlands? Or not so wet wetlands.
Haak: State law doesn't address it. In the Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Rule 8420, but it seems
to me that the intent of the city's ordinance and code moves in that direction to prohibit alteration of
vegetation which is what the buffer strip ordinance does in effect. I pulled out a couple things that I
thought were pertinent in this case. In City Code Section 20-407 it talks about the applicant for a
wetland alteration permit shall adhere to the following principles in descending order of priority.
A voiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland.
Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and it's
implementation, and I think those first two apply in this case because the wetland has been mowed. I
think that there has been a change in the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity. And having seen
that this afternoon it has given me pause to consider and go over some of the issues that were presented
earlier to me that some of the information that I was given was that it was not intended to be mowed and I
was under the impression that there wasn't going to be any additional alteration. So I put that before you
just for your consideration.
Peterson: It's been mowed for a number of weeks by the way. I noticed it at least a money ago. I
thought it was an alien landing strip for a while. I couldn't figure out why it was there.
Haak: Actually there was one parcel directly adjacent to Highway 101 that was mowed and actually
there was additional mowing that went on last night and it is a greater area and it's obvious that the
person who was mowing it had difficulty in some areas. It's kind of turned up the dirt in the wetlands so
that gave me I guess greater concem than just the alteration permit we have before us.
Aanenson: Can I just add a comment then on number 5 that Lori originally put in. Certainly with the
wetland alteration you have the chance to add any conditions that are reasonable and that's why that
condition got put in. Aboutthe buffer strip which we think, Lori talked about. If a building permit was
to be issued today, a lot of record, he had to maintain the 75 foot setback but certainly that's not our
intent. The direction we move is to provide a buffer strip so on this circumstance I'd recommend that we
do go back and put a buffer strip of some sort or no mowing policy and that may need to be marked like
we do with wetlands as they come in today. That there be a buffer strip monument placed on the site.
That no mowing occur as a condition.
Kind: So what exactly is our latitude with wetland alteration permits because sometimes.
Aanenson: You can attach any condition that's reasonable. So again, taking number 5. Lori originally
put in there 0 to 20. I don't know if she wants to modity that but certainly we can look at.
Haak: That condition was just basically taken ITom the policy and as I said·before I hadn't realized that a
lot of record prior to that 1992 date so that's why that condition was there and if you wish to modity that
condition, it's certainly something that you can do.
Kind: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Mr. Chair. Question about, back to the removal of material ITom the pond area. And you said
we really don't know what the applicant, the quantities they intend to haul away and actually leave on the
site. I have a concern about the quality of the soil. Do we know anything about that? If it's much or not
and if it's runoff somewhere and we'd have trouble with that. Can we find out about the soils at all?
Haak: We don't know anything, to answer the first question. We don't really know anything about the
quality of the material at this point. As far as erosion control, water quality and that sort of thing, that's
why we are recommending the silt fence on all downstream areas adjacent to all the spoil piles so that
would address the erosion control issue. As far as the buildability of the material, if you wanted to get
into that, we just don't have that information at this point.
Sidney: Do you think that would be valuable or, I guess I'm kind of worried about that in some ways.
Just that it's not going to stay in place.
Haak: I can defer to Dave ifhe has something to add.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman and planning commissioners. I would think the applicant, he must have a home
for this material otherwise he's going to have a lot of soil to put on his property. The wetlands soils
occasionally, quite frequently honestly are used in berms and so forth on site. Your big commercial sites,
they come upon organic materials and they build berms out of it. And the wetland soils on this site could
be re-spread over the site and re-planted and fit quite well onto the property. Our concem was that if he
starts just mounding dirt up, we're concerned about the neighborhood drainage pattern. We did have a
phone call ITom one of the residents in the area concerned about runoff on adjacent properties and so
forth so, we wanted to make sure that was addressed and we think that will be adequately addressed by a
required grading, drainage, erosion control plan so we can see exactly where it's going to be placed and
ITom that we can also determine how much material's going to be placed on the site and how much
material would have to be hauled off to another site.
Sidney: So the quality may not be a concem?
Hempel: I don't believe it would be. It basically turns into a topsoil type of material.
Sidney: Okay. So kind of peat like kind of thing.
Hempel: I'm assuming so with the wetland characteristics, yes.
Sidney: Okay.
Peterson: Okay, Vii?
Sacchet: Yeah. I was a little baffled by this mowing business too and it's obviously a pretty low grade
wetland in that area. Now there's also an area that's kind of dug up. Is that where actually the pond
would go?
Haak: Yes. As I mentioned earlier it was the site of a cease and desist order. There was wetland fill that
occurred and the black dirt that you see on site now is where the fill was removed from the wetland so it
was restored to grade and then the fill was placed on the upland area. So the disturbed area that you see
down by the wetland now is where the wetland had been restored.
Sacchet: And that's where they want to make the pond.
Haak: Right. The pond would be placed in that same low area.
Sacchet: And they were actually moving the dirt off to closer to the house so they didn't want to, most
likely use the fill on their own property we could assume from that. I mean that's an assumption. We
don't know.
