1h. Wetland Permit for a Duck Pond I h :
CITY O F ( DATE: June 7, 1989
II
C.C. DATE: June 26, 1989
_ C ME 3 5 S�1 Y CASE NO 89-3 WAP
I - Prepared by: Olsen/vdaj
STAFF REPORT
I
II PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for Creation of a Duck
Pond Within a Class A Wetland
.ation by City Administrates
I
"_ndo;sada.G - .0
ILOCATION: 6575 Pleasant View Way
^ . .,� ;, 5 icn
1 Cl.• APPLICANT: Alan Lenhart --Tf �� "�
6575 Pleasant View Way t -&
Chanhassen, MN 55317 __--=` _°
I
i
1
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
IACREAGE:
DENSITY:
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
IS- Lotus Lake
' E- RSF; single family
W- RSF; single famil y
0
IW WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
1 (n PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class A wetland
adjacent to Lotus Lake.
11 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
I
•
i
F . 1
O o o O I
O tD i OO M N o
I • PIN COUNTY CCOURTE RDGEE7 CASCADE
CIRCLE I
• • rill PIEDMONT I mo. II14 �, ' SHASTA CIRCLE 6200•
1 .� ��IIIir�s WEST I
PUS- �'�-- II..`-i�I t- SHASTA CIRCLE
R -. _
'.� •• 9, li�, EAST
�s y w ,�A-f� OLYMPIC CIRCLE
TRAPLINE .�• s c� v,"' 6300
CIRCLE- f. . ;L.AIM� ,;A I
C��� MOON IEYy,' w�■��� ;',�` CASTLE RT RIDGE
�t _ . COURT :s�.Itm. iz?/M
\�•.� s = 6400
\�
110, !i r BLUFF R r IOW 1 1
cs, naiiMat Roposen
. _--- \ ,' �. .'..c),___ V-� '_ FOX HOLLOW r, /'j )7�
\■/. • ■ s���� .���' DRIVE \A) ' �' `._1J
4 .1 \,. ♦, � e ao �►. „ ap. 6500 T!D I
, ye t. ,1,1 il.�` A�\.Ifi� COURT - -
�' p=er,� - 41110\I 6600) 0-17.-•A
I � R ; 1
I, ` i • ,v �-- - -6700■
?Ira. ' 441r/j RD .. r- oI:� Tv- 6800
Z �
'Ar - ‘ii:: 01114
. It►t.4„ oa- ',, LOTUS ; =�: —ssoo
-, \--s\ '
, .,,,,
laik-, , ,v mh.b. &Iwo %NA ,-
� .. ,as ,6 =�■ .. t_ 7000 '•
it 040- �I� —
;) �( , —7100 I
Milt /(( i
,l,‘ IIIIIMN
.7 r''FrIll■ ■•ff ,
i ��_���,- '\ �_ -7200
L4 , •f \' a 's 'aft
1
1 - , 11111111611 MIO
J "am .... 1 1/04 16 ihiillik
,
I
arm f!T r '''v -
i i:_r -tIO . EIL:4 400
-4 9111Ie 46)eel'° . / h e• g ,,,\ '— 1 R 1 2
- r 0
II
' Lenhart WAP
June 7, 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for the
creation of a pond within a Class A wetland and for any digging,
dredging or filling in a Class A wetland.
' Section 20-438 dredging will be allowed only when it will not
have a net adverse effect on the ecological or hydrological
charactertics of the wetlands. Dredging when allowed shall be
' limited as follows :
1. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
' 2 . It shall not adversely change water flow.
3 . The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum
required for the proposed action.
4 . Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the
' wetland district unless specifically authorized in the
wetland alteration permit.
5 . Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion
' control and nutrient retention measures.
6 . Dredging in any wetland areas is prohibited during waterfowl
breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is deter-
mined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl
breeding or fish spawning.
ANALYSIS
' The applicant' s property is adjacent to Lotus Lake and contains a
Class A wetland (Attachment #1) . The Class A wetland is filled
' with cattails and it was stated by Elizabeth Rockwell of the Fish
and Wildlife Service that it was "cattail choked" . The applicant
is requesting to create a duck pond in the northern portion of
the Class A wetland and to direct drainage from his site to the
pond where it will be retained prior to it entering the wetland.
The duck pond will be 3 feet deep and is approximately 4 , 000
square feet in size. The applicant is also proposing to fill a
' small portion located on the northwest side of the duck pond and
is proposing to install boulders along the northwest edge. The
pond will be located at the end of an existing 12 inch pipe used
for runoff . The end of the pipe is located at the 895. 5 eleva-
tion and will direct drainage into the proposed duck pond. Staff
is recommending that a 12" apron be installed at the end of the
pipe within the pond (Attachment #2) .
' Staff has visited the site several times with both Elizabeth
Rockwell and Paul Burke from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Both
Ms . Rockwell and Mr. Burke have confirmed that the proposed duck
pond would be an improvement to the wetland. The location of the
duck pond is such that a minimal amount of the wetland will be
disturbed. The applicant has shown on his site plan the disposal
site for the dredged material from the pond. The disposal site
•
Lenhart WAP
June 7, 1989
Page 3
is well outside of the Class A wetland and will be sodded to pre- '
vent it from eroding back into the wetland. Staff is recom-
mending that the spoils be sodded within 10 days of placement.
