4. Reconsideration of Wetland Permit for Filling in portion Class A Wetland, SW Corner of Kings Rd & Minnewashta Pkwy I q
1
CITY OF
4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O.FOX2147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 1 (612) 937-1900
` ct c1 t..q City - -
' MEMORANDUM
mod i
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
' FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner oat, 7/24/..�F_>.—_
Date 4 rt_ to i.J:T∎i fission
DATE: August 23, 1989 .
1 De:,2 S:,:r.,rt:d to l.JilfiCll
SUBJ: Reconsideration of Wetland Alteration Permit for 42'/2 -_
Daryl Kirt
On August 14, 1989 , the City Council approved the request to
reconsider the wetland alteration permit request for filling a
portion of a Class A wetland on the southwest corner of Kings
' Road and Minnewashta Parkway for Daryl and Debra Kirt (Attachment
#2) . The City Council directed staff to again research the issue
and determine whether the proposed wetland alteration would be
1 detrimental or beneficial to the wetland and how to ensure that
the alteration would be beneficial to the wetland. The City
Council further directed staff to draft findings of fact which
would provide reasoning for approving the wetland alteration per-
mit and differentiate it from future requests to fill wetlands .
The proposed partial filling of the wetland will be defining the
1 boundary of the wetland and will prevent the existing erosion of
the wetland edge. The planting of native vegetation will provide
wildlife habitat. Therefore, staff is comfortable in recom-
mending approval of the wetland alteration permit in that it
could be shown that the proposed partial filling of the wetland
is a benefit to the wetland.
1 Attached please find the findings of fact to be adopted as part
of the approval for the wetland alteration permit.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration
Permit #89-6 and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact
with the following conditions :
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the
1 site plan.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Cofps
of Engineers .
I
II
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 23, 1989
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS '
1. Findings of Fact.
2 . City Council minutes dated August 14 , 1989.
3 . Staff report.
1
U
I
1
1
1
1/
1 r
LAw OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAvio L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 PROFESIUNAI.AS50CIATION
TELE(oPIER:
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 _ PosT OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
1 403 NORWEST HANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
VANCE B GRANNIS MICHAEL MAYER
VANCE B GRANNIS,JR,* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
PATRICK A. FAaRF.Iy SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55073
DAVru L.GRANNIS, III
-
1 ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)'f 55.1661
DAVID L. HARt�4EreR
+ALu1 AnunTSO To
1 PM�Ticx WLCON$1N August 22, 1989
1 Ms. Jo Arm Olsen
Chanhassen City Hal],
1 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
1 RE: Application of Daryl and Debra Kirt
for a Wetland Alteration Permit
Dear Jo Ann:
Enclosed please find the Findings of Fact and Decision you
requested concerning the above application.
1 Very truly yours,
GRANNI - - - . NIS, FARRELL
UTS0. , P.A.
1 Roger -N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
1
1
i
1
1
1
i_! d IAI d I "VW Z ,_ III 1'i t I I I d S • 0 6
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA I
IN RE:
Application of Daryl Kirt and Debra FINDINGS ,
4F FACT
Kirt for a Wetland Alteration Permit AND DECISION
On July 5, 1989, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met ,
at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of
Daryl Kirt and Debra Kirt for a wetland Alteration Permit. The 1
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
use preceded by published and mailed notice, and recommended
approval of the permit. Based upon the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the testimony presented, and all the written
evidence on file, the City Council now makes the following: I
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. '
2 . Section 20-421 of the Chanhassen City Code requires a
wetland alteration permit for filling a wetland.
3. The applicants are proposing to fill a small area in
the northeast corner of the Class A wetland on their lot to
create a back yard. The area of wetland proposed to be filled is
of poor quality in which filling over the past years has already
occurred. The better quality portion of the wetland is located
south of the area that is proposed to be filled.
4. The wetland area proposed to be filled
degraded state.
�� d I'' ;3 Id ':': ^I = 11.11I ? +' I'';I d 9 S : '_ 0 f=, 9 ';_ _ ' U I/
II
5. The proposed partial filling of the wetland will
better define the edge of the wetland and reduce erosion of the
' wetland edge.
6. The revegetation of the wetland edge with native
' vegetation will further reduce existing erosion of the edge and
will provide habitation for wildlife.
7. The proposed partial filling of the wetland will be
' an improvement to existing conditions.
8. The planning report dated July 24, 1989, is
' incorporated herein.
DECISION
' The wetland alteration permit is hereby approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown
on the site plan.
2 . The applicants shall receive a permit from the DNR
and the Corps of Engineers.
3 . Any filling shall not cause total natural flood
storage capacity of the wetland to fall below or fall below
further the projected volume of runoff from the watershed
generated by a 5.9 inch rainfall in twenty-four (24) hours. Since
the total amount of filling which can be permitted is limited
apportionment of fill opportunities for other properties abutting
the wetland shall be considered.
4 . Any filling shall not cause total nutrient stripping
capacity of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is
detrimental to any area river, lake, or stream.
5. Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic
waste may be used.
6. Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the
impact on vegetation.
1 7. Filling the wetland areas will not be p ermitted
during water fowl breeding or fish spawning season unless it is
determined by the City that the wetland is not used for water
fowl breeding or fish spawning.
' -2-
11 i] I°I,3 I •i :''''4 Z :- I l'I l I'. ' } I,;T d 9 S 6
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen
this day of 1989.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN '
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
1
1
I
1
I
-3-
i_] 0 1 PI�? I ,� I -E) p ,3 t1 i.' - _� -.
1� 4 .1 I .� 1)/),V L _ � r�I i�I'. '3 _ ► I�I'j ,� � � 0 !� _ _ _ •8 c
�Y 1
City Council Feting - August 14, 1989
11 ay
Councilman Johnson:
Controls don't either but I think that's what a zoning
II ordinance is for. That's why we have a zoning
or whatever is to have a vision of what the tordinance that's 50-60 pages long
to be. I'm not sure if very many neighborhoods want,swithin the tneighborhoodtng e City's
business district next to them a convenience store-with gas pumps. I know if
II you ask the next door neighbors to any convenience store with gas pumps what
they think of it, they would prefer not to have it next door to them.
II Councilman Workman: I wouldn't be as harsh with a non-compatible use. What I'm
saying is we should be careful about settin a
to come down and there's going to ng g precedence. The Legion's going
let's sa be an SA or something maybe going up there
I say. Now all the traffic heading towards Minneapolis in the morning might
use that instead of Sinclair. Long time business here. We could say well, we
would like to protect Sinclair and don't put anything there. That's where I'm
saying we're getting into trouble. Non-compatible uses take right behind
I Brooke's and we've got a problem right there with fumes, etc.. I don't have
problems with that.
Councilman Johnson: But see, that's what I want them to look at.
II that we should be looking at saying oh we're trying I don't think
businesses by not doing this. y !� to protect our existing
g That is not the point of the zoning ordinance...
I Councilman Workman: I thought there was a little flavor of that in the Amoco
situation.
II Councilman Johnson: Yes. There was a little flavor of that in the Amoco
situation by former members of the Council but that was not my purpose of voting
for that. I don't think that was Bill 's purpose. I don't think that was gale's
purpose and I don't think that was Clark's purpose. But I won't say who I think
I who's purpose it might have you
that been. But I don' t think that that flavor, th y
heard... i
IICouncilman Workman: No, I wasn't accusing you Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think that was a council wide flavor. Let's
II that way. put it
Mayor Qimiel: There's been a motion to table. Is there a second?
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Second.
II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment modifying zoning- restrictions
convenience stores, � �strictions and locations for
gas stations and automotive service stations. All voted in
IIfavor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR RDCONSIDERATION OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, KINGS ROAD AND
II MINNE: A- SHT'1 PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
•
Datvl Kitt: we feel that the amount of fill that we're putting in is very, veto
IIsmall and it will actually improve the wetland we're putting it on. We just
II 26
city Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 II
feel that behind the house we're looking to build, it would define the wetland I
area if we put in the fill we're asking for, we'd actually define where the
wetland is and where the yard would be and I think we'd also help with erosion
if we had that there during rains or whatever. Having the extra soil and we're
II
going to leave it for natural vegetation. It would actually stop water. from
running into the wetland area so we think it's more of an improvement than
anything else and it would also make the site look .pretty where the house would
be to have somewhat of a defined area behind the house. I think by having it
II
there too, the vegetation that would grow, we're going to leave it natural,
would prevent the erosion and from going into the wetland area and we just feel
that it would make the building much prettier and more useable for us if we
II
could do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Jo Ann, would you like to address this? I
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting the Council to vote for a
reconsideration to bring it back onto a Council agenda. He was not at the last
Council meeting and did not get a chance to speak at that time so we allowed him
II
or suggested that he bring it back onto the agenda and also to try to support
that it would be an improvement to the wetland and not detrimental to the
wetland and allow him to support that. '
Councilwoman Dimler: It's my understanding that we have to have a four-fifths
vote to open this for reconsideration to begin with?
II
Don Ashworth: No. The three-fifths vote for.. .
ILCouncilwanan Dimler: I thought it was four-fifths. I
Don Ashworth: Three-fifths to vote for reconsideration. If you would then want
to turn around and waive your procedure where you would normally publish the
II
item, put it on the next agenda, that's your normal procedure but if you wanted
to skip that, you could do that with a four-fifths vote and act on both
reconsideration and issuing the permit. Reconsideration three-fifths. Taking
action tonight on the permit itself four-fifths.
