12b. Curry Farms Wetland Alternation 4 CITY OF
1 4
f f
CHANHASSEN
er-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 `
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
L/ 70 /A"
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ��\\
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner X ``-' /c 17 r; /
1 DATE: October 16, 1989
1 SUBJ : Curry Farms Ponds ��,
As part of the Curry Farms subdivision, three areas of Class B
wetlands were processed through a Wetland Alteration Permit to
1 allow them to be dredged and used as holding ponds . A Class A
wetland, located at the westerly edge of the property, was pre-
served as part of the Wetland Alteration Permit . The Class B
wetlands had been severely degraded by drainage and subsequent
invasion of upland vegetation. Although the wetlands were of
poor quality, the City still required the applicant to go through
' the Wetland Alteration Permit process to allow the wetlands to be
used as ponding areas . The Wetland Alteration Permit was
approved on May 4 , 1987 with the following conditions :
1 1 ) The class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation
easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high
water mark .
1 2 ) The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the
ponding areas throughout the site and not allow any
alteration to the area .
Since the Class B wetland areas were in such a degraded state,,
they were not required to be treated as a wetland once alteration
had taken place, specifically the 75 foot setback was not
1 required to be maintained from the new edge of the ponding area .
Condition #2 stated that drainage easements were required over
the ponding areas and that any alteration to the areas was not
1 permitted . The intent of the City was to preserve the vegetation
and habitat areas that would grow around the ponding areas .
On Friday, September 29, 1989, Staff visited the Curry Farms
subdivision to confirm reports that residents were considering
removing vegetation from around the ponding areas ( Class B
Wetlands ) . One homeowner had removed vegetation from the
1 westerly ponding area and was placing gravel at the edge to pre-
vent revegetation of the site . Staff spoke with several resi-
dents along the easterly ponding area and stated that vegetation
1 could not be removed without receiving permission from the City.
Upon visiting the site again on Tuesday, October 10, Staff found
that several additional lots around the ponding areas had removed
vegetation . No alteration has occurred adjacent to the Class A
wetland .
IICurry Farms Ponds
Page Two
II
I Some of the residents feel that they had been presented with
misinformation by the City since these areas are not located on
the wetlands map. The wetland map is only used as a prima-facia
II and is not the cities only form of designating wetlands . The
wetland ordinance allows a wetland to be designated if an area
has wetland characteristics (water, soil, and vegetation) . The
ponding areas have taken on qualities of a wetland in that they
I now have open water and are surrounded by cattails . Both the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the DNR have viewed the site and
photographs of the site showing the alteration and agreed that
Ithey have had qualities of a wetland .
Some of the residents around the ponds wish to remove all of the
cattails so that they can see the open water and use the ponding
I area as recreational areas, i .e . skating rinks in the winter .
There are also residents who do not wish to have the vegetation
removed from around the ponds . Removing vegetation from the
II ponding areas is in violation of the Condition of Approval for
the Wetland Alteration Permit for the Curry Farms Subdivision.
The complete removal of vegetation will remove any benefit to
Iwildlife that the ponding areas are currently providing.
Condition #2 of the Curry Farms Wetland Alteration Permit must
be amended before alteration to the ponds can occur . The
11 vegetation that has been removed is in violation of the Wetland
Alteration Permit . The ordinance requires the residents to apply
for a Wetland Alteration Permit to amend Condition #2 of the
current permit . The City has the right to require all altered
areas to be revegetated and to double the application fee . As
has been stated some of the residents feel they have the right
to remove the vegetation and that they are not in violation of
' the ordinance . Staff is bringing this to the City Councils
attention to provide background on this item if residents call
and unless directed otherwise staff will proceed with requiring
Ithe residents to apply for a Wetland Alteration Permit.
I
I
I
II
I
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
4-0,"0,„
{
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 17, 1989
To Curry Farms Residents :
Recently there has been removal of vegetation around ponding
areas within the Curry Farms subdivision (Attachment #1) . These
ponding areas are protected by the City as a condition of appro-
val for a wetland alteration permit for Curry Farms. The ponding
areas were created by enhancing existing low quality Class B
wetlands. The removal of wetland vegetation (cattails ) is a
violation of the wetland alteration permit.
The City' s Wetland Ordinance requires that any alteration of the
wetland be subject to review by the City Council and that no
alteration take place unless a wetland alteration permit has been
approved. The City Council also has ultimate authority to deter-
mine what areas are protected under the Wetland Ordinance.