The applicant has already made contact with the Department of
Natural Resources and the Watershed District to receive the
required permits. The applicant must also contact the Corps of
Engineer to receive any required permits . On the site plan it
appears that the existing grass yard of the subject' s property
ends approximately at the 897 contour. Staff is recommending
that the area between the proposed pond and the 897 contour
remain in a natural state and not be sodded or seeded after the
improvements to the pond are made. Staff is also recommending
that Type III erosion control be installed between the proposed
duck pond and Lotus Lake prior to any dredging of the wetland.
The design of the pond should conform to the recommendations of
the Fish and Wildlife Service (Attachment #3) . Currently the
design of the pond is consistent with most of the Fish and
Wildlife Service recommendations and staff will work with the
applicant to provide the remaining recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed duck pond within the Class A wetland is considered
II
to be an improvement to the wetland and meets the guidelines of
the Wetland Ordinance. The applicant has worked closely with
staff to provide an improvement that would be beneficial to the
water quality and wildlife habitat of the area. Staff is recom-
mending that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration
Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan dated May 8, 1989, subject
to the following conditions :
1. The applicant receive a permit and meet any conditions from
the DNR, Watershed District, Corps of Engineers and a grading
permit from the City prior to any dredging of the Class A
wetland. I
2. The applicant shall provide Type III erosion control between
the proposed duck pond and Lotus Lake prior to any dredging
of the wetland.
3 . The area between the proposed duck pond and the existing grass
yard ( 897 contour) shall be allowed to return to its natural
state.
4 . The disposal site shall be sodded within 10 days of placement. I
I
' Lenhart WAP
June 7, 1989
Page 4
5 . The applicant shall provide a 12" apron at the end of the 12"
pipe in the pond.
6 . Dredging shall not occur during breeding or spawning season
as determined by the DNR.
7 . The six recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service
shall be met (as follows) :
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds.
' b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10 :1 - 20 :1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
' encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0 . 5 - 3 . 0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
' e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser
pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the wetland.
' f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland. "
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland
alteration permit as shown on the plan with all of staff ' s recom-
mendations and the addition of Condition #8 as follows :
8 . The applicant shall minimize the drainage of fertilizer and
chemicals into the wetland.
' Also, Conditions #4 and #5 were amended as follows :
4 . The disposal site shall be sodded within 10 days of placement.
As an alternative, the applicant shall install a method of
II
Lenhart WAP
June 7, 1989 '
Page 5
preventing erosion of spoils within the 10 day period.
5 . The applicant shall provide a rock apron at the end of the
existing drain pipe in the pond.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as
shown on the site plan dated May 8, 1989, subject to the
following conditions :
1. The applicant receive a permit and meet any conditions from '
the DNR, Watershed District, Corps of Engineers and a grading
permit from the City prior to any dredging of the Class A
wetland. '
2 . The applicant shall provide Type III erosion control between
the proposed duck pond and Lotus Lake prior to any dredging
of the wetland.
3 . The area between the proposed duck pond and the existing grass
yard ( 897 contour) shall be allowed to return to its natural I
state.
4 . The disposal site shall be sodded within 10 days of placement.
As an alternative, the applicant shall install a method of
preventing erosion of spoils within the 10 day period.
5. The applicant shall provide a rock apron at the end of the '
existing drain pipe in the pond.
6 . Dredging shall not occur during breeding or spawning season
as determined by the DNR.
7. The six recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service
shall be met ( as follows) :
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10:1 - 20 :1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0. 5 - 3 . 0 1
Lenhart WAP
' June 7 , 1989
Page 6
' feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
' d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser
pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
' the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland. "
8 . The applicant shall minimize the drainage of fertilizer and
chemicals into the wetland. "
ATTACHMENTS
1. Wetland map.
2 . Detail of apron.
3. Wetland Alteration Permit Evaluation Worksheet.
4 . Letter from DNR dated January 6 , 1989.
-- 5 . Minutes from Watershed District Board dated December 7, 1988.
6 . Recommendation of Fish and Wildlife.
7 . Application.
8 . Site plan dated May 8, 1989.
9 . Planning Commission minues dated June 7, 1989 .
. -
.1 1 '-'•
... --
, ...
. •
1 5
f / ( / 2 5
.. ...-. '
. .
--,....p.„...„..... .-....:.::p.,.:,..„,..A. ...........-., - . -- , ,
I ., ■ ,
.....,.
,.
.....„..::„.„:„...„0,
) ) .
. ,
..... ,.
__ .-.,-.,, --:.
.„ (..............._/..„/)_ .....; .
.
.........
..,•
..., = -
.._
--
M-2 4-2 ,
. .
--- f
'
.-..-
---,>f-t-g'"-
-..,.44*:". •
- 11 crZ
--
,
'4. .
13 •-• 16-
..„...
„ ..
.
. -4 4. 4• /
- 4 ,. , . . 4.,•..; "N. --...