II
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're looking for two motions?
Don Ashworth: If you wanted to do it tonight. II
Councilwoman Dimler: Either. way. I
Don Ashworth: The applicant would like to build his home and he'd like to move
on this.
Councilman Johnson: Ie can build his home. II
Councilwoman Dimler: He has permission to build his home.
II
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: I hate to say this but I messed up earlier on this because 1
I thougnt I knew that site until I went out there. My memory failed me orr this
one when it first came through. I didn' t realize how much forest was the'.e and
II
27
11
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989 GY
II '
II the fact that this is going to clear cut that whole corner.
went by me before. I think leave well enough alone from all the ttree pprotection \\\SS;
work that's been going on lately. - Were talking about taking out a bunch of 12
I tto 14 inches and 6 and 7 inch. From the grading, there's hot going to be any
rees left out there. any
Councilman Workman: Are we reconsidering? -
ICouncilman Johnson: I'm h saying leave well enough al
up once. 9 one where I already messed
ICouncilman Workman: Why don't we vote to reconsider.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I make a motion that we reconsider.
Councilman Workman: Second.
ICouncilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reconsider
for a Wetland Alteration Permit for Daryl Kirt at King's Road and Min ewashtaest
Parkway. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who voted in opposition
II and the motion carried 4 to 1.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Now, because we are reconsidering, I do have one major
concern.
II COuncilman Johnson: Reconsideration will have to have another vote if we're
going to reconsider tonight.
-
Councilwoman Dimler: This is not approving it. We're just opening it up for
I reconsideration.
Councilman Johnson: By that vote we do it at the next meeting unless we now
I have a motion to waive our procedures and do it tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we can still discuss it after the vote can't we?
IIMayor Chtniel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want this to set a precedent for other cases and
I as was pointed out, the differentiation may be ver
So with that motion to r_econside - Y. very hard to accomplish.
reconsider, I would like to ask staff to do some findings
of facts for 'is and bring that to our next meti
IIvote. Our actual vote of whether we will allow this11or notch might base out we
Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest a few of those.
Council has pretty generally I think that the
' y approved alterations that have moved to improve the
wetland itself and disapproved any that haven't.
applicant and staff also need to I think that what the
to be clearly established as unique on,. not only, I agzee with you, this needs
I tome clearly
needs to happen so we stay away from precedent. The other.
ppen though is that the applicant needs to come back w,i,th
definite improvements to the wetland. I world suggest
IIagain of Fish and Wildlife, that one of those cti a is improving ovinghwildlifeez1a
28
II
City Council Meeting - August 14, 1989
areas per se. Feeding and resting areas for birds. This kind of thing. I I
think as part of the alteration there should be commitments to planting approved
vegetation along the wetland edge. I think there should be some sort of
commitment to maybe improving some area for other wildlife and we should
II
generally come back with a statement of not wetland alteration but wetland
• improvement. That the whole thing ought to be phrased in that stance.
r how I'm going to improve the wetland out my back door. This is II
chance. Jay, I guess I will plead unfortunate ignorance about thencuttinggoof a
hardwoods, if we're dealing with that. The City has a moratorium against the
cutting of hardwoods so I suspect the won't be able to do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Latex on it's addressed II moratorium. essed there. We don't have a
Councilman Boyt: There happens to be one right now. -- II
Councilman Johnson: No. It wasn't properly notified and everything else. I
There is no moratorium.
Mayor Ch oriel: I've not reviewed the site. What is there Jay? What kind nd of
II
Councilman Workman: It's very difficult. I drove by it today and dressed
am, there's no way I was going through there. as I
II
Councilman Johnson: Yes. There's no way
wetlands. It's an overgrown area with anything fromg11in inch 12 or so i inch
I- trees in it. II
Mayor Chmiel: What species?
Councilman Johnson: I did not s I
Councilman meeting Johnson:
evening. speciate the trees. As you know, I was late the
ng. That was one of the reasons for it. It's a whole
variety. I'm sure there are some willows and soft woods in there because it's II
basically a high spot on the end of a swamp.
habitat, we've already approved a tremendos loss fof habitat and I wildlife
there was a whole lot of ways around that for that little bit of area. To put a
house on it and make it a useable, it's a lot of record and everything and we II
can't have the taking there but whatever we can save, I would like to see,
anything that comes back, I want to see what the limits of the clear cutting are
II and how that's affecting into here. Whether the trees are within this area.
Also they want to put a yard into.
Councilwoman Dimler: Wouldn't that all be covered under findings of facts for II
them to bring back to 'is next time?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
or Ghmiel: Findings of facts of all the ones I I had 9 of them.
that were mentioned and at
ICouncilwoman Dimler: And anything else you can come yip with. II
L
II
29 II
City Council �� eting - August 14, 1989 ('`
C.Y
II
' Mayor Chmiel : That list of total numbers should be also given to Daryl so he's
aware as to what we're looking at. -
' Councilman Johnson: Now is that required to do a little fill under that wetland
in order to save some of the woodland wildlife habitat that's in that corner.
That would be a trade off. In that area there's a very large portion of wetland
habitat and limited woodland habitat. I'm not sure-what percent of that
woodland is going to be taken by the house and the garage. Fairly substantial.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any further discussion? If not, I don't think a motion is
' required on this is it Roger?
Councilman Boyt: Inb already did it.
1
Mayor Chmiel: So this will be back on the Council agenda on the 28th.
Jo Ann Olsen: I'll try to get it back on that. What you're asking is a lot of
' information that has to be supplied and then verified.
Mayor_ Oriel: The problem is, if he's proceeding with building, we'd like to
' keep it moving.
Jo Ann Olsen: The house can still go ahead. It's just the filling.
' Councilman Johnson: What he does with the dirt from building the foundation is
a problem.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
[_
' DISCUSSION OF SUPERAMERICA SIGN, HIGHWAYS 7 AND 41.
Jo Ann Olsen: The reason this was brought in front of the Council was that it
was brought to staff's attention after the Super_America site was built, the
' store, that they had a lit canopy and the stripe around the building. It's
always been staff's understanding that that would not be illuminated. In
speaking with the applicant, they felt that it had always been clear that that
' would be illuminated and it was just a misunderstanding. Because I had thought
that it wasn't going to be illuminated, it was never brought out as a specific
condition so there was nothing in the conditional use permit or site plan review
that I could point out that did not allow it. There is a condition that stated
' that the canopy would not have signage. It's questionable whether or not that
illuminated stripe is signage so the applicant, I allowed them to have the
occupancy permit on the condition that I would be bringing this back up to the
' Council for them to review it and that would be with their understanding that
the illumination could possibly be tanoved. So we are bringing it up to the
Council for them to review it. The applicant on Friday has stated that they
' will turn off the lights until the HSZ site is constructed or berming or
whatever occurs on the site which would screen the lights from the residents and
then possibly be able to turn them back on to see if it would be an impact
have the Council make a decision at that time. They and
off the lights adjacent to the residential neighborhood.Y ate agreeing all tf just them.turn
the ones along TH 41 and TH 7. So I still wanted the Council tol review t just
so the applicant has cleat direction what they want to allow happen and what
30
11
CITYOF
f,--k A C HANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612)937-1900
Action by `%!'y ^; ;,..
MEMORANDUM Endorse' t/
"Aodificd _ 1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Cz.. _AE'`
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 62)c)
DATE: August 9 , 1989
SUBJ: Wetland Alteration Permit for Daryl Kirt
Staff had been contacted by the applicant, Daryl Kirt, requesting 1
that the City Council reconsider the wetland alteration permit
for the partial filling of the wetland on his lot. The applicant
was not in attendance of the City Council meeting and wishes to
be able to speak to the Council in regards to his application for
the wetland alteration permit.
The applicant is requesting that the City Council approve a vote 1
to reconsider the item at the next City Council meeting (August
28, 1989) . 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated August 2 , 1989 . 1
2 . City Council minutes dated July 24, 1989.
3 . Excerpt from City Council by-laws .
1
Manager ' s Comments : Mr. Kirt would like to show the City Council
the area proposed to be filled. The area represents a poor
quality wetland with the primary wetland being of significant
distance from the proposed home. I recognize that the Council is
concerned with establishing precedents . However, the proposed
amount of fill provides for a minimal back yard and repreesnts
less than of the dirt that is typically excavated for a single
family house.
If the Council were to reconsider and approve the permit (a
waiver of Council Procedures would be required for approving the
permit, i .e. a 4/5ths affirmative vote) , reasons for doing such
should be stated. Reasons could include:
- The parcel was created prior to establishment of the
wetland ordinance;
- Denial of use could be interpretted as depriving all use;
C
Manager ' s Comments
August 10, 1989
I Page 2
I - The parcel is 95% wetland - a large portion of which being
a Class A wetland. The alteration being proposed
represents disturbing less than 1% of the parcel and that
portion represents the lowest quality portion of the
II wetland (Class B) .
r
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
_ 1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 1
August 2, 1989
1
Mr. Daryl Kirt
P.O. Box 692
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Daryl: 1
I have been trying to reach you since your first phone call on
Monday, July 31, 1989 . Since I have not been able to reach you
by phone, I am instead sending you this letter to try to answer
what I believe are some of your concerns. It is my understanding
that you did not understand the wetland alteration permit process
and did not know that your item was on the last City Council
agenda (July 19, 1989) . As I explained to you and Debra, there
were two processes that you had to follow for the development of
your single family home. The first would be to receive a
variance to the 75 foot wetland setback and the second was to
receive a wetland alteration permit for development within 200
feet and partial filling of a Class A wetland. The variance is
heard only in front of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and
City Council. The wetland alteration permit is reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council . It was my understanding
that you wished to receive the variance first so that you could
apply for the building permit as soon as possible and start
construction this fall.
