Loading...
11. Wetland Permit for Boardwalk 7280 Kurvers Point At -I(II k C ITY OF F P.C. DATE: Nov. 15, 19.89 C.C. DATE: Dec. 18, 1989 �; Y CHANHA! EI CASE NO: 89-10 WAP IIPrepared by: Al-Jaff/v I STAFF REPORT N • , 1 PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of a II Boardwalk to Create Access to Shoreline within Five Feet of a Protected Wetland and Filling the Area Adjacent to Lotus Lake to Create a Usable Shoreline I Z Action by qty Administrator Endorsed ✓ tk y V LOCATION: 7280 Kurvers Point Road Modified I " Rejected air. Date M 2- IL-�`1 Date Submitted to Commission APPLICANT: Wooddale Builders 1 < 410 W. County Road D Date Submitted to Council New Brighton, MN 55112 0,-11-t, 1 IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family IACREAGE: 0. 92 acres - 40.077 square feet ' DENSITY: IADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family S- RSF; single family E- RSF; single family II0 W- Lotus Lake IWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site is a riparian lot between Lotus II Lake and Kurvers Point Road and contains a Class A wetland. i2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IAI 1, 1,; <<, Nj4/4' RD �; t .y_ — •6900_ ray/- �� `'. -lria �n- .: !nti R , ' t\ �1 OP L OT VS . --'� �J \� —6900 ©�Asfi \; f 04 la: it V *:---- 6. iw- 14,���� �s'�� • �a �F= . - 4-7000 ��, ..., Ll3�e����',, 34:`' `fit aF �� I� ��g --7100 , a IIIIII, uir AD. r rS,. 1 � r ' , j -t ,i.3,5\'12,. f 11 � r r F z = ` i ce•• ,L„\, LAAT AD Iv - r� SAT - - � �r. ■■.■/,,� � ,��( = 730C _ E 72,1■72 eirrriraj ,..1;_ ,,ALTERAw ii i:. �'� ��i11 LYi!. � qRMT`� �, 7400 ,/�' W 4. ill t,J 1 \_` Rol ______..... 12 \ .....i......______ 8 -54:4 C��� III v�+�'� 11 O m 1 ittigi zut*Alw, fr..-,t7:grorititrON ' 16. agar rib,... . .., vAri - ‘ ,L,-...„ gill " ■..,sz..- a■Kfi■t ENII- *.. • " ,'°a■ 0 0000.0000/...°........ L: r______I , NIU,11 . 11 I IC j, - oI_ Jiiiik ■■■■■'i t : —LPIJ \�i 1 11 r ^ N S t f�E ET ago ■,11111111111 2 �Ui��iL 111 111r%�� TN T 3 _ . IRA ii; i III P rr. Uri ': Ill Lew:. ■ ------ o00 ,,,gtai 101 Frr- . . ri 3 10P 14 JAL,s:.„1,41inali or"! Alit, lir , .12� /1►.�alio lb. 'pew ;,..-. , ,A ,,.. 7:: ::-.. -,,,ii,-.... —;gowdrab 1 01 \ ?° -;1° • Ul — • iiii (10 ID ' ' 1H' '4 a t 1 ::: tin 46.4 , ( �s RSF a.3 A MONO Ili A INNEN � 8300 ! SN L / Wooddale Builders WAP November 15, 1989 Page 2 ANALYSIS ' The applicant is proposing to build a boardwalk located approxi- mately 5 feet north of an existing Class A wetland. The 130 foot long boardwalk will be constructed of 2' x 6 ' treated lumber. It will be used to connect the home to a small elevated knoll located closer to Lotus Lake. The boardwalk will not encroach into any protected wetland area. The boardwalk will be constructed over a manmade berm which was created to protect a retention pond located to the north of the property. The reten- tion pond is part of an outlot maintained by the city. The pro- posed walkway is preferrable to the use of a woodchip or gravel trail since it will avoid having to use material that could run off into the retention pond and impede flow. The boardwalk will also cross over a utility easement containing a sanitary sewer line. The applicant is also proposing to fill in the elevated area located between the high water mark established by the DNR for Lotus Lake to a berm which lies at a distance of approximately 30 feet from the shoreline. The fill will level out the grade by adding 8 to 10 inches of clay fill at the deepest point tapering out to the high water level and to the berm with approximately 3 to 4 inches of black dirt and sod. The area adjacent to Lotus Lake is not wetland and will allow the property owner use of the lakeshore since the ground is currently too soft and wet to sup- port active use. MN DNR approval is not required since no work will be occurring below the ordinary high water mark. The applicant is also proposing a retaining wall which will be built at a 35 foot distance from the edge of the wetland. It will also run parallel to the rear of the house. The retaining wall will be built from sections of 5 x 6 feet pressure treated timbers. The height of the wall will range from 4 feet to the south up to 8 feet to the north as it meets the walkway. A lower wall, 3 feet in height, will be constructed parallel to the first retaining wall, creating an island which will be landscaped. Sod will be installed from the retaining wall to the rear of the home. The retaining wall is outside the Class A wetland edge and no sodding or manicuring of the lawn shall be allowed to take place between the Class A wetland and the retaining wall. Staff found that the request would have no adverse impact upon the lake or adjacent wetland and recommended that it be approved. On November 15, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed the propo- ' sal. The issues that were raised were as follows: 1. How the developer plans to transfer the soil to the fill area ' without disturbing the wetland? 