Haak: Yeah. We're not certain at this point.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's the question I had.
Peterson: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Ifso,
please come forward.
Kim Lee: Hi. We're Roger and Kim Lee. We're at 600 West 96th Street.
Peterson: They're not the applicants. We have to wait for a public hearing.
Kim Lee: Oh, I'm sorry.
Kind: Just a couple minutes.
Peterson: You can just stand there if you want to. Motion and a second for a public hearing.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public bearing was opened.
Peterson: That's why I said stay. Please come forward.
Roger Lee: We probably have just some more of some concerns. We live to the east of them so we
would want to know how our land would be affected by a pond next to our property. I know all the water
right now drains down to the back of my property into his property and so on.
Peterson: Can you point out where approximately you are, if you can figure out that map.
Roger Lee: Where I'm at? I'm the comer. I'm the 101/96lh Street. Right here.
Peterson: Okay.
Roger Lee: So my land is actually probably the only land that's really useable, except our lower part
does get wet at times.
Peterson: Is your's mowed?
Roger Lee: It's farmed.
Kim Lee: Our's is farmed.
Roger Lee: I have alfalfa in the back there. It's been farmed for years before I bought it, except for the
lower western part of mine where it's usually wet so the farmer got stuck and stuff so that just, we just let
that go natural.
Kim Lee: The wetlands that were right next to us are pretty much gone now because they are totally
mowed as oflast night.
Roger Lee: Well he's been mowing inbetween there for quite a while. Since he had the property. So
we're concerned about who, if you build a pond, how it will affect our land. And then if you have a
pond, who's going to maintain the pond? I mean where's the water going to come to fill the pond?
Kim Lee: How are you going to keep that pond filled and keep it just being just muck and more
mosquito infested? I mean we have two very, very small children right now but a pond that open with,
there is no vegetation going to be around it at this time. It's almost clear and you put a pond there and
it's open water 6 Y, feet deep. It makes no sense to put it right there. I've heard of, by 961h Street them
talking about maybe putting the pond more towards the center of the wetlands, Down a little bit further.
I've heard of them possibly doing it there. But right on the edge now when it's all been mowed. It's just
out in the middle of nowhere now. It'sjust. If he could see it from his house or ifit was to look at it for
beauty or something but it's over the hill. It's down and I'm really worried that in heavy rains it's going
to drain more onto our property. Where is this water going to go? And actually even when it's dry, how
are you going to keep it filled?
Peterson: Okay. Dave, can you maybe respond to that one?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, planning commissioners. I suspect the water table in the area is probably pretty
high and by excavating the pond down 6 Y, feet will reach a static level of water probably of 3 y,-4 feet
deep. The only recharge mechanism would be precipitation from snow melt or rainfall event, which
would sheet drain into it and as it fills up would just naturally overflow as it does today. Sheet drain off
the property. As far as vegetation goes, once the pond's been excavated, there's a requirement for
reseeding with wetland type vegetation so I imagine that you would have a variety of wetland types from
cat tails to what other wetland vegetation. I'm not sure ofthe term, the names of them but, so it would
have some vegetation growth around the edge once it's been reseeded.
Peterson: Does that answer your questions generally?
Roger Lee: I guess we're just really worried about the maintaining of it. Who's going to make sure that
it's kept up the way it's supposed to be and the vegetation is there and is the city going to come out and
check on it periodically? Monthly? Yearly?
Kim Lee: I mean this property is supposed to be protected and right now.
Roger Lee: You know we've already affected the animals down there just by mowing and stuff and
we've got the pheasants and animals out there.
Peterson: You may actually have more with deeper water. You know I think you'll probably get
different kinds of vegetation. Different kinds of animal life that you don't have so. I mean there's equal
numbers.
Kim Lee: ... pond and in front of the pond then, maybe to one side there will be wetlands but like you
said, where he's putting it now, and maybe you have to do a buffer oflike 10 feet around, but on three
sides of it that pond's going to be open. The rest of it's been mowed. Cattails, everything. It's gone.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kim Lee: 1 don't think so.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this one please.
Kind: Oh Mr. Chair, I'm curious about Ladd's original comment that for wetland alteration permit we
need to have a good reason to do it. And the applicant hasn't stated a good reason to do it. Is that true?
Aanenson: I'll leave that up to Lori to make that interpretation.
Peterson: Yeah, I think Lori stated that you have a better environmental position with the pond than you
would with a wetland that essentially dries out on a regular basis.
Kind: I'm thinking more from the applicant's point of view. What the reason is but.
Peterson: Again, I don't think that's for us to, as much as we'd like to get into that, I don't think we
should be. Who wants to start out with their comments?
Sacchet: I can start.
Peterson: Please.
Sacchet: It seems a little bit half cooked. This whole application. I do agree with Lori's interpretation.