The Board of Adjustments and City Council approved the variance
to the wetland setback to allow you to construct your single
family residence within 75 feet of the wetland setback. The City
Council did not approve the wetland alteration permit to allow
you to fill a portion of the wetland, but they did approve deve-
lopment within 200 feet of the Class A wetland so that you could
still construct your house. The report for the wetland altera-
tion permit stated the date of the Planning Commission meeting
and City Council meeting on the front of the report. Also, at
the Planning Commission meeting it was announced when your item
would be heard in front of the City Council. The City Council
report and an agenda are sent out to the applicant prior to the
City Council meeting and you should have received this in the
mail. I apologize if you did not understand that the wetland
alteration permit would still be heard in front of the City .^°
Council after the Planning Commission meeting.
I
I �
Mr. Daryl Kirt
August 2 , 1989
Page 2
Please try to contact me should you still have q uestions and I
will continue to try to reach you by phone.
Sincerely,
' Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
' JO:v
cc: Don Ashworth
1
1
1
1
1
1
tif
1
1
1
1
1 -
1
City Council Meeting - Jul ?4, 1989
II
B. LAKE RILEY WOODS 2ND ADDITION, GEORGE NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, (2) APPROVE
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Councilwoman Dimler: This is just a real short item. I brought up this concern
before and that is about this school bus situation on that road. Some of the
residents have a real concern about the children having to go out to 14 to catch 11 the bus and I know the future phase there, eventually that road is going to go
through but Gary, do you know is that land right-of-way or is that years down
the line?
Gary Warren: The connection of Foxboro on the east end is a part of the
County's current project that's under construction right now so that should be
completed this year. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but there's a cul-de-sac shown there.
Gary Warren: Right. There was a temporary cul-de-sac that was required by the 1
Council until such time as the County road project realignment was completed or
we had a time deadline in there but the County road plans and specifications do
include the completion of that connection to CR 17 on the east end. '
Councilwoman Dimler: So you think that will kind of happen concurrently or will
there be a large time lapse? '
Gary Warren: It should be done this construction season.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then the school bus will just go in and out? ,
Gary Warren: I don't schedule the school buses but I would presume...
Councilwoman Dimler: But that would be the logical thing?
Gary Warren: Yes. '
Councilman Workman: Gary, is that going to be another Teton Lane? Are we going
to be able to open that?
Gary Warren: It will be built to City standards and full section. It will be
open when their construction is done.
Council Dimler
woman D r moved, Councilman Worlanan seconded to approve plans and
specifications for Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
G. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND, '
1 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
Councilman Boyt: I talked to Jo Ann about this earlier today. I had some
concerns and I guess the easiest way to focus the concerns is, since I drive
down TH 101 a couple times almost every day, I've spent a lot of time looking at
that marsh as it's been filled in by houses. A previous Council did that,
approved that quite some time ago is my understanding but what I'm concerned
2
City Council Meeting - 1' y 24, 1989
. about is that when we allow wetland alteration r_mi_ts it's pe t s really because one,
no other choice. Two, I think we have a past record of trying to improve
wetlands when we alter them rather than just alter them. This one doesn't, I
gather, lend itself to improving but I'm concerned that all of this is a fairly
small portion. What's to stop someone else from building their house on a Class
= A wetland and wanting to fill in so they have a back yard? It's the principle
that concerns me. This is a wetland alteration permit to fill in about 400
feet, not in length or anything but 400 square feet of a Class A wetland and I
don't think it should be approved as my understanding of it.
' -Mayor Chmiel: Do we have any discussion?
' --- Councilman Johnson: Didn't we go through this once before?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I think we did.
' __ Councilman Boyt: We went through a variance request and we gave the variance
- because the people certainly needed to be able to build their house there.
- - Building your house on the edge of a wetland and then having the City give you
' the opportunity to fill in that wetland for a back yard I think are two
different issues.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there any additional room on that property? If they wanted to
fill a portion, is that a full portion of the back yard you're saying?
Councilman Boyt: Well they're asking for a fairly small.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes, put that up would you Jo Ann.
' Jo Ann Olsen: This is the edge of the wetland and this is what they're
proposing to fill. This small portion. The wetland is 6 acres attached to Lake
St. Joe. The question that they're recommending, they're proposing to fill has
already had some filling and is poor quality so they did not feel it was really
detrimental or harmful to the wetland what they were proposing to fill. The
_ applicant has worked, in going through the variance, you can see that they've
tried to meet all the setbacks and keep it as far away from the wetland as
' possible. They designed a narrower house so they would not impact it as much.
The Planning Commission also brought out the concern was it really necessary?
-What were we getting in return for allowing the wetland alteration permit and
I guess it's really, the answer is we're just being reasonable I guess. They
worked closely with us to try to not alter it. We worked with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the DNR and the Corps and they did not feel that this was
' -,harmful. It's such a very, very small portion of the wetland. I guess the
concern is what will we do for the next wetland...and differentiate between the
two. I feel confident that we can.
' Mayor Chmiel: Differentiating, as you just say Jo Ann, if another individual
came in and had a total of 6 acres as well, they wanted to fill in just a
portion. They accommodated their house to the particular site-, what would be
your position on that?
Jo Ann Olsen: That would be almost the same case as this one. When we review
these, we use the standards of the ordinance and then we also look to see what
the existing conditions are and what we actually have on the site with the
3
City Council Meeting - Jul: 24, 1989 II
11
proposal. This was not felt that this would be...to the wetland. I guess I
don't have a concrete explanation. I guess if they don't necessarily have to
have it, if you have the house, it could be denied and they could still have a
house there.
Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, you mentioned that that edge of the wetland was
not, what? High quality?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's more like kind of a drainage area that has been in the past
been, there were some concrete pieces back in there. They were going to be
taking that out. Cleaning it up. Filling it and preserving the edge there.
When we visited the site with the Fish and Wildlife and we looked at that area,
he said yes you could definitely fill in and make the curve because right now it
kind of came out and that's where...
Councilwoman Dimler: Is it your feeling that filling it in would improve it? I
Jo Ann Olsen: I can't say that it's going to improve it. I don't feel it will
be detrimental though. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to say that I agree with Bill on the
Colonial Grove one. Every time I drive by there I just get angry that that was
allowed and I know that we both met on Easter_ Sunday with some neighbors there
that are getting all the runoff problems so I don't want to set a precedent by
filling in wetlands and allowing that to happen ever again. I think we've wised
up and we should... ,
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that whether it's 6 1/2 acres or a half an
acre makes no difference. That when people buy land next to a wetland, that's
what they're buying. There are restraints on that. To say that, if Jo Ann or
the DNR or anyone of those groups would say this isn't a wetland. What they're
filling in isn't a wetland, then I wouldn't have any problem with this at all.
But when they define it as a wetland and when they define it as a Class A
wetland which happens to be the highest class we have, then when we start
issuing alteration permits, I think we have to be very careful. Roger can
correct me but I don't think the Court's very sympathetic to saying well, you
know we want this one but we don't want that one. Roger?
Roger Knutson: I think you summed it up. You have to treat similarly situated
people similarly and the hard part is making those differentiations. You have
to have good reasons for what you're doing but if you have them and you can
articulate them and distinguish one situation from another, you're okay but if
you can't articulate that distinction, someone else will try to lump them
together for you. Saying if you gave one you have to give the other.
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to approve the permit because without the
permit, they can't build a house either because it's also a variance of 75 foot
setback I believe.
Jo Ann Olsen: They got that. '
Councilman Boyt: They had that.
4
City Council Meeting - y 24, 1989
Jo Ann Olsen: Technically they do need a wetland alteration
permit for the
alteration within 200 feet of a Class A wetland.
ICouncilman Johnson: Which building a house is alteration so they have to have
it to build the house?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. And I didn't separate the two.
Councilman Johnson: So there's two issues within this. Is to build the house,
' one and to fill, two. I'd be for saying that approve it for building the house
and within the fill area, we'll approve it for removing concrete and cleaning up
the area of the wetland but not necessarily filling that area. In other wards,
if there's piles of concrete and stuff back there, I have no problem with them
going into the wetland and making those types of alterations for the wetland as
an improvement but not elimination of the wetland.
' Mayor Chmiel: Not filling it in?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I don't think you need a permit to go out and remove
concrete from a wetland.
Councilman Boyt: Well I have no trouble with the alteration so they can build
' their house. That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? If the applicant is here, are Daryl and
Debra Kirt here?
Councilman Johnson: I don't see them.
' Councilman Workman: How much of the wetland we're coming back? You say about 6
feet they're going to fill Jo Ann?
' Jo Ann Olsen: 6 feet? This area right there.
Councilman Boyt: The area in red is basically what they're filling.