. . ,
• : .
to,....,,.. . ... . ..
,... ,,,
. .,
• ,
..„
12 ,
.
_.24-12
--g._
N.,
-..
. _
-
, . . „ _, .......,
.
..
.- .....,
._„
,......., -i. t,.... . .:
„......., : __
--., \ ..
. ,,,..., .
.. 16 „„---...,-,-...•
,,‘„,- -; . . ...,,,... ,
.; .q 4 ''-'''' -• ,.1-• ! , - i'• ' --'
L , - ....,. -.! ---....:_,..... -::":::::r:.t.:, --..---.
. ,. .
..." - / , J.i.. ,„.., : . .: 7
',..):. i
.:' ; -Z--,-''•- ` i r ,..::..i.' ..::::**.I...!''....te‘', - .:":•W ... '
. - -
-._•-..:..12.7:_-•;',...• •.--,...;... ___, .„..7;.,.:1Z- "r...1r.,-'7 .t.',
'..7; --fr./ -'',.; .'.. :•::':..-...,..........''::' ' ..':...;:::'... /-' ..,EW '
, -,......•
4 4.
- 1•
3
,,
. ...
0::',.tig 11
.; 5- ''-'-',-..,-., - ..;''' •••• •.".
„,...,i.
1 ' -•- -4',..).---- .).1.41V1'7,4404`'-' ::-.1) ' '''''-':
7
,,. .. .., ••7
it.
..„. 4
-.....
=,
.. ..
.......
... . -.-
17,........
• > 4 ' .
t.
--
_ .- ... •
-,-
1.1..ffe. ..
- .... ...
-
-.. .
.-.,,,..........,:.:,4;, 1 2.'19 . . . _ . . ..,
.::::...„_, _: .- .. 4.,--,., - ' '7
a. :..-■ , , _,
.•
' .
, . ■
, .
,..
... .
_ . , -,.
... ..-■-•...
...
_ ................_.
.._
; •, .
--.. ._
....... ._ . ..._ _
. ._...... .. ,............. •
......
.._. .
.,-
..• 1,
__• 10 ...::::.
-- .....
,. -.. .
-
;_ ...„..,,,1 g
._. .,...
-...,::....., A
. .:.:;1::.4* iL
•••••-•
.. _..........____,......... . _ ____ ,..—
------
a a s
.0,5„...' -‘,."0.
--- '--''''''' .
. -
,,.
'
-
,
2 - L A./2
31 = -. .. _ ...,.......„.„.._
,..,„
. ...
._,- -----
• . \ .
. .... ..,
. ,
,
.. _
,- : ,.„
.... -- ,..
-.,., -.......... , A _
..--'.' -- ' „
_.-
_ _ ,-
t -
...„.....,,....-,,_:-. -...-.4„,
„.
.........
\..... .
1 ,
• .. --
... „.
- ___
,_
........„ , ,
) 19' .., ._...„.....„.,,.9....,--,
. _
4
.. _ 4
..-........_„
,
''' -...r'''..-•-.:.,:....2.4
'
12--iII 't-#. ',. _.
. .,_._
' .
....
..,
.,......„ -, .• .--•---...""P....,'.- '.
••-•.?” •.‘-'''''...:2...•.:.-....17
...............,
''''''"r--.74-;•:-.'./.•.,_,-,.1,;,‘,.., ;"'i i
.••• -14
•, _,
;-- ...„
' _1
' •
•
• '
• oa. ' .
... ..; _ .:,47.../". ?' •••••!..''s- f ' -'
_
, --)-,-, ". ' ,.. 'Ix .• 4 -1, .
' ' '. '
.., 1. .4
___•
----$.•,: ai 1-..--'r4......;! • -----_-11.,.‘lzir. • " •• .40-./-480 --/
II.
tr
Provide 3 dips to fasten Trash Guard
I to Flared End Hot dip galvanize
after fabrication. Size of Pipe Bars " H" Batts
12"to 18"
I 21" to 42" 3/4" 6" ?8"
/4,,
�" 42"to 72" 1" i2" in
�_--I-7 7 Max
_-, __ I 2t_0�� AnCnor both sines 7 ,
viii .•
� I E
i \�I
--......- i ,
/ 1 ****--------II H
TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW
Grooved end on outlet end section. SLOPE DETAIL }
i _i_____Tongue end on Inlet end section Note: Design of End Section shall
Cv1 Slope = X to Y conform to Standard Reinforced
B Concrete Pipe Class ll
^, X Rounded edge permitted on sloped end.
DIY
t E
Bat or Steel fabric t
1 -- - T Diameter
11 LONGITUDINAL SECTION
F , END VIEW E
' Weight
1.