2. If the soil will be stabilized? I II Wooddale Builders WAP I November 15, 1989 Page 3 I 3. Why the survey shows approximately an 80 foot wide fill area while the application indcates a 30 foot wide fill area? I4. Why is staff recommending approval of fill by the lake? The first survey that was submitted to the city was inaccurate, I therefore, staff required a new survey which has been included in the City Council packet. The survey illustrates a 30 foot wide fill area. The developer plans on depositing the fill on the front yard then using a front end loader to carry the fill over I the berm to the fill area, without disturbing the wetland. The filling will take place between the end of March and early April, followed by seeding the fill, then staking and fencing it to sta- Ibilize the soil and prevent it from running into the lake. Staff is recommending approval of this request. The fill will be placed above the high water mark of Lotus Lake, it will be stabi- ' lized, the area to be filled is not a wetland, and the DNR has no objection to the filling as long as it is above the high water mark and we do not believe that there will be adverse environmen- I tal impacts. The Planning Commission asked that financial guarantees be provided to insure site restoration in a timely manner. We agree with the intent of this requirement and have I proposed that a $5000 letter of credit or cash performance bond be required. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION IThe Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland alteration permit with the following conditions : I1. Erosion control shall be installed between the proposed grading and the Class A wetland and between the ordinary high I water mark and the altered or filled area prior to any improvements made on the site. Also, the fill area shall be stabilized after its placement. I 2. The applicant should be made aware if the city or utility company neds to use the utility and drainage easement, the city or utility company shall not be responsible for any Idamages to the boardwalk or restoration costs. 3 . The area between the boardwalk and the wetland shall be main- tained in its natural state. 1 4. The area between the retaining walls and the wetland shall be maintained in its natural state with no sod. I5 . The boardwalk north of the Class A wetland up to the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake shall be of permanent construc- ' tion. II 1 Wooddale Builders WAP November 15, 1989 , Page 4 6 . A $5000 performance bond must be posted with the city to I guarantee that any overland haulage to the fill area is restored to its present condition, that any damage to the Iretention pond is repaired and that all disturbed areas are seeded or sodded as soon as possible with erosion controls being maintained throughout. 7. A grading permit shall be submitted and approved by staff I prior to any work beginning on the site. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council recommends approval of Wetland Alteration I Permit #89-10 as shown on the site plan dated October 20 , 1989, with the following conditions: I 1. Erosion control shall be installed between the proposed grading and the Class A wetland and between the ordinary high water mark and the altered or filled area prior to any improvements made on the site. Also, soil in the fill area must be stabilized after it is placed. 2 . The applicant should be made aware if the city or utility 1 company needs to use the utility and drainage easement. The city or utility company shall not be responsible for any ' damages to the boardwalk or restoration costs. 3 . The area between the boardwalk and the wetland shall be main- Itained in its natural state. 4 . The area between the retaining walls and the wetland shall be maintained in its natural state with no sod. I 5 . The boardwalk north of the Class A wetland up to the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake shall be of permanent construc- tion. 6. A $5000 performance bond must be posted with the city to guarantee that any overland haulage to the fill area is I restored to its present condition, that any damage to the retention pond is repaired and that all disturbed areas are seeded or sodded as soon as possible with erosion controls I being maintained throughout. 7. A grading permit shall be submitted and approved by staff I prior to any work beginning on the site. " I 1 11 ' Wooddale Builders WAP November 15, 1989 Page 5 ' ATTACHMENTS 1 . Application 2 . Letter from applicant 3 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 15, 1989. 4 . Site plan dated October 20, 1989 1 I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth • MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning, Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BOARDWALK ALONG THE ,, EDGE OF A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 7280 KURVERS POINT ROAD, WOODDALE BUILDERS. Public Present: Don Begin - Wooddale Builders Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Conrad: Is the applicant here? Don Begin: Yes. Conrad: Okay, any comments? Don Begin: No. She explained it. . . The berm is pretty much of a natural 9 P P berm there. . .through the natural berm. . . Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Conrad: Just a quick question on filling next to a lake. That just is real intriguing. What governs filling next to the lake? Who's governing that? Basically we don' t allow construction within 75 feet of a lake. It seems real interesting that we can allow filling going in right up to the lake. Krauss: It is being handled on the wetland alteration permit and it is regulated by us in that manner. The area that's being filled, Chairman Conrad , is an area that' s above the wetland and lake elevation now. It is high ground. All they're doing is adding enough dirt onto the high ground to make it firm enough to use. We didn't see any impacts on the surrounding area because it's basically lawn area now. It's in sod. There's no wetland vegetation. There will be no fill into the lake or into II the wetland so we were comfortable regulating it under the wetland 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting :- November 15, 1989 - Page 2 alteration permit. ' Conrad: And the DNR or Fish and Wildlife or the Corps of Engineers, they have no, they don't have any regulations on filling right up to the edge of ' a lake? Krauss: We showed this to the Fish and Wildlife and they didn' t have a concern with it. Conrad: I'm real surprised. It just, and I don' t know. The wetland, I 'm not concerned about the wetland ordinance. I 'm just real surprised that people can change or add to elevation right up to the lake even though we have regulations that say you can't build within 75 feet. That's just real surprising Paul . ' Krauss : DNR regulations start at the ordinary high water and this is all above that. We can put in some extra calls to confirm that but I believe all those agencies have been contacted on this. ' Conrad: In 10 years I 've never seen anybody fill right up to the edge of a lake and I 've been around. First time. Not that I know that it' s wrong. ' I've just never seen anybody do it. We've always kept construction and construction is different because we' re building stuff but that' s been monitored by other things. That's a surprising feature. Well anyway, I don' t believe the wetland permit process has much to do with that fill ' there but I sure thought something else would. We' ll go around. Jim, comments. Wildermuth: What' s the distance between the retaining wall and the wetland? Is that within 75 feet? ' Al-Jaff: It' s over 100 feet. No, I'm sorry. It is approximately 100 feet. Krauss: The retaining wall itself to the Class A wetland? Conrad: Yeah. Krauss: Is probably within the 75 feet. Jo Ann and I had a discussion on that tonight and in the past retaining walls have not been considered structures in that regard. In fact they're, in talking to Fish and Wildlife and DNR, it's deemed as somewhat beneficial.' If you had a graded slope, you would have a gradual slope going down in there, there would be a tendency to sod everything down beyond the wetland elevation. With the retaining wall , you have a distinct break and we've put a stipulation in ' there that the area below the wall be kept natural. But your point's well taken. We do have a lot of problems frankly with the wetland ordinance and how it handles these kinds of items. Jo Ann and I are probably going to be ' putting out a position paper on the wetlands ordinance sometime in February citing what the pros and cons are with it in it's entirity and looking to propose some changes to it. This would be one of them. I • Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 3 Wildermuth: What happens when the next lot to the west of that is developed? Is that individual going to come in for an application to fill I too I would imagine? Krauss: As I recall , the next lot to the west has a more distinct wetland I as you go, or to the south. As you head in that direction the wetland spreads out. I mean you don' t have that known situation down by the lake that we have on this lot. It would probably be handled differently. This one as well , you have a way of crossing to that area of high ground without I intruding at all into any wetland area. You could not do that on the adjoining lot. That' s not to say we wouldn' t recommend approval of it if I we saw it if it was done well but it would have different issues. Wildermuth: I guess I really don' t have any problem with a retaining wall and I don't have any problem with a boardwalk. It's adding fill next to the lake that just somehow doesn' t seem in keeping with our wetland and shoreland requirements. Krauss: We looked at the fill , if I could speak to that a little bit. The I fill is not really creating a substantially different situation out there. It' s not very deep. Wildermuth: Yeah, it's not very deep. 8 inches is not. . . Krauss: The reason for it is just to provide, I mean the soil right now is I rather squishy. It' s high but in a normally wet year it may be difficult to get any kind of use on it even though it is high and above the ordinary high water. The fill is being proposed is merely designed to firm it up. It's not really going to raise it up significantly. Wildermuth: The ordinary high water mark is 896? Krauss: Yes sir. Wildermuth: It looks like the difference in elevation, at least in one . I area of that where in the dark shaded area it says 896.2 and the ordinary high water mark is 896.4 or is it 896.6? Emmings: It's 896.6 on mine. Wildermuth: It's .2 of a foot difference. Wow. How are you going to get down there to put fill in there? Go across the ice? Because to the east I is that retention pond right? Don Begin: Right. I Batzli: And to the west is the wetland. Wildermuth: Yeah, and to the west is a wetland. Unless you can get a • Bobcat down the berm. That' s going to be pretty slow going. Don Begin's comment couldn't be heard on the tape. , r Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 4 ' Wildermuth: That is a beautiful area