' Councilman Workman: And they basically just want that for a larger yard?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's just so they can flatten it out behind the yard and it
' doesn't go straight into the wetland. What they're doing is pushing back the
edge of the wetland so they're not right on top of it. What would happen is the
filling right now, their house will be right above the edge of the wetland here.
' We're just giving them some more area. They're not going to be, they're going
to be revegetating it with natural wild flowers and things like that. It's not
going to manicured lawn up to there.
' Councilman Workman: Jo Ann, where does the DNR and Fish and Wildlife Service
get off on this where we're not?
Councilman Boyt: We have a more stringent code than they do.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife doesn't have any jurisdiction. We just use
them as our sounding board.
' 5
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1989
Councilman Workman: What about DNR?
Jo Ann Olsen: DNR, they only protect very large wetlands. The Corps, you can
[ii
get a nationwide filling permit for less than 1 acre. Again, if it's a
protected wetland by them.
Councilman Workman: Roger, are we going to be denying these people any kind of '
useage?
Roger Knutson: If you give them the house. I mean if you didn't give them the '
house then I think yes, definitely. I've not seen the site but if they have a
reasonable place to put a house, I guess you're not involved in taking issues.
Councilman Workman: When this first came up I asked the question, Jo Ann if you ,
remember, if somebody owns a swamp can they fill in to build on it if it's a lot
because I was looking for a little bit of justification. When it comes to
wetlands, I think I'm not afraid to be a hard liner on it and if the rest of the
Council feels that protecting the Class A wetland is better than giving somebody
an extended yard, I'd be for it.
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann are they having, I noticed the entire area is going
to be filled. The upland area and the wetland area. There's almost nothing on
here not being filled. Is that all just from the excavation of the house or do
you know if they plan on bringing fill in?
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know that answer. I don't know if it's going to be a
basement. It's pretty wet there. Wet soils. '
Mayor Chmiel: It's probably on grade.
Councilman Boyt: Are we ready for a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I've just got one more question. How far above the
ordinary high water mark does the basement have to be?
Gary Warren: The first floor needs to be 2 feet above.
Councilman Johnson: 2 feet? So if they do a basement, it has to be 947 and the
base of the house is 951. That's pretty short.
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't believe that they are going to have a basement.
Gary Warren: First floor has to be 2 feet above.
Mayor Chmiel: And they would be within it. Any other discussion? Hearing
none, is there a motion?
Councilman Boyt: I would move denial of the specific part of the wetland
alteration permit that was, I would move denial of the wetland alteration permit
so that it would prevent the filling the Class A wetland and allow the building
of the house.
6
' ,City Council Meeting - r-y 24, 1989
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded denial of Wetland Alteration
Permit #89-6 so that it would prevent the filling the Class A wetland and allow
the building of the house. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
K. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
' Councilwoman Dimler: The Council Minutes on page 60.
Councilman Boyt: We've only got 58.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well it was towards the end of the meeting.
Councilman Boyt: 60, I got 60.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. At the bottom of the page there, I made a comment.
I said, do you have Minutes of that meeting. I don't remember being there. I'd
just like the record to show and it refers back to Don Ashworth's comment 6
lines up where he says, if I recall Tan and Ursula were comfortable with what
Karen was preparing. I'd just like to state that I wasn't there and I'd like
' the record to show that. That was on June 5th and I was at my son's 8th grade
graduation from St. Hubert's School. I don't want anybody to read this in
future days and think that I was confused as to where I was.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If none, would you like to make a motion?
' Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of
the City Council meeting dated July 10, 1989 as amended by Councilwoman Dimler
and the Planning Commission Minutes dated July 5, 1989. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: We might want to discuss a practice that we followed on the
last Council that might be helpful in these matters. Previous Council, if we
didn't have anything to change in anyone else's comments, if they were just
ours,_ we just gave those to the typist and they were taken care of. In other
' words, if they were your comments. Prior to that the Council used to send 20
minutes going over. the. ..
' Councilwoman Dimler: I don' t know. This didn't take very long.
Councilman Boyt: Any way you want to do it.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, because last time there was a typo too and Tom caught
it.
' RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling
was at $200.00. Y g prize 'which
7
3 . Request a report from advisory boards and commissions
when such item has been referred to such.
4 . Recognize citizens desiring to speak on such item.
5 . Recognize council members desiring to speak, maintain '
order and decorum on items of discussion, and
generally provide leadership for the council to
insure timely and efficient decisions on each item.
6 . Announce the council decision.
SECTION 5 . RULES OF DEBATE.
5 . 01. Participation by Presiding Officer. The mayor or
other presiding officer may move, second and debate from the
chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by the
rules imposed on all members and shall not be deprived of any of
the rights and privileges of a councilman by reason of his acting
as the presiding officer.
5 . 02 . Recognition by the Chair. Every member desiring to
speak shall address the chair, and upon recognition by the
Presiding Officer shall confine himself to the question under
debate avoiding all personalities and indecorous language.
5 . 03 . Speaking Privileges . A member, once recognized, shall
not be interrupted when speaking unless it be to call him to
order or to vote on a motion to close a debate, or as herein
otherwise provided. If a member, while speaking, be called to
order, he shall cease speaking until the question of order is
determined and if in order he shall be permitted to proceed.
i
5 . 04 . Reconsideration. A motion to reconsider any action
taken by the council may be made at any time following original
action. A motion to reconsider must be made by a member of the
Council who voted with the prevailing side. Should a motion to
reconsider fail, an additional request for reconsideration cannot
occur for a period of six months following the date of the first
motion for reconsideration. If a motion to reconsider is passed,
then parties entitled to notice shall be notified and action
shall be taken at the next regular meeting following passage of
the motion to reconsider. Should the city council determine that
other parties are not likely to be affected by an item presented
for reconsideration, the city council may, at its discretion, act
on the original action the same evening as the council votes on
reconsideration.
5 . 05. Statements for the Record. A councilman may request,
through the presiding officer, the privilege of having an
abstract of his statement on any subject under consideration by
the council , of the reason for his dissent from or support of any
action of the council , entered in the minutes . Such a request
may be made at the time of said action or consideration or at the
time of the adoption of said minutes . Unless the council, by
motion, objects , such statements shall be entered in the minutes .
-4-
1
A, .C. DATE: July 5 , 1989~
`' ITY OF
. •� C.C. : 89:':A: ' 1989
, , CASE
IPrepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
I
I PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for the Partial Filling
of a Class A Wetland
Iz
4
V LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings
a...1 Road
.
I . APPLICANT: Daryl and Debra Kirt
Q P.O. 692
IIChanhassen, MN 55317
I I
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
IIACREAGE: 6 . 28 acres
I DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
IS- Lake St. Joe
E- PUD; townhomes
I d .
Q W- RSF; single family
IW WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
f`L�
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : A majority of the site is a Class A
wetland with lakeshore on Lake St. Joe.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
I
ST
r.'i 1. 1 6G��'
/ Pro
wo
- 14 trE in IS mit Ot r -------------------- -,_,__A_ .__
- .. ... e. .... - .± .• _.ff,_s 7 �.•_,‘_,;
111 ?� ``II
d ig Ill; .10\Wma i,42;
,..4-ipip.. i 47.4. ;"W. . t:".' * 7 -
,,,-.* ,_
..•... _. .. ., . ,sj__11 . -,..0• . .1* <
-_ ■4.-7. # ___ ,
Jai' at Oft.-dieflAa111; tarti il • %. • .
---Or ■iiiir,:matilw rata",as In
1
,k / ' LAKE 1
PQ�
i
Q/
MI
IF
M / �'V A S il T A I NEW
!;\ 1...t e. vA41,/_+-14,--..„ RD
Y DIGS ROA P D—R 4 —
I a —
cn
1 v) ' r
f Q
çLAKi
7,/ R
J z sroNixiN , i
1_, -
I` 1 *)))
j� MAPLE 4HCRES 1
it- DRIVE J t,
U
_J (? c- , ' T' 111
„,
------.. DR,„
• .,,t , , c, t,, - 'r' r Hi R. \ I` r
VI
EL IV I . ;AL
l 2 ,..1
____
„__-.-_„,.\-,, ..‘"--) "'I y 1
. 1
CO
I . 47 f
Kirt Wetland Alteration Permit
July 5 , 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for any
digging, dredging, or filling of a Class A or B wetland.
' Section 20-437 allows a minimum amount of filling of a wetland
with the following considerations :
1 . Any filling shall not cause total natural flood storage capa-
city of the wetland to fall below or fall below further the
projected volume of runoff from the watershed generated by a
5 . 9" rainfall in 24 hours. Since the total amount of filling
which can be permitted is limited apportionment of fill
opportunities for other properties abutting the wetland shall
be considered.
2 . Any filling shall not cause total nutrient stripping capacity
of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is detri-
mental to any area river, lake or stream.
' 3 . Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic waste may
be used.
4 . Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on
vegetation.
5 . Filling the wetland areas will not be permitted during water-
fowl breeding or fish spawning season unless it is determined
by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl
breeding or fish spawning.
' ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to allow
a portion of the Class A wetland to be filled to construct a
' single family residence. The subject site is an existing lot of
record of over 6 acres with the majority of the site containing a
Class A wetland. Since the site is an existing lot of record,
the applicant has the right to build on the lot. The applicant
received a variance to the 75 foot wetland setback from the
City Council on June 26, 1989 (Attachment #1) .