Dlam. Per Slope T A e I C 0 E C I R
Section X
i 12" 530 3 to 1 12" 4" 2" s
15" I 740 . 1 2-1 4" 1 24,E 148-7 8" 72-7 $ 124» 2 1 1-1 I
18" 990 27 46" 73 30 2-1 4" 1-1 --
to 1 2-1 2" 9" 27" 14 7 �, ." "-1, " -1!, "
21" 1280 3 to 1 12-3 4" 9" 36" 137-1 " 73-1 " 42" �c»®�
24" 1520 3 to 1 3" 9-1 " 43-1/2" 30" 73-1/2" 148" 3"
� ' � 1-1/2" �
27" 1 1930 3 to 1 3-1/4" 10-1 2" 49-1/2"124" 73-1/2," 54" 3-1/4" 1-1/2"
', 36" 4100 3 to 1 ®� 12" 54" 19-3 4" 73-314" 60" ®� •
15" 63" 34-3 4 ' 97-3 4" 72" MEENZEI4,. 11-1 " i
42" 5380 3 to 1 14-1 2" 21" 63" 35" 96" 178" 4-1 "
148" 6550 3 to 1 5" 24" 72" ® 1-1
I - 54 " 8240 2.4 to 1 5-1 2" 27" Q'� 98" 1 0
60" 8730 2.4 to 1 6" 35" 65" 133-1 4 " 98-1 4" 190"
60" 39" 99" 196" I 5" 1-1 2"
66" 10710 2 to 1 16-1 " 30" 72" 27" 99" 102" IMISIMMIEMI
72" 12520 1 :.tol 7" ." 78" (21" 99" 10:" 11-1
78" 14770 1.82to1 7-1 " 3." 90" 21" 111" "
84" 18160 1.5 to 1 8" 3." 90-1 21" ® L 1-lt " 4
90" 1 20900 1 .5 to 118-1/2" 41" 87-1/2"124" 11120" ' " #
" �-1/2 t �,"
.i. ...It)i-, CITY O F FLARED END
a
I C::AA.rx I
AND TRASH GUARD
., SCALE 1'— 1 DATE 5 — 8 9 PLATE NO. 3 1
I
y0A
. ' 1
A 1--,
�/wrwtrve
i li .dam.ow ►o
B TOR', .0;) .•"*-474i-atat• WM B t 111.q.,„4 i 1, I I ■elfilotry ed ip a f t
1
'ID 4, a earvie 114.4.1n
; Poii_tivii,441(Tr 1••' .f*�'.f �� .."fir
i Zi 1:g et gbsfibl ‘e ill.# EE It '!.
CA. 116•••• °0 t.',11 .V.1„.04: 1,.........,.: .1.s.;
EE a: z o] ������ttlt�tr �t _ �t
►` iA uttMt► it%
�r, 1 0 - 2' ' t4 �> X1.11 2' W 1 Q
1
}: 1
0 witeih, tot N4
I� w �' a N( H- O
3': Y a = ,t• w • 1
4M, ,. m W
DIA. OF{
Lucc 1
SPAN �� r
c0 co c0 to co a m a. �_ F—
J MM � ulca W — mN in M VO3
I
h- _ F-W y
cc Y W in.Q1 M m M a !� Q� N cD N c� \' - I
W J ZI} —- N N M a' to tD t- Q1 — N cD - d x m
Z d1 a-a = i
a
.
CQ./d1 —a- M
a Q. co r� cnnto ma' � m `rl O • u'a rL ■
u' <= N• M t}' to c0 cD O fYl cn cO N N M Il al W Q u,O
I
J ^ n..cn = WW
F.. 22....., r 2,..,,...° c0 N in O tD t- tD QQ1 0 =?5 .
1 CI =W`
4 1
CITY OF FLARED END SECTION •
• �lo= CUANUAN SSE - 1
AND TRAS H GUARD
SCALE 1-- • DATE PLATE NO. 1
5-89 3110
.ds. Amor
i
2 . The holding po:(: must meet the following if"-.4., x conditions
established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
' a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds .
' b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10 :1 - 20 :1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
' encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
' variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0 .5 - 3 . 0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
' areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
' d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
' e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser
pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the wetland.
' f . The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
I
'
STATE OF �,r
A i LJ�J Ll�J E S U
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES II
PHONENO. 296-7523 METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS FILE NO II 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
o
I
January 6, 1989
I
Mr. Alan Lenhart
6575 Pleasant View Way II Chanhassen, MN 55317
•
RE: PERMIT APPLICATION #89-6177, DUCK POND EXCAVATION, CITY OF II CHANHASSEN
Dear Mr. Lenhart:
We will complete the review of your permit application for duck pond II
excavation in the Lotus Lake (10-6P) wetland when we receive the
following information from you:
II
1. additional surveys or drawings of the proposed project;
2. commencement date of the project; and
3. spoil disposal location. I
The City of Chanhassen also requires a wetland alteration permit for
work of this type. We will assume you are no longer interested in II the proposed work and will administratively withdraw your permit
application if we do not receive the requested information in 30
(calendar) days.
II
Please call me at 296-7523 if you have any questions.
Sincerely, I
i
Thomas E. Hovey
II
Hydrologist
11 . 1 0Ue
J62:kap I
I
I
I
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
In
4 t
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
1 of December 7, 1988
Page 2
-7--
5. Comments from the Metropolitan Council pertaining to the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Rosemount Manufacturing
1 facility in Chanhassen. Again, this information was referred to the
engineer for processing.