Since there appears to be a misunderstanding as to what can occur
around the ponding areas, staff will be presenting the issue to
• the City Council on October 23, 1989. Please attend this meeting
if you wish to comment on the item.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
C4,
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
JO:v
P.C ■- - •%922
SPENCER G. KLUEGEL LAW FIRM
MINNETONKA PR)PES.SIONAL CENTER
17809 HUTCHINS DR.
MINNETONKA,MN 55345
ATTORNEYS PHONE (512)474 5988
SPENCER G.KLUEGEL PAX:(812)47441922
VIRGINIA A.WILER October 23, 1989
JOAN E.Lrrhe AHRENS
IILEGAL ASSISTANT
SHARON NELSON
�l Joanne Olson
Planning Dept.
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: !Curry Farms Wetland Areas
,I Dear Ms. Olson:
II We. are residents of Curry Farms Development and live at 6601 Charing
Bend. Behind our home and lcxcated on our property is part of a large wetland
area. We have heard considerable pressure has been brought upon city
�I officials to allow home owners to alter and/or destroy the public wetland
areas located on their property.
We udder-stand certain home owners would rather have a skating rink
located in the wetland area between Devonshire Drive and Arlington Court and
are taking steps to destroy the wetland so their own self-interest may
prevail. We see other neighbors destroying the wetlands to enable them to
accomplish grand landscapingischemes which benefits no One but themselves.
They justify their actions by taking the position that they were unaware of
11 the wetland designation when :they purchased their property and so should be
allowed to destroy the area gust because they want to do so. If these
residents feel they were not fully informed of the existence of the •wetland by
11 the developer then it seems to be a problem best resolved between the home
owners and the developer. The City should not compromise its own ordinances
and the interest of the community as a whole because a few homeowners fail to
(' properly investigate the property they were purchasing for features with which
they now feel they can't live. I do not think it is clear to these homeowners
that the wetland area on their property is not for their exclusive use but is
a benefit to the public as a whole - that is why the City and State have
jurisdiction over these areas and not individual homeowners.
I , These people do not speak for the many residents who would like to see
and who will fight to see these areas preserved. Over 85% of the wetlands in
Minnesota are already gone forever due to uncontrollable greed and
I environmental destruction by;people desiring to exercise their individual
rights at the expense of the:community as a whole. I don't think Chanhassen
11 needs to follow such dismal ,recedence. Once it is gone, it is gone.... and
so are the birds, wildlife atd beauty that make this such a nice place to
live.
Joanne Olson
October 23, 1989
Page 2
I
We feel the City of Chanhassen has not only an ethical duty to protect
such areas from destruction but also a legal duty as required by countless
local, state and federal rules and regulations. If not many people who share
our opinion show up at the City Council meeting tonight, it is probably
because they assume their elected officials will be looking out for the best ' I
interests of the majority of residents and not folding to the special 1
interests of a few.
We request that all demands concerning destruction or alteration of our I
wetlands in Curry Farms be denied and those individual homeowners who have
already taken it upon themselves to destroy wetlands on their property be
required to revegitate and restore the area.
There are many of us paying close attention to the actions of the City , I i
Council tonight.
Very truly you s, I
—.P !1 I
Doug and Joan rens
I
I
I
I '
If
Or
ItP.0 0922
1 SPENCER G. KLUEGEL LAW FIRM
MINNETONKA PROFESSIONAL CENTER
1 17809 HUTCHINS DR.
MINNL"PONKA,MN 55345
PHONE (612)474-5828
ATTUNE= ! FAX (612)474.0022
SPENCER G.KLUEGEL
VmG1NIA A.7 R October 23, 1989
JOAN E.LITTLE AHRENS
1 LEGAT.ASSISTANT
SHARON NELSON
Joanne Olson
Planning Dept.
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
Re: Curry Farms Wetland Areas
IDear Ms. Olson:
1 We are residents of Curry Farms Development and live at 6601 Charing
Bend. Behind our home and loicated on our property is part of a large wetland
area. We have heard considerable pressure has been brought upon city
1 officials to allow home owners to alter and/or destroy the public wetland
areas located on their property.
We understand certain home owners would rather have a skating rink
located in the wetland area between Devonshire Drive and Arlington Court and
are taking steps to destroy tihe wetland so their own self—interest may
prevail. We see other neighbors destroying the wetlands to enable them to
accomplish grand landscaping ;schemes which benefits no one but themselves.