down there. I hate to see it altered. Although there has been some alteration with the building of that retention pond . ' Conrad: Well , they can do what they can do. I'm just really surprised and that's what intriguing is I 've never seen anybody being able to fill right up to the lake. ' Wildermuth: To the ordinary high water mark. ' Conrad: That's real strange. Anyway, Brian? Batzli: I guess I see that differently than setbacks from the house. I think you're trying to accomplish a lot of different things with that. In part you're trying to maintain vistas and I think a lot of other things. Yeah, I found that interesting. My question also was going to be, how are you going to do this with wetland in one direction and retention pond in ' the other. Wildermuth: Well there is a berm there. He could probably drive a Bobcat ' down there or as this gentleman suggested, going in when the wetland's frozen but that is going to create a haulage path down through there. That's probably going to have to have some correction done in the spring. Batzli : Well with that in mind I guess I would recommend that we add a condition and I don't know really what to say about it yet other than, if you do go down the berm or they somehow alter the whole area, that they will put it back in it's original condition. Almost like it's some sort of ' performance bond . That might be, I assume they' ll need some sort, do they need to get any type of permit before they do this? Do they need to submit grading plans or do anything like that? Or once we give this approval , are ' they. . . Krauss: Once we give this approval , they would be authorized to do it. ' Now if you want a condition about a performance bond, we could do that. Batzli : I don' t know. Does that make sense? ' Krauss: I think it does. You know you've got 2 issues there. On the one hand if it goes through the wetland, you want that restored. • On the other hand, if they use the berm which is protecting a city owned retention pond, Iwe'd want to make sure that that wasn' t destroyed either. Wildermuth: I liked the preclusion where there's no sodding allowed I between the retaining wall and the wetland. I think that's a good stipulation. Batzli : I don' t know. Maybe that can just be handled, I think we should I say something about that. My only other question was, this proposed fill area. If I 'm looking at the scale on this correctly, I don't really have a good ruler but in the description they talk about it being 30 feet between I the knoll area and the ordinary high water mark. It appears to me that it's closer to 80 on this map. The portion that's shaded in. I 'm curious Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 5 about that. If you take one of the numbers that they have off of this house, I assume those are feet. Emmings: There's a 40 foot drop at the top there too. . . Batzli: Well that's much more than 30 feet this proposed fill area. I would prefer not to approve it according to the plans if the plans show 80 feet, approximately, and in the application we're talking about • approximately a 30 foot area that' s going to be filled. Maybe the applicant could actually shed some light on that. Don Begin: I think probably they had. . .and I 've walked it and I work with I a good deal of builders, not as a superintendent but in other capacities and I think what' s happened possibly is that they've shaded this whole I thing but the actual fill won't go to what you'd call right to the water . I think the fill area to stabilize that useable area what they called out 30 feet. The feet from the knoll area out. As far as the way I read this, that there. . .that berm is about 30 feet. . . .scale although it is surveyed. I Batzli : That's what troubled me. The fact that it was a survey and so this appeared that they were going to be filling 2 1/2 times what. Krauss: I don't know what the anomoly's being caused by but I know when you' re standing out there on that knoll , it does not appear as though it' s 80 feet back from the shoreline. It's considerably closer. • Don Begin: No. It' s pretty close. Batzli : I guess then I 'd just like to have staff check into that before. I Ellson: I don't have anything to add. Emmings: Can you tell me what these lines represent here? Al-Jaff: That's an easement. An utility. ' Krauss: There' s a sanitary sewer line I believe that runs through there. Emmings: Okay. Right through the wetland. ' Krauss: It's the lowest point. Emmings: And there must be sewer in place there now right? Conrad: Yeah. ' Emmings: I once asked about putting sand on my beach and I was told I had to call the DNR. My beach is at king of an angle up from the lake, up from the high water mark. I was told that I wouldn' t have any trouble getting an approval but I did have to call and check. Can you tell me why and the beach, it's pretty long right now but in other years it's kind of short but can you tell me why I 'd need to get something from the DNR for something as II innocuous as that and why they wouldn't have to go to the DNR when they're Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 6 " 1 talking about a filling? Krauss: As I understand it, the difference would be that beach sand is typically placed above and below the ordinary high water. ' Batzli : They also probably don' t know where the ordinary high water is so they're doing it as a