Permit Applications
' The following grading and land alteration permit applications and
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Work in Protected Waters permit
applications were processed by the Managers.
A. MDNR Chapter 105 Work in Protected Waters Permit Application -
' Excavate a duck pond adjacent to Lotus Lake on the Lenhart property:
Chanhassen
At the recommendation of the District's engineer, it was duly moved,
' seconded and unanimously adopted that this matter be continued until
additional information is submitted to the District with regard to
review of this permit application.
B. #87-72 Permit Extension: Eden Commons; Franlo Road and Prairie Center
Drive: Eden Prairie
C. #88-80: Lakeshore Equipment - Chanhassen Lakes Park Business Center:
Chanhassen
D. #88-81 : T.H.5 improvements from Wallace Road - Martin Drive West to
' Heritage Road; grading and land alteration permit: Eden Prairie
1 E. #88-82: Utility installation - Wyndham Nob 2nd Addition; grading and
land alteration permit: Eden Prairie
F. Permit Extension - Fill on Carpenter property; Valley View Road and
Prairie Center Drive: Eden Prairie
Following presentation of the plans and specifications accompanying the
' applications for each matter before the Board, motions were duly made,
seconded and unanimously adopted, following the engineer' s report and
recommendation for issuance of permits subject to all terms and
conditions noted in the draft permits, that permits be issued. Following
' action and approving these permits, Chairman Fiskness ordered each
specific permit issued to developers authorizing commencement of grading
activities in accordance with the permit terms and conditions.
1
1
1 '
1
I
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
EVALUATION WORKSHEET
To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application
(Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1
1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION:
Class: A Type:
Location: Lakeside L./-- Streamside Upland 1
Watershed District: 1
Area of Open Water:
Drainage Flows To: � LOT LOTLtS CIA-k6;) 1
Vegetation Types: 7Ra4SS 4- C477-c ,'/S-
Soil Types :
2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: At ttk Cl clipre S/Otd i
4( YIth () Fr CL141 ncu e Y- ittak h nd j toe sr s'9f v
- i»d if)
ru�� ��� >rc�ek� cL+�ct SUrnQ �i t l
1
3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Wi/(!f, fe, h t I i 1-0:6- (141 ze
Ct Cdr bItStn cO( water JAG(
/?D � 7'rz� �c1( �
-iI 41e re drain'f),9 into "' -
1
4 . A 'PLI E . _ A o 'DINAN ' ' ION:
1
A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS 0 THE PR PO D DEVELOPMENT IF NO
ALTERATION IS MADE: 'a/77{) / rn £ 7( ti q r (S
more 11,"P c d Irecr`/ /nt'D Ldy/4 41u;
P✓}A ell it I le r'�� . /Cot Ci S (/L1 r� //z2 ><11 C d oz/r7
1
•
I .
5 . c IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND
ALTERATION: 4,1/0 PiP',)POSF /)
C. IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED
' ALTERATION: /40l/A,iJr &S % /(1/LDLII= 5 17-67272t64,77) F/Lr6,244JC5.
I /
6 . USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE
1 WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE
AND PROPOSED ALTERATION:
get c.W_ re'm z/2 5n-ec ii ( awe?e? t ( c
r ferhit.
1
I
1
i
-2-
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: AL/4/1.) /0. LE/LSF %l OWNER: k i) /
Lou l.I j
ADDRESS (5`15 ���AS - G�p , l/.J�� ADDRESS
I
el111,uhit SS1 h, r )Id 66)-7 -
Zip Code Zip Code I
TELEPHONE (Daytime) SS f)_ s'0 -1.s(�v.'/L TELEPHONE !-/'74-S. c/( (ic J`
REQUEST: J I
-Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan I
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment I
Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
I
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation
I
XWetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME LEltf�A - ���
I
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION --AO(N C
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING I
USES PROPOSED et( iti, 101(<:,n ,)L bac_k Po JUL)
SIZE OF PROPERTY 65 35
X
S35 ( 1
• LOCATION �rl� Pled- 0t- Cie u) Wa t I
1D
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST RIA n 0 if
.�/ i
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) . P_e dretlU/n_
I
fie-ik;vt-nc. to i_),v,e . fiirni i-- ,Qp boo iev) W SI- 6/77 kith /`?,■-me
et Pic eit icon / 601-y Di CC A-1f`A S Stm
1 City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
IFILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application, must be completed in full and be typewritten
clearly printed and must be accompanied b
I plans required b pOr by all informationandor
filing required
application ,y applicable City Ordinance provisions .
to determine n you Should confer with the Before
applicable to procedural requirements
your application .
q
IIFILING CERTIFICATION: -
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements
II applicable City certifies
y Ordinances , nts of all
II Signed By _l
Applicant Date
I
II b The undersigned here
auhonid go make y certifies that the applicant has been
described . application for the
• property herein
Signed By fl a . -/� J�
I Fee Date
Owner
I
IIDate Application Received
I Application F'-- -
�� ,tin
110 R s -- - _
__-----71
t.