From my understanding I believe it's going to be an enriching element in terms of allowing more variety
of species of plants and other wildlife. However, I'm very concerned about the pattern of this thing being
mowed and I share your concern about how is it going to be maintained. I personally would support
making a pond there if it's clearly put into context of enriching the environment. I mean if it' s going to
be a pond that is on three sides of it mowed, I wouldn't consider that enriching the environment. And it
could be even a hazard to some extent in certain ways. So I would support putting a pond there with a
buffer strip around it and all that but I think it might make sense to table it so there can be a little more
mature, this whole concept. And worked out in terms of actually defining the benefits. Of making a
clear fi:amework around it to make sure that when we grant this variance it's being granted for the benefit
ofthe environment, of the city and not leave that undefined. That's my comment.
Peterson: Staff, do you think if we were to table that, that you could enhance your comments you've
already made tonight or not? I mean can you offer anything more if we table this and come back in 2
weeks?
Haak: I can't speak for the applicant's intent on the project and I can't speak for how the applicant will
maintain or enrich. I can speak for what I've been submitted and certainly I can enhance my portion of
the report. Make it more clear or concise, whatever, but I cannot, 1 really can't speak for the applicant's
intent or his.
Aanenson: Maybe I can fi:ame it a little bit differently. Can we put a condition on there and ask, what's
the impact...doing a check and balances makes sense for the pros and cons and then also maybe modity
the conditions to make sure that there's no mowing. What's the appropriate buffer based on the scale of
neighboring properties, those sort of things. And if we can't get to that point then look at the
recommendation again.
Sacchet: If! might clarity Mr. Chair. My vision with this is not necessarily trying to pin down the intent
of the applicant because I think we've established that that's not really our concern. But our concern is
the intent of why we would grant this variance, which the intent is to improve the environment and enrich
the wetland. So that means we put an intent on it. That's basically what I'm proposing.
Haak: And I'm not certain that the applicant would go along with that is basically what I was headed
with that. So I'm not certain that that would be desirable to the applicant if we began to tack on
conditions like that. So certainly I can have that conversation but I should let you know that I'm not
certain that that's what the applicant has planned for the property.
Peterson: And again, that's.
Conrad: That's okay.
Peterson: Yeah.
Conrad: You're the advocate. Seriously. You are the advocate. You are saying to us, trust me. We're
not trusting the applicant. We're trusting you. I agree with what Kate said and Julie said. I think we
should table it. I think we have to have our reasons for granting it in the staff reports so we can go back
to the staff report and say that's why we did it because you were going to do this. Real important.
Peterson: Good. Other comments?
Burton: Just that I think the applicant has to make clear that this is going to be an improvement to a
wetland and ifhe's just going to have like a duck pond he's not going to get it through us so, 1 think he's
got to understand that if he wants to come back.
Peterson: Doesn't mean that it couldn't be a duck pond.
Burton: Just without the grass around the edge, yeah. Pro duck.
Sidney: Mr. Chair, I feel like I want to use the term compelling reason and we don't have that in front of
us right now.
Peterson: Alright. Is there a motion?
Sacchet: I move to table.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Wetland
Alteration Permit #2000-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY OF
CHANIlASSEN
690 City Center Drivt, PO Box 147
Chanhasstll, Minnesota 55317
Phont612.937.1900
Gtnnal Fax 612.937.5739
Engintering Fax 612.937.9152
Public s"ftty Fax 612.934.2524
\rib www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
........ .
October 26, 2000
Mr. Robert Boecker
610 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Wetland Alteration Permit Application 2000-3
Dear Mr. Boecker:
Because we have not received the information requested by the Chanhassen
Planning Commission at their September 19 meeting, the above project will not
appear on the November 14,2000 Planning Commission agenda.
The wetland alteration permit application will be presented to the City Council on
December 11, 2000 with a staff recommendation to deny the application due to
insufficient information. Such action is required in order to allow the City to
meet the statutory requirement that findings on all applications must be made
within 120 days of submittal (in this case, by December 17, 2000).
Please contact me at 952/937-1900, extension 105 if you have questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
tJr1d1- 1/ ~
-
Lori Haak
Water Resources Coordinator
c: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
CITY OF
CHANIlASSEN
ìry ClOttr Driv<, PO Box 147
'nhaillO, MinntlO/4 55317
Phon, 612.937.1900
7Itral Fax 612.937.5739
'nming Fax 612.937.9152
ic Safety Fax 612.934.2524
1 www.ci.chollhasJen.mn.us
f'...... .
October 17,2000
Mr. Robert Boecker
610 West 96th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Wetland Alteration Permit Application 2000-3 '
Dear Mr. Boecker:
Due to the tabling of the proposed wetland alteration by the Chanhassen Planning
Commission on September 19,2000, the City will be unable to complete the
development review process within 60 days of the original submittal (August 17,
2000). We are therefore notifying you that the City will be taking up to an
additional 60 days to complete the review of the project.
The project has been scheduled to be reviewed again by the Planning Commission
on November 14, 2000. During the interim, the Planning Commission has
requested you provide a compelling reason the pond should be constructed.
Please contact me at 952/937-1900, extension 105 if you have questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
¡?(R:j tfr. ~ -
Lori Haak
Water Resources Coordinator