They justify their actions by taking the position that they were unaware of
jl the wetland designation when they purchased their property and so should be
allowed to destroy the area lust because they want to do so. If these
residents feel they were notlfull.y informed of the existence of the wetland by
the developer then it seems to be a problem best resolved between the home
owners and the developer. The City should not compromise its own ordinances
and the interest of the community as a whole because a few homeowners fail to
tproperly investigate the property they were purchasing for features with which
they now feel they can't live. I do not think it is clear to these homeowners
that the wetland area on their property is not for their exclusive use but is
1
a benefit to the public as a ;whole — that is why the City and State have
jurisdiction over these areas and not individual homeowners.
11 i These people do not speak for the many residents who would like to see
and who will fight to see these areas preserved. Over 857. of the wetlands in
I I Minnesota are already gone forever due to uncontrollable greed and
environmental destruction by;people desiring to exercise their individual
rights at the expense of the,community as a whole. I don't think Chanhassen
11 needs to follow such dismal ,recedence. Once it is gone, it is gone.... and
so are the birds, wildlife aid beauty that make this such a nice place to
live. '
Joanne Olson
October 23, 1989
Page 2
We feel the City of Chanhassen has not only an ethical duty to protect
such areas from destruction but also a legal duty as required by countless
local, state and federal rules and regulations. If not many people who share
our opinion show up at the City Council meeting tonight, it is probably
because they assume their elected officials will be looking out for the best
interests of the majority of residents and not folding to the special
interests of a few.
We request that all demands concerning destruction or alteration of our
wetlands in Curry Farms be denied and those individual homeowners who have
al ready taken it upon themselves to destroy wetlands on their property be
required to revegitate and restore the area.
There are many of us paying close attention to the actions of the City
Council tonight.
Very truly you s,
7 !!!
Doug and Joan rens
I �
I/
P.0' 922
SPENCER G. KLUEGEL LAW FIRM
MINNETONKA FROF' S,SIONAL CENTER
' 17s09 HUTCHINS DR.
MINNETONKA,MN 55345
ATTORNEYS PHONE (812)4713888
SPENOEft G.KLUEGEL FAX:(612)4744622
viRGIN1A A.ZELLER October 23, 1989
JOAN E.LITTLE AHRENS �
' LEGAL ASSISTANT'
SHARON NELSON
Joanne Olson
Planning Dept.
City of Chanhassen
IIChanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Curry Farms Wetland Areas
Dear Ms. Olson:
' We are residents of Curry Farms Development and live at 6601 Charing
Send. Behind our home and lc'cated on our property is part of a large wetland
area. We have heard considerable pressure has been brought upon city
officials to allow home owners to alter and/or destroy the public wetland
areas located on their property.
' We understand certain hqme owners would rather have a skating rink
located in the wetland area between Devonshire Drive and Arlington Court and
are taking steps to destroy tJhe wetland so their own self-interest may
' prevail. We see other neighbors destroying the wetlands to enable them to
accomplish grand landscaping schemes which benefits no one but themselves.
They justify their actions by taking the position that they were unaware of
the wetland designation when they purchased their property and so should be
allowed to destroy the area just because they want to do so. If these
' residents feel they were not fully informed of the existence of the wetland by
the developer then it seems Co be a problem best resolved between the home
owners and the developer. The City should not compromise its own ordinances
and the interest of the community as a whole because a few homeowners fail to
properly investigate the property they were purchasing for features with which
they now feel they can't live. I do not think it is clear to these homeowners
that the wetland area on their property is not for their exclusive use but is
t a benefit to the public as aiwhole - that is why the City and State have
jurisdiction over these areas and not individual homeowners.
These people do not speak for the many residents who would like to see
and who will fight to see these areas preserved. Over 85% of the wetlands in
' Minnesota are already gone f4+rever due to uncontrollable greed and
environmental destruction by;people desiring to exercise their individual
rights at the expense of the community as a whole. I don't think Chanhassen
needs to follow such dismal precedence. Once it is gone, it is gone. . .. and
so are the birds, wildlife aid beauty that make this such a nice place to
live.
I
Joanne Olson
October 23, 1989
Page 2
I
We feel the City of Chanhassen has not only an ethical duty to protect
such areas from destruction but also a legal duty as required by countless
local, state and federal rules and regulations. If not many people who share
our opinion show up at the City Council meeting tonight, it is probably
because they assume their elected officials will be looking out for the best
interests of the majority of residents and not folding to the special
interests of a few.
We request that all demands concerning destruction or alteration of our
wetlands in Curry Farms be denied and those individual homeowners who have
already taken it upon themselves to destroy wetlands on their property be
required to revegitate and restore the area.
There are many of us paying close attention to the actions of the City
Council tonight.
Very truly you s, I
TP!4.1
Doug and Joan rens 11
1/
I
I
66{
1
I