; the Planning Commission/
';ENO - -
-_ ` I lei r„ /
sIL,N
_1_
Planning Commission Meeting a
June 7, 1989 - Page 3
I I
in a blue grass or pine grass that would be there . It probably would be
the natural but I probably would mow it. II
Conrad : I think the problem is that we ' re trying to let the wetlands do
what they do best and that' s in your case, you' re right next to Lotus and II
make sure that the fertilizers aren' t going in. If you start putting grass
in there, that' s not a real good filter . It' s not a good filter so if
you' re fertilizing your yard and you' ve got low, if you really are grassing
to the wetland, you' re maximizing an impact on the wetland and reducing the
effect it can have on keeping Lotus Lake clean.
Alan Lenhart: Like right now there' s grass down to it but it' s not the II
regular lawn type grass . It' s the wetland dig bladed grass that ' s there.
That' s what' s there right now and I probably would not change that. But
like I say, I would probably mow down to where I mow at least now anyhow. II
. . . fairly high up to the yard like just about at the edge of the pond and
stuff there is a row of trees there that I would leave in there that I mow
down to right now and I think they' re below that footage level that they II
showed . Then like the other thing that I had a comment on.
Conrad: Let' s not lose this one. What do you see, is there a solution to
this? Jo Ann , I guess I 'm not sure what the benefit or . . . II
Olsen: We can go back out and look at it and see if what' s there now, if
he maintains that. II
Conrad : The trouble is, we' re not really going to be monitoring in the
future you know. I ' ll wait for other comments later on but. . . Then your I I
last point is?
Alan Lenhart: On the disposal site , he was asking to be sodded within 10
days. There might be, is that my only alternative that I have to sod it I I
because there might be a portion of it that I might to put like like rocks
over it to make a garden on it with rocks with evergreen shurbs and stuff
like that to grow there too . II
Olsen : That ' s fine . As long as there ' s some sort of vegetation or some
sort of cover .
Alan Lenhart : Okay. Then I guess that ' s all I had . II
Conrad: Any other comments? Any other public comments on this public I I
hearing?
Emmings moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in I I
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : Ladd is that the end of the lake where it ' s heavily loaded with
loosestrife?
I
k_ Conrad : Used to be. I don ' t know about right now. There used to be a
fair amount down there.
1 '
Ill
I- • 'Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 4
I Headla : I think his intentions are good and what he' s doing sounds good .
Overall I 'd say yes, I 'm certainly in favor of this. I guess I 'd kind of
like to take this as an opportunity to reinforce that they've got to
I control loosestrife on anything that they do. You' ve got to pay strict
attention to that, especially until new grass comes up. I was trying to
place it exactly and it seemed like that' s where it was. I 'd like to see
I something worded in that that would pay attention to loosestrife. That 12
inch pipe, I think if we just say drainage pipe. I don' t even think that' s
pertinent information. It' s function is a drainage right on that item 5?
You' re talking a 12 inch pipe to spend all the time and money doing that,
I going out and looking at it, I don' t think the diameter of the pipe is
pertinent at all . The other one is, I would tend to favor not allowing
cutting right down to the pond . The reason is you don' t get that much
I wildlife activity in the middle of some of your foliage, etc. . In the
spring , fall , winter , the foliage is down. I don' t think we 'd be
inhibiting your view very much of some of the life. Now yes maybe on the
I actual pond you wouldn' t be able to see some of it. Maybe something can be
done to cut down the heights of some of the weeds but I certainly agree
with Ladd and the function of the wetlands is the filtering . Maybe we can
work out some type of compromise but cutting right down to a pond, I don' t
Ithink would be appropriate. That' s all I had .
Batzli : Jo Ann, how far, what kind of distance are we talking between the
111: 896 and 897 elevation here?
Olsen: It' s not a lot.
I Batzli : I guess isn ' t that the part we ' re talking about whether he ' s going
to be allowed to let it go back to a natural state?
I Olsen : Right. The 897 isn ' t necessarily right where the grass yard does
end right now. It ' s close to that elevation so it' s not that big of a
strip.
IBatzli : From the way the applicant spoke , it sounds like to me that he
mows down to the willows and the willows run between the 896 and 897. If
he ' s going to dredge this down to, or the top of the pond is going to be
I 896 about, so he' s going to have a portion, if he left it as it is right
now which is kind of what ' s being discussed I think, there ' s going to be a
portion of it that ' s mowed down to the pond and a portion of it that' s got
Icattails and a portion that ' s prairie grass or whatever ' s there .
Olsen: We just wanted what is the willow, the prairie grass and type that
I is there now i.nbetween those areas , we do want to try to maintain .
Batzli : But do you want him to actually get rid of that and let it go back
to cattails or isn ' t it going to be that low right there? What part are
Iyou actually telling him to let go back?
IFOlsen : When they come in here , this will be altered and . . . just around the
fringe but it' s acceptable also to have areas of it opened. We' ve allowed
that before. I know the Fish and Wildlife allows that but a lawn that ' s
I
MI
Planning Commission Meeting .I
June 7, 1989 - Page 5
1
well maintained and fertilized right up to it we don' t like to promote.
That' s something that we can work with. It' s not, that' s not flexible.