safety check to make sure that when you're applying the sand, I doubt someone's out there taking a survey to determine where ' the ordinary high water is. Emmings: Nobody and I guess it' s the kind of thing, they said you could ' call up and they'd say go ahead but you've got to call otherwise they' ll come and visit you. ' Batzli : I 've come to understand though. That' s an interesting point because for instance on Lake Minnetonka you can't rip rap, you can't do anything on the shoreline without getting a permit to do it and I don' t know who's controlling that. Whether it's the LMCD or who it is but you can' t touch anything near the shoreland. Emmings: Well, this seems like a reasonable thing to do to me. I guess i I 'd be very concerned , when they talk about how you're going to get there, I think that the condition that Brian wants to have is an important one because I don' t know if we're going to be satisfied with saying if they disturb the wetland, they've got to repair it. I don't think they should be allowed to disturb it in the first place so they're going to have to do it when it's frozen if they're going that way and I assume that won't do any harm but I don' t even know that for a fact. But other than, it seems like a reasonable thing to do to me if it will provide them with use of that area down by the lake. I don' t have anything else. ' Conrad: Okay. Thanks Steve. I have no problem with the retaining wall. The boardwalk. I do question the fill simply because I have never seen us allow that before so specifically in what's before us tonight, I think the fill process has to be defined in this permit. How do they do it? Do we accept them driving over the wetland? I don't believe we accept that but I think we do have to identify the process by which they can fill that. I do think we have to identify how they stabilize that so it doesn't wash into ' the lake. I think that's a glaring deficiency in this. You just don' t fill and assume that it's not going to run into the lake with• the next rain that occurs. We need a way to decide that. We require every builder in I Chanhassen to put up the barriers around their building site so that it doesn' t flow someplace else yet here we're right next to the lake and we haven't required that. That's why this whole thing of filling next to the lake seems kind of strange. Nobody has said put up a barrier and I can' t II believe that. That's just really a unique condition that nobody has a regulation that says you can do that. We're talking about dirt. We're not talking about sand here. So anyway, the stabilization process. How we I take dirt and make it grass or whatever it is that the developer's doing, I think we have to have some kind of review of that. Restoration to the original condition. If we don' t allow disturbance of the protected areas, I then we don't need to worry about that and then I buy Brian's comment on the map that says 80 feet or close to it versus the application which says I Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 7 30 and I think we just need better definition on what we' re really talking about. So specifically, whoever makes the motion, I think there's some things that staff can check out and maybe, I don' t know if they' re in. the part of the motion or not but specifically to make sure that there arkn't II regulations regarding this that we've missed and the fill process 'that I particular care about and stablizing the fill after it's in there. I think those are some important things that I do care about in the motion. Ill When you mention that, just to pick up on your point, if we want them to go in there in the wintertime to do the fill to protect the wetland when it's frozen, that means they're not going to be able to stabilize that I with any type of cover. Conrad: That' s right. And then that will wash down. I ti Emmings: Before a spring rain so that's why I think it's particularly important. Don Begin: Mr . Conrad, I believe under the recommendations on number 1 here you did recommend erosion control. Krauss: That was specifically to the wetland. . . ' Don Begin: Could we use erosion control along the lake there to keep this fill from. . . Conrad : I think you've got to do something like that but here we are. Yeah, you've got to do something like that but I don't know what it is that I you've got to do. Maybe that's the right way to do it. Don Begin: Possibly. . .along there or something to keep the whole thing stable. Conrad: Literally you've got to make it, we have force on this particular lake, we have forced developers and cities and what have you. We've had all sorts of problems of filling in Lotus . Incredible number of things we've forced people to do so we just have to make sure that when this gets filled in that there' s some way that prevents the rain water from washing I it in. Don Begin: I'm sure we can work that out. Conrad: I 'm sure g you can. I have no doubt that you can. Anything else? you - Is there a motion? I'll take a stab at it. I propose the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit *89-10 as shown on the site plan dated October 20th with the following conditions 1 thru 5 as they II stand but with changes to item 1. Instead of the sentence ending with improvements made on the site it would read, and between the ordinary high water mark and the altered or filled area. I