11 The applicant is proposing to fill a small area in the northeast
corner of the Class A wetland. The area of wetland proposed to
be filled is of poor quality in which filling over the past years
' has already occurred. The better quality portion of the wetland
is located south of the area that is proposed to be filled.
Staff visited the site several times with the Fish and Wildl'ife
t Service to determine the edge of the wetland and the extent of
filling which would be acceptable. The area and extent of the
C
Kirt Wetland Alteration Permit
July 5 , 1989
Page 3
1
wetland proposed to be filled meets the recommendations of the
Fish and Wildlife Service and meets the intent of Section 20-437.
Although the applicant has the right to build a single family
residence on the property and could in fact request more of a
wetland alteration, they have instead worked with the existing
conditions to have as little impact to the wetland as possible. '
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the '
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland '
Alteration Permit #89-6 as shown on the site plan dated June 23 ,
1989, subject to the following conditions :
1 . Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the 1
site plan.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Corps t
of Engineers .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ,
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit with staff' s recommended conditions.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: ,
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #89-6 as
shown on the site plan dated June 23 , 1989, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the
site plan.
2 . The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Corps
of Engineers . "
ATTACHMENTS
1. Variance report. '
2 . Site plan dated June 23 , 1989 .
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated July 5 , 1989 .
I
..i.
II LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I . (612) 937-1900
4/.: APPLICANT: .. ctr,y/ g �r� i CWNE2 '
I -ADDRESS p (�qa ADDRESS
.. CAGh 4a ss e n 5'5317 • •
IITELEPHONE (Da time ) Zip Ode Zip Code
y 9 9 o?03 TELEPHONE
REQUEST: . 9:14... /..,.,'
' ' ":-_,:,:.» -- ,11-..,::- --.. --',.,--:-..Ell 4.- -;
1
Zoning District Change °,
Planned Unit Development r`'
II • Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
_4_ Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan
I Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment
Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
II Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds •Street/Easement Vacation --
ISite Plan Review
)( Wetlands Permit
IPROJECT NAME . -
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
1 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING
IREQUESTED ZONING
i )(• fr USES PROPOSED ___ _Lagt___Ag.,A1, _ i If _' A
SIZE OF PROPERTY
lo•.)8 Aq AFS 6 7Q dr) /(iad/k — 580.0-0 hAsT --396.3(0 s;0.e7,,/_
I LOCATION , e 4.,s--:
�D f3 A a„,' li /1/ E 44-)44#7-' 0 A4,C/C A �7V - #/
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST ■ e.(( _ I �.1 s
I
I r
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary )
ill . _. _ __
JUN 7 1989
ClT1L DE CHANHASSEN
-
City of Chanhassen
II
Land Development Application
Page 2 I on
IIFILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be
clearly printed and must bemaccomdanedubl and be typewritten
II
plans required b p by all inforation andor
plans
this application,y applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural re
applicable to your application . quirements I
FILI CERTIFICATION: II NG
•
The undersigned representative of the applicant -
that he is familiar with the proceduralprequirementsbof
applicable City Ordinances . hereby certifies II
/
all
Signed By Alidi 4. II� �� 1 a
Applicant _ Date __/ �
\\)
II
•
• The undersigned hereby certifies that the II authorized to make this application aPPiicant has been
IIdescribed. on for the property herein
Signed By ■
7-e--4./ -
Fee Owner Date y, 11
II•
Date Application Received I
--7-- q
Application Fee Paid M 'pQ JO
City Receipt No. • II
II
* This Application will be
.-
Board f considered by the Planning I Adjustments and Appeals at their g COm'�'i�sion/
meeting.
II
1
•
' l
•=■d
(COON.
I
MINI\
1
' DESCRIPTION
•
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 8, Township 116, Range 23 and running thence East on
the North Section line of said Section, a distance of 199 feet to a point thereon, which said point is the
point of beginning of the land to be herein described; thence continuing East on said North Section line, a
distance of 471 feet to a point in the center of County Road No. 3; thence turning and running South 6
degrees 14 minutes West, along the center line of said road, a distance of 516.3 feet to a point; thence
' South 13 degrees 35 minutes West a distance of 197.8 feet to a point, which is opposite the Red Cedar
Point Road; thence turning and running northwesterly to a point which is 580 feet due South from the
point of beginning; thence turning and running North a distance of 580 feet to the place of beginning.
Lying and being in Government Lot 1, Section 8, Township 116, Range 23.
I
I
1
I
1
I
1 T Y O F CA DATE: June 26 , 1989
I
■
\ CUAAT C.C. DATE: '
CASE NO: 89-7 Variance
Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT
'I
PROPOSAL: A 50 Foot Variance to the 75 Foot Wetland Setback II
for a Structure
z
II
Q
0 LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings
I
.1 Road g
(4[ APPLICANT: Daryl and Debra Kirt I
Q P.O. 692
Chanhassen, MN 55317 I
, I
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
A
II
CREAGE: 6. 28 acres
DENSITY: _ I
ADJACENT ZONING `------- -
AND LAND USE: N- RSF• single family _�pi,.T M`
I!) t3 : : -
Q S- Lake St. Joe
E- PUD; townhomes i.�ite I
Q . W- G/.22./.0______
W RSF; single family
w II
t WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
r
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : A majority of the site is a Class A
wetland with lakeshore on Lake St. Joe.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density 1
I
1
Kirt Variance
June 26, 1989
Page 2
' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-409 of the Wetland Ordinance requires a minimum struc-
ture setback of 75 feet from the ordinaryx,high water mark.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a setback variance from a Class A
wetland to allow them to construct a single family residence.
The 6 . 3 acre site is located at the southwest corner of Kings
' Road and Minnewashta Parkway. A majority of the site is a Class
A wetland with a small portion of buildable area located in the
northeast corner of the site. The lot is an existing lot of
record and therefore must be permitted to have a single family
residence located on the site. The applicant has worked closely
with staff and with the Fish and Wildlife Service to properly
stake the edge of the wetland and to locate the proposed single
' family residence where it would least impact the wetland. The
site plan locates the proposed home and garage in the northeast
corner of the site where it is meeting the 30 foot front yard
' setback and is also maintaining a sanitary sewer lift station
easement located in the northeast corner of the property.
Staff has visited the site several times with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to determine the extent, the type and the
quality of the wetland. The wetland is of lower quality where
the applicant is proposing to be within the 75 foot setback and
' is also proposing partial fill for the construction of the home.
Staff feels that the applicant has tried to situate the house as
best possible with the existing conditions of the site and is
trying to maintain as much of the 75 foot setback as possible.
The closest portion of the proposed structure (garage) would be
25 feet from the edge of the wetland.
' The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the
Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
following facts :
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
' * The literal enforcement of the 75 foot setback from the edge
of the wetland would not allow a single family structure to be
located on the lot.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands of structures in the same district.
* The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances
of the lot. The parcel is an existing lot of record with the
II
Kirt Variance 11 June 26 , 1989
Page 3
majority of the site designated as a protected wetland.
Without a variance the site would not be buildable.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser- I
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
* The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation '
and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self-created hardship.
* The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence
of a self created hardship.
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
* The applicant has worked closely with staff and Fish and
Wildlife Service to ensure that the impact to the wetland of
the proposed house would be minimal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the '
following motion:
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves of Variance #89-7
to permit a single family residence to be located 25 feet from
the edge of a Class A wetland as shown on the site plan dated
"June 21, 1989" with the following conditions:
1. Type III erosion control as shown on the site plan will be
installed prior to any alteration of the site.
2 . Any additions to the garage or home within the required set-
backs will require additional variances . "
ATTACHMENTS '
1. Zoning Ordinance excerpt
2 . Site plan dated June 21, 1989 I
r
I
I
I
§ 20-407 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
' (4) Sedimentation basins for construction projects.
(5) Open storage.
(6) Animal feedlots.
(7) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(8) Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 24(5-24-5), 12-15-86)
111 Sec. 20-408. Prohibited uses in class B wetlands.
' The following uses are prohibited in class B wetlands:
(1) Disposal of waste material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris,
' hazardous and toxic substances,and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a
solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.
' (2) Solid waste disposal sites, sludge .ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer or
disposal sites.
' (3) Animal feedlots.
(4) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-409. General development regulations.
' Within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal(200)feet, the following minimum provisions are applicable:
ntal distance of two
' (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
' (2) The minimum structure setback is seventy-five(75)feet from the ordinary high water
mark.
(3) Septic and soil absorption system setbacks are two hundred(200) feet from ordinary
' high water mark.
(4) The lowest ground floor elevation is three(3)feet above ordinary high water mark.
' (5) No development shall be allowed which may result in unusual road
costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost n action.
maintenance
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-13), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-410-20420. Reserved.
1190
i
;
U.
IJ' Q
v
Z
1
il
1
kol / i •
I
I I
•
p 1
0
Iw �
I� 1 N I
- ; vA o 0
Q9 N ( I
No �} 0 11
iJ� m i
�� ��} Z• �
1
\50) . ly Z � I
I
r .%
II
,,,
I ow, .