Batzli : Well I live a short distance away and I ' ll agree there ' s a lot of
wildlife down there and I think he ' s actually doing the area a little bit
of a favor for it in general and I guess I 'd like to see us work with him
to have something like this done. I don' t see it as a big deal what size
the pipe that drains in there if there' s not a lot of drainage in there .
He had a comment about water level control , culverts , riser pipe, etc. and
all you were asking for there was like a swale or something?
Olsen: Something that allows if there is one of those big rains, that it
doesn ' t just flood over all the edges. We have to allow some of the water
to be able to run off so if there are habitats around it, that those don' t
get flooded out.
Batzli : Okay. Then I think it' s just more a problem of us including the
Fish and Wildlife Service criteria verbatim in there.
Emmings : I don' t have any trouble supporting this thing in that it sounds
to me like the issue about the grass around the edges and whether it should
be mowed or now seems to me to be kind of a technical issue. If it ' s
important for Lotus Lake or for the wetland that there be left a strip that
is not mowed, then he shouldn' t be allowed to mow it but if it' s not -
important to the wetland , then I can see that he doesn' t want to have an =,,
obstructed view and if it' s not important, then he shouldn' t be able to mow
it as far as I 'm concerned but that and some of these other issues all
sound more like technical issues where we ought to have some, you hate to
spend a lot of time on kind of a really small deal but we ought to check
maybe with Fish and Wildlife and say is this important to this wetland. If
they say it doesn ' t really matter , then I think we ought to go ahead and
let him mow it but I can' t decide that because I don't know really how to
think about it. As far as the apron is concerned , what is the material of
the apron? Is it just rock or is it concrete or what do you expect them to
do there?
Olsen : They' ve got different designs and it can be just rock and rip rap
or whatever engineering terms are. What they showed in here was a real big
major one but what engineering is requesting is just something similar to
that that disperses the water .
Emmings : Okay, so if he puts some rock down at the end of that pipe , and
that' s something that he can talk to the engineer about so that it' s
appropriate to whatever water flow might be coming out of there , again that
sounds to me like a technical issue that ought to be taken up with the
engineer and between the engineer and the applicant. I don ' t really have
any other comments.
Erhart : I pretty much agree with everything that ' s said . My preference ,
would be only to make it bigger . If you ' re going to spend the money to do
this and you could actually make it a little bit bigger and more productive
but in the past I 've generally favored these things. I think there' s a few I
technical words that we could change in a motion maybe to help clarify some
•
I' ' Planning Commission Meeting
June 7 , 1989 - Page 6
Ir
I,
I things for the applicant . Mowing , I think my concern would be, if we mowed
more than 25% of the shoreline but looking at the shoreline, it doesn' t
appear that that' s possible in any way. As long as 75% would remain in
it' s natural state so I guess that' s the only comments I had here.
IConrad : My only comment is that we minimize any nutrient runoff into the
wetland from the adjacent grass or properties so based on the technical ,
I whatever is necessary Jo Ann. I don ' t think the height of grass matters .
I think it' s more of what it is and how thick it is. I could be wrong but
I 'm not concerned with height but I am concerned with runoff. From that
end of the lake, there' s so many nutrients from the old farms that have
Igone in there that I 'd prefer to keep as much out as possible.
Erhart: Should we be looking at things like restricting fertilizer within
I certain distances? Is that the kind of runoff you' re worried about is
nitrogen?
IConrad : Pretty much yes , and my thought would be yes .
Erhart: Do you have a distance in mind?
I Conrad : I don' t have a clue. It would be an arbitrary, if I made
something up Tim, it 'd be real arbitrary. Tough to do. I 'd prefer that
there were certain fertilizers not permitted at all within 100 yards of any -
klake but it' s arbitrary type of thinking right now and I think I 'd trust ,,
the staff in terms of. . .
Olsen: Actually the pond is helping that.
I
Alan Lenhart: The pond is about 600 feet away from the lake so there is
still a big area of cattails and grass between the pond and the lake
itself.
Conrad : Yes . Any comments? Is there a motion?
IErhart: Yes, I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as stated with the following exceptions .
Item 4 add, as an alternative the applicant shall install a method for
Ipreventing erosion of spoils within the 10 day period . Clarifying that , in
other words, if you can provide staff an alternative to sod, you still need
to do it within the 10 day period . Change number 5 to , the applicant shall
I provide a rock apron at the end of the existing drain pipe instead of the
12 inch pipe and remove the 12 inch from all of that line . Clarify that
item (d) that he can use muck from the basin if it ' s already there. Item
I (e) , add in the parenthesis , an overflow area . I ' ve seen some of these
small ponds built, you don' t need a culvert specifically as Jo Ann stated .
Just a flat area on one end , on the outflow end that ' s got good grass
cover. Will serve to control the water level . And I ' ll just add number 8
I is to minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals into the wetlands
more or less as a request I guess .
iBatzli : Second .
IN
Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 7
1
1 Conrad : Good motion . Under discussion, Jo Ann do
you agree with what Tim t
said for item (e) ? An overflow?
Olsen : Yes .