think that would take care of the erosion control between the shoreline and the filled area. Then for item 6. I would add performance bond must be posted with the City to I 1 - - Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 8 1 guarantee that any overland haulage path to the fill area be restored to it's present condition. Conrad : Say that again Jim. ' Wildermuth: Performance bond must be posted with the City to guarantee that any overland haulage path to the fill area must be restored to it' s ' present or pre-existing condition. Conrad: In terms of your first amendment to number 1. Wildermuth: The first amendment's going to add erosion control . Conrad: Erosion control. It didn't specifically deal with stabilizing the soil afterwards. Wildermuth: That's true. IIConrad: Do you want to address that? Wildermuth: How do you do that though? 1 Conrad: I think staff can just say, if it's your choice to do that is just to say that staff will word it so that the soil is stabilized. You don' t Ihave to word the ordinance. Wildermuth: Okay. Well , I'd like to add something there to 1 then that the fill would be stabilized after placement. IConrad: Is that taking care of the concerns? Emmings: I 'm just sitting here thinking there's a performance bond that says that they have to put anything back that they disturb or they have to restore it but do we even want to allow them to go through the wetland? IWildermuth: I think they're going to have to. Either that or go across the ice. I Emmings: But they could go through it at a time. I don' t know, from some of the talk I've heard, I don't know if we want to rely on restoration to put the wetland back. I think they should have to go through, if they're I going of use a path that's through the wetland, it seems to me it should be at a time when they'll do minimal damage to the wetland such as when it's frozen. That's probably the only time. The only thing that makes me say that is. . . I Wildermuth: I don' t think you can go through the wetland without filling it unless it's frozen. IBatzli : What would happen if we made the filling and the path through there, they have to get staff's approval to do that so as to cause minimum amount of damage to whatever because we don't know what the best way or the I Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 9 best time to do that would be but I think they should be able to work with staff. Ellson: To work with them to get whatever plan they have okayed? , Eitmings: Yeah, I like that. One thing that makes me hesitant to even bring it up is obviously they put the sewer right through there and I wonder what the city did in terms of. . . Wildermuth: Well they tore it up pretty good. Emmings: In terms of doing damage and restoring it. Probably nothing but I nevertheless, yeah I think that's a good suggestion Brian. Krauss: If I may, before you act on that, it just occurred to me that possibly one way to ensure that this is all done in a timely manner , is to add a stipulation requiring that they get a grading permit approved by staff before starting the work. Then we actually have a permit that we're I going to release to them and before releasing it we can make sure that the conditions are met and it gives us a mechanism to then go back out and check up that it was done right. ' Batzli : That sounds great. Wildermuth: Okay, I'd like to make that item 7. That a grading permit be obtained. Krauss : Specify though if you would approved by staff so it doesn' t have to go back to the City Council. Wildermuth: Approved by staff prior to beginning work. ' Batzli : Can we so add in that number 7 that the crossing over or the filling will be done with minimal impact to the wetland areas? Wildermuth: Sure, why not. Batzli : Okay. Then I ' ll accept that. ' Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-10 as shown on the Site Plan dated October 20, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Erosion control shall be installed between the proposed grading and the I Class A wetland and between the Ordinary High Water Mark and the altered or filled area prior to any improvements made on the site. Also, the fill area shall be stabilized after it's placement. ' 2. The applicant should be made aware if the city or utility company needs to use the utility and drainage easement. The city or utility company I shall not be responsible for any damages to the boardwalk or restoration costs. I Planning Commission Meeting November 15, 1989 - Page 10 3. The area between the boardwalk and the wetland shall be maintained in it's natural state. 4. The area between the retaining walls and the wetland shall be maintained in its natural state with no sod. ' 5. The boardwalk north of the Class A wetland up to the ordinary high water mark of Lotus Lake shall be of permanent construction. ' 6. Performance bond must be posted with the City to guarantee that any overland haulage path to the fill area must be restored to it' s present or pre-existing condition. 7. A grading permit showing minimal impact to the wetland shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to any work beginning on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carrried. AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN MODIFICATION NO. 9, TODD GERHARDT. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. ' Conrad: Any questions? Todd, what's the purpose of the property acquisition? I can see the parking lots in downtown but the Empak, what' s happening there? Why are we doing that? Gerhardt: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority as it' s incentives requested or gave approval to Empak, an incentive program that would provide a land write down as a part of their incentive to locate in ' Chanhassen. The facility was one of 98,000 square feet that generated approximately $200,000.00 a year in taxes so from that they had enough money, 3 years worth of taxes, not different than any of the other incentives provided to any of the other businesses that located in the industrial park but left over that much increment that you could also write down a portion of the land. And to do that, the tax increment plan must make notice of that land acquisition or write down. Conrad: Questions? It looks consistent to me with the goals, at least from a planning standpoint that we've looked at for downtown. Gerhardt: All the documents are brought, or site plans are brought through the Planning Commission so you do review those prior to any approval given. ' Again, this is a State law requirement that we bring it to you and pass resolution. Conrad: Good. Thanks Todd. i 1 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1r CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Wooddale Builders OWNER: Don Green t IADDRESS 410 W. County Rd. D ADDRESS 15492 Canyon Ridge New Brighton, Mn 55112 Eden Prairie, MN Zip Code Zip Code' TELEPHONE (Daytime) 636-2355 TELEPHONE REQUEST: I Y. Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development • Zoning Appeal I Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision - ' Land Use Plan Amendment Platting I Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds Street/Easement Vacation : 1 Site Plan Review `X Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Kurvers Point I PRESENT LAND USE PLAN -DESIGNATION Residential REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Same I PRESENT ZONING Same REQUESTED ZONING Same I USES PROPOSED Retaining Wall, Walk Way, Grading ' SIZE OF PROPERTY 40, 077 Sq. Ft. . 92 Acre LOCATION 7280 Kurvers Point I REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Give Home Owner a Level, Useable Backyard, Access to Shoreline, and a Level Useable Shoreline. II LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if ne 111 g cessary) Lot I Block 2 KurvPris Point OCT 2 0 X969 ICity .of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 • 111 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: III This application must be completed in clearly printed and must be accompanied full by all infor plans required by applicable typewritten or I plans pplicable City Ordinance information and filing this application, you should confer with Planner to determine the specific ordinance and applicable to City Planner your application. procedural requirements FILI . FILING CERTIFICATION: • IIThe undersigned representative of the applicant - that he is familiar with the procedural applicable City y certifies y Ordi all I Signe• — •pplicant ��►- 1 The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has be authorized to make this application for the described. been I property herein Signed By // Fee iwner Date - -"---W— F.e... I I Date Application Received IApplication Fee Paid • City Receipt No. I I * This Application will be considered by the Plannin Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their• Imeeting, g Commission/ • I •. F-="- - WOOD6LE BUILDERS, INC. 410 W. County Road D New Brighton, MN 55112 (612)636-2355 ' I Description of proposed Alteration 1. Retaining Wall , a) The retaining wall will be built from 5x6 pressure treated timbers. The Wall will be approximately 8 ' in height at the walk way from existing grade to the top wall and 4 ' in height to the lower wall and 6 ' in height at the section running parrellel to the back of house and 3 ' in height at the lower wall. Then the wall will return towards the home at both ends and taper into the existing grade. There will br plant- ings in the middle level and sod installed from the retaining wall to the home. 2. Treated Walk Way a) The walk way will be built from 2x6 wolminize lumber. With 3" sheetrock screws. It will be built in 10' sections running 110 ' in length and 6 ' wide and will have support brackets on both sides every 10 ' . These brackets will be galvanized with galvanized post which will be set into the ground approzimat- ely 2 - 4 ' depending on soil condition. 3. Grading a) The grading proposed is from the high water level set- by -the ' D.N.R. to the berm approximately 30 ' from the shore line. We propase to level out the grade by adding 8-10" of clay fill at the deepest point tapering out to the high water level and to the berm with approximately 3-4" of black dirt and sod. 4. Purpose of Proposed Alteration ' a) The purpose of these alterations is to give the homeowner a useable back yard, access to the shore line and a shore line that is level. These improvements will be designed by experts in the field and install with the proper material and will improve the property as far as appearance and make the use of the property for the home owner better without effecting the purpose of the wetlands or shore line. I Wedlund�g Bering Sep vices,-4 .Q9R•v`Z ILoad ll. CWII EnsIn..n Lind PI ,9b:� .:y - ` bs�e _— Sur_ veyor`s Certificate•LP : �•II 4A=ra E 6.9 `` z 1201 EM.isenirrgNnfns.ro, O�vS �*''''':•p~sti.