..: . .,, ,
/ 953.,P,
1 ERD 1ONl CoL bL#�'
1��Y9"/ -S13
0
\\� o 1 PaWER A ! \ V
S• / Pam -))
I= EoF WETLA LID r / Z
- .4 W X45 2) . 4�`Y / av9 �' N
9%Sr I ..
.. ' rd I i . l
,o u o I 9SJr>
•
. rt "7 �dODS� 1 f
O 9r I
I
lir �;�' 14005e a s• } I w
945-z / 'y6,r y /
y'
1f1( Q[
•
A.
WA
x r .No / i� 953ri �I
�1 /y1 9q/9Y Li,
•, �qy r8 t/ 1q
II
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
D -/"''' \ LOWEST FLOOR
ARAhE -� S o X)
~ 3a 5 u11 t R 1 sEW TOP OF FOUNDATION. 9 /•
L Ft sTaT,o�l \ 953 33
I
. 9x9 ' Aye / r•/ �i ,EASEtEEU1 / 1
�6_ �.,- - a3 NOTE:VERIFY SANITARY SEWS.
/ / si 7/6_'- ----- wan/ 45o 9 9SZri PRIOR TO ANY FOOTI c
��. LIFI Sal i \ k9�v
�. • <u•- lord 9` r1 I 61---1 e J
SERJ I `\
----____Z 05,1111 ,
_____ _Lill \\ roAkIi4oLE 1 ,I
_—Jvl`° _�
‘...1 F'OCER 1 3 .LAW(d �1
I
9vgxz I- lP P� R��
3LAC _` f Po
I
i 0hgauH044 -—---}� __ _,_ ...,„A,,RKw�Y
_ __
J
City Council Meeting me 26, 1989
jr- Councilman Johnson: I think we need a time table. We can talk to Enterprise
IProperty for 2 years and we'd still have a mess back there.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't the best time, the best time to seed anyway is in the
fall.
Don King: Either that or sodding.
' Councilman Boyt: If we could work out the best time so it's most likely to
survive, that would probably be the time table we'd want to use.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, probably better in the fall now.
Councilman Boyt: July and August might not be a very good time.
' Councilman Johnson: The time table I'd be looking at is if we don't have an
agreement from Enterprise Properties by say July 15th, that the City go ahead
with it or some other date and then we plan it out and the first part of
' September do it as far as the seeding and whatever goes. As a crew's available.
Do the fix up but as you say, planting this time of year is not real great.
Mayor Chmiel: It's not great but the other portion is, if Mr. King wants to
' water the grass or sod, whichever we put in, that's another thing that would
have to be done so that could be accomplished now. As far as planting trees,
it's not the best time to be planting trees at this particular time although if
' he were to maintain and water and make sure they get that, then that of course
is no real problem.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded that the City work with
Enterprise Properties and Don King to landscape the property behind Mr. King's
house. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
,( ' I PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE WETLAND SETBACK, DARYL AND DEBRA KIRT, LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY.
�a� Jo Ann Olsen: The site is at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway.
-1` It is an existing lot of record. A little over. 6 acres. A ma'
- 9, is a Class A wetland. The applicant intends to locate a sin leofa of tse ence
g fami ly residence
on the home which they have the right to do. They must receive a variance to
the wetland setback. They are maintaining the front yard setback from
Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road and have been working with staff to try to
' locate the house as far away from the wetland as possible. The proposed plan
does do that but still is located at the closest edge at 25 feet away from the
wetland. Therefore they need a 50 foot seback. The portion of the wetland that
they are going to be close to is the poorer quality part of the wetland before
it gets to the real high quality Class A. We are recommending approval of the
variance. We feel there is hardship. Without a variance they will not have use
of this site and are recommending approval with two conditions on page 3.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Is the applicant here? Please state o
y ur name and your address.
i
1 11
City Council Meeting - Ju( 26, 1989
Daryl Kirt: Daryl Kirt, 7600 Chanhassen ,
Road. We purchased the lot over there
and we've done everything we can to try to find the most feasible place to put
the house and the garage and it would just make it a lot better site if we could
just have a little bit of fill towards the back. We have 5 children and it'd
just be nice to have a backyard for them. We've been over there for almost a
year now looking at what would be the best and what Jo Ann showed you is what we
think would be the best and the alteration we could do with it. There is a lot
of land there but some of it is wetland and we won't even go back to the lake.
The lake is 400 or 500 feet even back from where•&we are before you get to the
lake and it's basically, I would call it just a mudhole or a little swamp area
that we're talking about. It's not the lakeshore or something like that but I
realize wetland is important and whatever works out, we'll definitely work with
you.
Mayor C�'aniel: Very good. 'hank you. Anyone else wishing to address this?
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman
Dxmler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed. '
Councilman Johnson: What was the action of the Board? 1
Councilman Boyt: They didn't review this.
Mayor Chmiel: No, the Board did not review this.
Jo Ann Olsen: The ordinance states that a variance to the wetland alteration
permit is heard by the Council.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest a couple of additions here. I think one
thing that's unique about this and the reason that I can support the variance is
because the lot becomes unbuildable without it. Generally that means the City
has two choices. We grant the variance with suitable conditions or we buy the
property. So not being ready to buy the property, I think we should grant the
variance. I would however, anticipating future problems, I would like you to
hold onto this and to come back in with what you think might be a future deck or
if you've got some other addition to the building that you think you're going to
want to put on 5-10 years from now, I'd really like to see us approve the whole
thing now. The reason for that is because as you may see later on this evening,
once your house is, then you no longer have a hardship in my opinion and I think
you're going to have, you may have a very difficult time getting the variance to
build that deck at that point. Someone could argue that you probably don't have
a hardship for a deck right now but if it was me, I would encourage you to go
for the whole thing.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be smart, right. 11
Councilman Boyt: The other. thing I would also state and we' ll see if the rest 1
of the Council would go along with us but clearly it would be my intention to
not support future variance requests that would involve the wetland setback but
I think this one you've got an awfully good argument for why we should pass it.
I'd like to see you put it all in one package.
12 I
175
. City Council Meeting �'une 26, 1989 ,-
IICouncilman W would=
be What would be the rule perhaps on a single lot as far as
' - how much of that lot has to be buildable? What portion of that lot has to be
buildable to the point of where we are now in that we have to pretty much allow
a person to use the property?
Jo Ann Olsen: We don't require a minimal buildable area. We do for unsewered
lots...but not for sewered lots.
' Councilman Workman: So if in fact this were a Class B wetland or something,
they could actually fill.
Jo Ann Olsen: No, they still have to receive the wetland alteration permit
11 which is what they are pursuing in front of the Planning Commission next time.
We would only permit as much as is necessary for them to have a house. Even if
it was all Class B, I don't think that we would agree to then filling the whole
Ithing.
Councilman Workman: No, but they would then be allowed to fill a portion enough
to get a home built.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I think that there's a difference here, if I might suggest
something. The difference is if this lot was caning in today, we wouldn't
approve it. If they couldn't demonstrate that they could build outside the 75
foot setback, we wouldn't approve the lot but when we approve lots and then go
111 back and change ordinances, we than become obligated to try to make the best use
of that lot or allow the owner to make the best use of that lot so that's kind
of the difference here. A new lot wouldn' t be created but an existing lot has
' some rights.
Councilman Johnson: I totally agree with Bill on the future additions. I don't
' like the way the second condition is written here. It almost sounds like, come
on you can add something later but it's going to require another variance. I
think it needs to be worded differently in the future to where it more or less
' discourages. Instead of just saying there is going, you are going to require
another variance, well you got the variance the first time. Shoot, it's not
going to be hard to get the variance the second time but somehow word that to
where it shows that any additions will have to show a hardship which there is no
' hardship. Somehow or another discourage future additions once it's built. I'd
like to ask the Kirt's if the design of the house would, I see it's a back
walkout I think. Maybe not. It says 40, not WO. If the design of the house,
if they're considering putting a deck on in the future.
Debra Kitt: Actually. ..as you can see the garage is facing the house. When the
surveyor made that, he made a slight error so where the garage is oversized,
' that is actually a part of the back porch. So in a sense it's already taken on
that...
Councilman Johnson: What do you mean?
Jo Ann Olsen: The area that's shown is already including an addition.
i 13
'-di E'y Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
II
Debra Kirt: The garage, you have 38 feet wide. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I see what you're saying. You have a breezeway inbetween?
Debra Kirt: Yes, and that breezeway is actually part of the house and the
garage is supposed to be a little bit shorter but then where the garage extends
beyond that, beyond the house.
Councilman Johnson: To the, is it the southwest?
Debra Kirt: Yes. So that corner is actually part of the house like a deck, '
like a porch but it would actually come over where the breezeway is so in a
sense it's not going out any farther into the wetland.
Councilman Johnson: No further than what the garage shows? ,
Debra Kirt: Right.
Councilman Boyt: So you're saying you've already taken into account my concern.
Debra Kirt: Yes. '
Councilman Boyt: Then I think maybe we could accomplish it Jay by taking the
second condition staff has and modifying that to say that it would be this
Council's intention to not look favorably upon additional variances to the
wetland setback.
Councilman Johnson: Where's the 25 foot setback from Jo Ann? From that corner
of the garage and that's actually not even there. That corner of the garage is
I!!
not there?
Debra Kirt: Yes, that corner is there. 1
Councilman Johnson: But you say the garage isn't going to be that big.