Conrad : You' re comfortable with that . Dave brought up purple loosestrife
which is a problem. I don' t know how to work that into this thing . What
we' re doing is really not purple loosestrife. I don ' t know how to resolve 1
the problem. It' s a really valid problem but I don' t know how to make a
connection between the pond and purple loosestrife. Do you see , is there a
connection?
Olsen : Disturbances to the wetland can promote purple loosestrife so we
just have to keep a good eye.
Conrad : So disturbance too?
Olsen : If there is purple loosestrife where they' re dredging , then you
have to dispose of that in a different way.
Headla : Remember what Ms . Rockwell said about loosestrife? Disturb it,
you break up the roots, you just create more and more of a problem. I
remember the way I was telling her I was pulling it up and tossing it off
and letting it dry. She all that' s doing is making the problem worse. I'
guess that tend to make me a lot more sensitive to that and it seems like
1 this might be an ideal opportunity to control it more.
Conrad : What do you suggest? What are you thinking of?
Headla: One of the things she said, you ought to burn it but on here. . .
Conrad : You' re thinking of disposal then? '
Headla : The way we dispose it and I think what he was suggesting is a
garden . Now he' s not going to let loosestrife grow in his garden . He' s
going to control it so I 'm all in favor of that he moves it up. I think
that ' s an ideal situation but the rest of it, if I understand it correctly,
that depth on there, we may be propagating it. Putting in ideal conditions
for loosestrife. I guess I 'm with Steve, it ' s kind of a technical thing
and I just don' t know that much about it except an alarm went up.
Olsen : I ' ve got information on purple loosestrife and I could just give
that to the applicant and talk with Paul Burke. He' s coming out again on
Friday. This does have a lot of purple loosestrife in that area and see
what we can do.
Headla : Is that the same information you mailed to us before? Okay. Your
8, Steve made a good point that we' re probably not that technically astute
on runoff . Steve I think made a good point that maybe we should get a
little technical help on it. It does make any different or doesn' t it? I
don ' t know which appropriate group would be Jo Ann but maybe if we could
just get a comment on it. From the north, it ' s going to run right into the
pond . If they say, well if you leave it up an inch or 2 inches , that all
•
AM
II ' "Planning Commission Meeting
June 7, 1989 - Page 8
I
tyou need , that ' s fine but I certainly don' t have that knowledge and I guess
I 'd kind of like to see something worked in where the people technically
knowledgeable on it would comment on it.
I Alan Lenhart: One other comment I have, if you' re there in the spring, you
can tell which way the water runs down through to get to that wetland . It
comes down through and it enters just south of where I have the spoils,
I where I want to put it and it runs halfway across my yard and then down to
the pond so like the runoff is stopped from the hill and the other two
neighbors and stuff , goes across my yard first before it turns and goes
into the wetland anyhow. Then it enters more to the east end of the duck
I pond than anyplace . So a lot of it filters down through my lawn and grass
before it gets there.
IErhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-3 as shown on the site plan
Idated May 8, 1989 subject to the following conditions :
1. The applicant receive a permit and meet any conditions from the DNR,
Watershed District , Corps of Engineers and a grading permit from the
ICity prior to any dredging of the Class A wetland .
2. The applicant shall provide Type II erosion control between the
R: proposed duck pond and Lotus Lake prior to any dredging of the wetland .,..
3. The area between the proposed duck pond and the existing grass yard
(897 contour) shall be allowed to return to it' s natural state.
I4. The disposal site shall be sodded within 10 days of placement . As an
alternative the applicant shall install a method for preventing erosion
1 of spoils within the 10 day period .
5. The applicant shall provide a rock apron at the end of the existing
Idrain pipe in the pond .
6. Dredging shall not occur during breeding or spawning season as
determined by the DNR.
I7. The six recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service shall be met
as follows:
Ia . The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting
Ibirds .
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10 : 1 - 20: 1
for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
Ivegetation as refuge and food for wildlife .
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife
feeding in shallow water (0. 5 - 3. 0 feet) and (b) encourage growth
I
Planning Commission Meeting .I
June 7, 1989 - Page 9
1
of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby
increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation.
d . The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from the existing
wetland being filled) on the bottom on the basin to provide a
suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. The applicant may use
existing muck in the basin if it already exists.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts , riser pipe, '
overflow area, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the
wetland .
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland .
8 . The applicant shall minimize the drainage of fertilizer and chemicals '
into the wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
PUBLIC HEARING: '
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF ONE ACRE OF
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R
AND LOCATED IN SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION, MICHAEL CARMODY.
Public Present:
Name Address '
Bobbie Kussard 7604 South Shore Drive
Judi Podevels 200 South Shore Drive
Eunice Peters 7660 South Shore Drive
Jeanette Lappen 140 South Shore Drive
Judy Schmieg 200 West 77th Street
Michael Carmody Applicant
Paul Struthers Architect for the Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad: Don' t we have a zoning district called PUD? ,
Olsen : That ' s the zoning and this is the Comprehensive Plan .
Conrad: So back in the Comprehensive Plan, that is not carried forth?
That is still broken down into the other categories so a PUD does not over
ride a Comprehensive Plan?
Olsen : What it is is you just want them to be consistent .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
1