`1.,' L" 4'4* SSssm1gten,MlnaNu 55420 :v- y. q:-K / Pitons: ..S-02.. I V ,.o^,_� 'a7 / SURVEY FOR: IVooddale Builders `:.,. A,x :�'"?' / / DESCRIBED AS: Lot 2, Block 2, )..,Y ' / / KURVERS POINT, City of Chanhassen, BOOK 156 PAGE 1 v i j / / Scott County, Minnesota and reserving I " ` ! r easements of record. 811Z_2g2 I 1 k 900.5 / / K.elr A�q , 1 / P R ..p / q 2:,/ al !R Y � /1. '. c, /212 '% w '�E. j 1 N /ii 1 4 tj ° / / 1 1J �LtAN / I ! ,� rn ,`1i // / / , 3 r / 4r 4 I 110 A'P 3__ I / I I J / ["—— 819.1. 5.iv2rE J - eltoriri '� "','�fo,,,� QOM FICIAL COPY ' _ Y DEVELOPMENT DEPT.a� \eeep ,,+/ I . ••47 CITY OF CHANHASSEN So 1 ' P 'a «�/' ` r 961.1 \*Pi:9 4.. , 4 * 4 Pi / 7 I .0.4. , e'. ` ♦ ' 1' '//_ % / �� l --0 42 J: 1 /• o,O• + / / / Qii I `'i �i ,*O i!� ! 1 ° / CITY OF CHANHASSEN �t .Oc, 1 �' �� 2 KZ":-7:::- PROPOSED E VA I' S , . , n I �I To of�.aM.tle. ,+.1, t` , .. A 1 i H u. 199 s«tter Heir ,9.L y , . I W�.. ,. JD B...nwm m S . I a CHANHASSEN P!.`!f!NI J• DEPT. *pm.Nom Service P.p.... EI.,.la.n. I�• 0^ *S ` __ _ ___I 2 L. CD Emits, El.s.11.as q13 b m D.ki. s oir.akn. ...�. irks ,'1 J.7 B .1'. o� I O.nM.., OfUa Stilts . • Rs155..00S45'0,10'11 43.22 R # I t om.• t BENCHMARK t:q. tt.11 -r,ps 1 it.se 9'�•t• 9rt.1 KuRUetS VT. 1....1.1 ac cb..., G t. WO.+.96. 5 I hereby sonny Ma tai savoy.poR avert win asperse ay ma wends/my dleml I MIN.SETBACK REOIREMENTS empathise end Ilea I urn a duly R.Bktered Land Sanyo,Meer am laws el Me =tale el Mimosas. F=so s.:to Deis: -I /?9/89 b • '`o44_^.. I R...; 9/29/69 J. s .L pen,Lases* N..14376 Rem II/29/ i5 k, 11 L..., 1Y- I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / � i Iti4 CITY OF . t CHANHASSEN : . .., , 1 _• .,..... . : . : .„ , . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I .:. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739'0” by City Rdmiolt.ttatet Endorsed _ i //' I MEMORANDUM Mane______ ___ Repel TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager �'� ``tl� Date Submitted to CarnmiSS;-■. I FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dote So',m:,icc to Council DATE: December 14, 1989 / P. "le'gc 1 SUBJ: Proposed Architectural Changes to the Country Hospitality Suites Hotel 1 On Thursday, December 14, 1989, staff met with Dave Hemminger of D.W. Hutt Consultants who is working on final plans for the 1 Country Hospitality Suites Hotel in Chanhassen. Mr. Hemminger presented staff with a package of architectural modifications which have been designed to cut the costs of construction. As presented to staff, these modifications include changes to the I roof line of the building to go with a full-hip roof system rather than the mansuered roof that had been originally proposed, a change from cedar shake shingles to asphalt shingles, removal of I the entrance canopies at the front of the building, and a decrease in size of the building by some 12 foot in length. Staff indicated that we had serious reservations with these pro- posals and believe that the changes were of a magnitude that the 1 City Council should be asked to authorize them prior to the issuance of any building permits. Todd Gerhardt, representing the HRA, indicated that that group also would be interested in I reassessing the current plan. Consequently, I have scheduled a time for Mr. Hemminger to make a short presentation to the City Council of these changes. Due to the short notice provided by I the developer, plans cannot be made available for review until the City Council meeting. Some of these changes are minor or through modifications can be I designed to have minimal impact on the building' s appearance. The loss of square footage results from a diminished size of the room around the pool building and really does not have a signifi- 1 cant impact on the external appearance of the building so long as landscaping and exterior site plans are changed accordingly. Likewise, staff has worked with the applicant to hopefully design I a revised roof section that, while different in appearance, is reasonably attractive and consistent with other buildings in the _Central Business District. However, the loss of shake shingles, detailing of architectural trim on the roof and of the entrance I canopies , in my opinion represents a significant diminishment of the architectural quality of the building. 1 Mr. Don Ashworth December 14, 1989 II Page 2 I have a fundamental problem with the process that is being II requested by the applicant. It is my opinion that the developer should feel an obligation to construct the building that was pre- sented and approved by the City and should not conclude that significant architectural changes which result in diminished II expenditures are going to be acceptable. If the City Council believes that the current architectural package is acceptable or can be modified to be acceptable, staff should be directed to I authorize the building permits accordingly. Should a deter- mination be made that the plans have been significantly altered, it would be my recommendation that the plans be returned to the Planning Commission for re-approval. Todd Gerhardt has informed I me that the HRA would be reviewing these plans at their regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday. I I II I I I I I I I I 1 II