Debra Kirt: I see what you're saying.
Councilman Johnson: I want to see if I understand what you're saying here on
the overhead. From what I'm understanding, this deck, is this going to be your
deck in this area then?
Debra Kirt: We aren't really going to have a deck. We're going to have an I
enclosed porch attached to the house that goes to the garage.
Councilman Johnson: But you're saying it's going to go to this point? '
Debra Kirt: Yes...extend farther west. It goes around the front.
Councilman Johnson: Is that what we're looking at? Is the garage a full 38 or '
is it going to be smaller?
Debra Kirt: It will be somewhere very, very close to that. However, when I was '
looking at this, there is a porch in front that this doesn't show but that •still
is all the way around and it will connect by the garage there where it says
14
City Council Meeting - r he 26, 1989 `�
Ibreezeway. Yes...
—
1 ; Councilman Johnson: Does that mean it extends in this direction?
Debra Kirt: No. We designed the house 3 times because everytime we've gone in
to try to put a house on the piece of property, we've had such a hard time
' finding a place for the house to fit within all of the wetland. I bought plans
and then we had it all staked out and ready to go and then we decided this is
not going to work so then we did another house plan and tried to work that one
' in and we decided we're not going to do anymore house plans. It gets expensive
and frustrating until we know whether we can put the house here. So basically
that's the way the house is but it's subject to.. .
Councilman Johnson: Okay, as long as we don't extend that front porch into the
setback on King Road, I don't see any problem with the deck coming around to the
back. It's no closer to the wetland than the garage is. The garage is the
' closest point.
Debra Kirt: The way I understand it, we still have room coming out towards the
lift station. Out this way towards the lift station, we have room to play with
in that direction.
Councilman Johnson: You can come out front as long as you don't cross those two
lines there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of my concerns was that I don't like building
' real close to the lake but I assume that you still have enough of the wetland
there that is an adequate filter to the lake. Is that correct?
' Councilman Johnson: 500 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Willard wanted to comment.
' Willard Johnson: I would go along with Bill. I would discourage some future
variance. It would save the applicant time and us time, whoever's on the board
in the future of going through this process...
' Councilwoman Dimler: Roger, would it be alright to put some stronger language
in there and say that any addition to the garage or home in the required setback
will require an additional variances but they will not be granted?
1 Roger Knutson: I think you can express the sentiment of this Council but you
can't prevent them from applying and you can' t tie the hands of a future
' Council. You could say something to the effect that it would not be favorably
considered by this Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I know what you said. I just wanted to make i.t a
little stronger because we're facing, these people were very upset with me out
there today because we didn' t grant the variances and I'm sorry but it was
people that okayed the PUD and blah, blab, blah you know. They can't accept
that. They say show me where it can' t be done and that would be one way to say
that.
1 •
i 15
'City Council Meeting - JC 26, 1989 ( ' II
Roger Knutson: It certainly would, You could ,
say that by granting this
particular variance, the Council has now given than reasonable use of the
property. Therefore, this Council no further variances would be warranted and
none would be granted by this Council. It's a statement of sentiment rather
than because that's all you really can do.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we can't do anything that would be binding is what
you're saying?
Roger Knutson: IVo. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I would prefer the language that we had before.
Mayor Chmiel: Which one?
Councilwoman Dimler: That it would not be looked upon favorably. ,
Councilman Boyt: I think we have a motion then, or if we don't I would make a
motion to approve Variance Request #89-7 with two conditions. The second
condition be reworded to indicate that this Council would not favor additional
requests for variances. I would also, and maybe add a third condition, that a
correct survey be presented to the City prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Clearly this one isn't right. I
Councilman Workman: Since the deck which is not going to be built yet, is going
to be as far away as the garage is, that's really not a variance situation later
on?
Jo Ann Olsen: When they don't increase.
Councilman Johnson: The 25 feet's at the edge of the garage. At the house,
it's probably more closer to 50 feet so if we say they can build up to 25 feet
from there, they could build a 25 foot deck out from the back of the house and I
don't think that's our intent. I think we need to say within the 38 foot
envelope running from the front face of the house back which gives than room for
a 10 foot deck on the back of the house.
Councilman Boyt: That's may reason for aski. for a ,
asking proper survey to be
submitted so that we know what it's fixed at. That's what we're really saying.
Let's get the house print fixed on the property and assuming that it's not
encroaching on the wetland more than what we're approving tonight then I think
it's in good shape.
Mayor Chniel: I think that would be agreeable to the applicant?
Councilman Johnson: What I'm trying to do, I'm not trying to be difficult here
but as you say, it won't encroach anymore on the wetlands. They're got 25 feet
that they go from the back of the house towards the wetland and not encroach on
the wetland. They could build a 25 foot wide deck on the back of there.
Councilman Boyt: The way I would approve it is if they have a house print and
that gives them a certain amount of encroachment on the wetland but that doesn' t
mean they can scribe an arc and fill in everything i.nbetween. It's the house
print.
16 1
_i ;,j
II. City Council `eeti.ng - ine 26, 1989
Ir
Councilman Johnson: Right but the house print's not shown quite here. That's
I why I was trying to add that 10 foot condition to the back which is what they're
saying is they're going to have basically a 10 foot wide deck on half the back
of their house.
' Debra Kirt: I'm not planning...
Councilman Johnson: Something's going to run around the back of the house 10
foot?
Debra Kirt: It's a porch but it just extends off that 32 feet.
Mayor Chsniel: Your porch might be our deck or vica versa.
Councilman Johnson: A slab of concrete?
' Debra Kirt: No, like there's a walkout so we. can't, well.
Councilman Johnson: If you want to put a slab of concrete down, that's a
permanent structure, it's part of the house.
Councilman Boyt: Rather than designing the piece of property tonight, couldn't
we say that this is our intent and if you vary from that, then come back to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I have a motion. Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. I liked the City Attorney's wording on
item 2 by saying that by granting of this variance provides reasonable use of
' the property and then add that at the beginning of condition 2. I move that as
a modification.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we just accept what Roger has.
' Councilman Johnson: I move to modify the motion to add the sentence that
granting of this variance provides reasonable use of the property at the
' beginning of condition 2.
Councilman Boyt: But that's not all. We can' t leave condition 2 the way it is.
1 Councilman Johnson: Well your condition 2.
Councilman Boyt: Alright.
1
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Variance Request
#89-7 to permit a single family residence to be located 25 feet from the edge of
a Class A wetland as shown on the Site Plan dated "June 21, 1989" with the
following conditions:
1. 'Type III erosion control as shown on the site plan will be installed prior
to any alteration of the site.
1
1 17
City Council Meeting - Jun 26, 1989
2. Granting of this variance provides reasonable use of the property and it is
the intent of this Council that_ any future variance requests would not. be
looked upon with favor.
3. A correct survey be presented to the City prior to issuance of a building
permit.
A11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF KENNEL PERMIT APPLICATION, 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PHIL MATHIOWETZ.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, you may remember that this
item was tabled some time ago. I think it was last council meeting so that both
the applicant and the concerned neighbor could be present to. address the issue.
You'll note on my comments that the issues remain the same. We did some
checking of the surrounding neighborhood as requested by City Council. There is
a memo from our CSO officer Bob Zydowsky indicating that he checked with certain
residences. We did receive two written responses in favor of the permit, or not
opposing it and we did receive two from concerned neighbors indicating that they
may have a problem if in fact they did live closer. Public Safety's
recommendations have not changed in light of these concerns. I believe that the
issue here is not really one of a kennel permit but one of whether or not there
is a nuisance involved. If there is we in fact can handle it through our
existing ordinances as we do hundreds of other nuisance complaints regarding
barking dogs. If I can digress a little bit from my comments in my memo to the
Council, but if in fact the kennel permit is not issued to Windwalker Kennels,
he still can keep 2 dogs on his property. These 2 dogs could bark as
Mr. Krueger has indicated they do in the past. There still could be the
clanging if metal dishes. The yelling at the dogs to keep quiet. We can handle
all of those things under our existing nuisance ordinance. Whether or not
Windwalker Kennels gets the permit does not change the fact that there may be a
problem there for Mr. Krueger and we in Public Safety do not turn a deaf ear to
Mr. Krueger's problems. We just need some factual information so we can handle
it through our proper nuisance ordinance. Our recommendation to the council
tonight is to approve the kennel permit to Windwalker Kennels keeping in mind
that the remedies to Mr. Krueger will remain the same. Contact us. Contact the
Sheriff's Department as other people do with problems with barking dogs. We
will issue a citation if we can verify that there is a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I just have a couple questions that I'd like to I
ask of you Jim. Being this is within a residential area, issuing a kennel
license which means constitutes 3 dogs or more. Is that correct?
Jim Chaffee: That is correct.
Mayor Chmi.el: When does this constitute a business of raising dogs and having
litters within that residential segment? Wbuld that now rather than residential
it goes to commercial because it is a business that's being conducted per se.
Jim Chaffee: I would like to defer to Roger's opinion on that one. I guess '
your question is when or is it a commercial kennel is what it boils down to or
when does it become a commercial kennel. Roger, could you answer that?
18
1 C
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
' REGULAR MEETING
_ JULY 5, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and
' David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson and Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A PORTION OF A CLASS A WETLAND ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
' CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, DARYL KIRT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad call the public
' hearing to order .
Daryl Kitt : . . .we' ve been looking at this for close to a year trying to
find a location. . . The wetland, the lake is actually quite a ways back.
It' s a small body of water , maybe a pond size or something . We feel that
this is the most logical site which will have. . . for a backyard . . .
If: Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
' Headla : I watched that particular part over the last 20-25 years just
gradually fill in. That whole corner at one time was pretty low. I 'm very
interested in not to see that go much further but if those people build a
house there, what are their obligations to maintain that wetland?
Olsen : Again , they' re under the regulations . They would have to go
' through another wetland alteration permit if they wanted to fill anymore
which they would have a difficult time getting . They have setbacks that
they have to maintain. They received the variance for the single family
residence because without that it would not be a buildable lot .
' Headla: What about in the summer_ time if they would want to ut a
boardwalk over that wetland? Is that a problem? p
Olsen: They couldn ' t do it without a wetland alteration permit.
Headla : How about in the wintertime ►.unni.ng snowmobiles through there out
to Little Joe?
Olsen : There ' s nothing to prevent that .
Headla: Whatever happens here, maintaining the wetland or we,call
attention to it so it ' s registered with the deed . Do you have that in
place?
1 -
Planning Commission ,eeti.ng
July 5 , 1989 - Page 2
Olsen : The wetland alteration ermit is
p recorded against the property.
Headla: Okay, so the next person who buys the property, they would be
exposed to that?
Olsen: As is the variance.
Headla : What they seem to have is pretty reasonable. The one thing that'll
bothers me, what's a Type III erosion control barrier?
Olsen : That ' s the heavy duty one. It' s got the silt fence, the hay balell
and the snow fence.
Headla : But that' s temporary. What I 'm scared is a gradual growing,
encroachment onto that wetland. Not in 6 months or 9 months but over a II
period of 5 years , 10 years . Did you consider having a more permanent
erosion control barrier there?
Olsen: I don ' t know if you can be any more permanent. They always
deteriorate over time. You could, if you want, to whoever buys the
property knows where the edge of the wetland is , you could have them put II
some stakes in just like some markers .
Headla : How about even some treated timbers , 8 x 8 ' s? The runoff will n
go directly into the wetland. At least it will hit this barrier first.
It ' s kind of a borderline . It' s very definitive and that ' s kind of what,
I 'm looking for 2 things. To have a definitive line and some type of more
permanent barrier . ,
Olsen : It fluctuates . It could come up closer to the house too depending
on the amount of rain we would get. That would be hard to put a set
border .
Headla : I just want to bring those points up. That ' s all I have . I thi
this gentleman wanted something .
Daryl Kitt : The wetland actually dries up. The wetland . . .
Batzli : How much wetland are they actually filling in here Jo Ann? We've,
said minimal but.
Olsen : It was I 'd say a tenth of an acre . It ' s a very small amount.
Batzli : A tenth of an acre? -
Olsen : Yes , it ' s very small . '
Batzli : Just a general question and it might not pertain to this case .
Last meeting we had we discussed at great length no net loss for wetlands
in the City of Chanhassen . We don ' t discuss that at all here. Is that
because this is already a lot of record so you can ' t make them upgrade eve
though it' s already a Class A wetland? If this had been a Class B wetland
could you have said to them no you have to dredge it out and make it a
II'
Planning CommissionieetingT
July 5, 1989 - Page 3
better wetland?
' Olsen : This one , really it was a Class '
Y A and it' s really in good shape
that ' s remaining . This edge part was marginal because it had been filled
in the past. That was , there was really nothing to go in and improve it
because then you would really be making it possibly harming it by going in
and trying to improve it. One of the reasons we did allow them to fill in
a portion was to allow them to have an area because it was a lot of record.
We did not see where it needed to be improved.
Batzli : But in this particular instance , you couldn' t have made them
improve it because it was a lot of record even if you wanted to?
Olsen : No , we could have.
Batzli : You could have?
' Olsen: Even without the wetland alteration permit , it doesn ' t necessarily
mean that they wouldn' t be able to build their house. It helps with the
foundation and just gives them a little bit of a backyard .
Batzli : Well I ' ll have to admit that I did not get to this particular site
so I don ' t know what the wetland looks like but I get the feeling might
have down at that end. My only other question was, we 've also in the past
talked about letting a portion of what we filled in or what have you go
back to natural vegetation. We don' t talk about that at all here. I think
something Dave was getting at was talking about runoff and kind of a first
' barrier . Are you proposing that we allow them to grow grass and mow it
down to where the erosion control is installed?
Olsen: When we met out on the site and discussed the fill in, it was our
understanding between the applicant that that would become their lawn.
Their back yard .
' Batzli : And that was discussed with the DNR, Fish and Wildlife?
Olsen: Fish and Wildlife .
Batzli : And they thought that was appropriate or at least minimally
disturbed?
' Olsen : Yes , they were not upset with that at all . They felt that that was
a good compromise. Again, if you haven' t been out there, it ' s just a real
small area that they' re filling . They will actually be improving it
' somewhat because there ' s garbage and stuff thrown in there and they' re
cleaning that out.
Emmings : I don ' t have any questions . My only comment is that it seems to
me they certainly have a right to build in here and I think they' ve done a
lot to try to minimize your_ impact on the wetland and it looks like the
staff' s done a lot of work with them in trying to decide what' s reasonable
in the situation and I don ' t have any problems with it .
1 -
f . IIPlanning Commission�..�eeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 4
Erhart : How big is that lot above the ordinary high h water mark?
,
Olsen: It' s almost 6 1/2 acres all together .
Erhart : The whole lot?
Olsen: Right , the whole lot and then the area above the ordinary high
water mark is just that small corner . It' s just a corner. The wetland
goes all the way.
Erhart : Is it 15, 000 square feet? '
Olsen: I don't know. There' s not that much below it.
Erhart : How far is it from the lot corner edge to where the edge of the II
fill would be?
Olsen : They' re meeting all the front yard setbacks . Their property line'
is shown in the darker. The corner has the lift station so that. . .
Erhart : It looks like about 10, 000 square feet. Even though it' s 6 acrell
the buildable area is pretty small .
Olsen : There ' s no question about that .
A. Erhart: So we' re trying to make it bigger I
Y g gger and, well . I guess what I 'd
like to see done here and I really don ' t have any problem with them
building a house and the commissioners who live in the area don' t appear t
have any problem but in light I guess of our acceptance of just recently
the concept of no net loss of wetland and as a suggestion of something nice
is to mitigate what you ' re doing by actually, when you have the equipment
in there, to actually build a pond. If you have the equipment in there,
it' s fairly easy to do .
Olsen: There' s open water already there . ,
Erhart : Yes , and generally that ' s the kind of thing that we ' ve been asking
for in return to fill is to improve a wetland and taking a cattail area or
Class B area , a nice improvement is simply opening up a small little pond
and it' s surprising the amount of wildlife you' ll get in even a pond of 50
feet square. In looking right out the back of your house , a nice amenity
to boot so I guess I 'm okay with this but I 'd sure like to see that done.
I think it would be a nice amenity and I think also keep us in conformity
in what we' re trying to put in place in the City here. That ' s my only
comment . '
Conrad : When we grant a variance or wetland alteration permit Jo Ann , is
that line registered on the plat or how do we document where that wetland
alteration can be?
Olsen : We ' ve got it on file and then we record it .
Conrad: It' s recorded on the plat? 11
i
Planning CommissionCeeti.ng
July 5, 1989 - Page 5
Olsen : Right . And we have a description that we use from that lot. An
elevation.
' Conrad : So in the future there ' s a way to go in and make sure that it' s
not bigger than what we originally granted?
' Olsen : Right and we always had the official copy that we can go back to.
Conrad: So it' s on staff documents. Where else is it?
' Olsen: The wetland alteration permit, what was permitted and any
conditions is always recorded with the property so is the variance. What
we depend on to find out if they did fill more in the years ahead is the
1 official copy of the survey.
Conrad : I agree with Tim on this one . Class A, it seems like we ' re
treating this differently than every other one that we ' ve talked about
recently and I think staff has done a good job of reviewing other wetlands
and making sure that as we tamper with them, we improve. Here' s a case
where because the wetland seems so big and the parcel so small , we have
sort of ignored that policy. I think we' re all trying to relate to Mr . and
Mrs . Kirt in wanting to build there and we appreciate what they want to do.
Yet on the other hand , what we ' re doing is filling in a Class A wetland .
In light of what we' ve been doing , I just haven ' t been sold that they can
build there without filling in. I 'm just looking for , the only reason I
have is what Tim volunteered is to improve it with a pond but I really, as
' much as I want to figure out how to make this happen, it ' s a Class A
wetland and the only thing that I ' ve heard is that there ' s been a dumping
ground there before but still then that means there ' s a way to improve it
if it' s been a dumping ground of other stuff so I guess I 'm just plain not
' sold. Yet I 'm real receptive to wanting to be sold on this because I 'm not
sure that there ' s going to be a real harmful impact yet how do I look at
this Jo Ann in light of all the stuff that you' ve been processing in front
1 of us .
Olsen : When we go out on the sites , the first thing Paul and I look at is
well can it be improved. This is , what they' re doing is just a real small
area . They' re kind of filling in an area that kind of comes in and they' re
just cutting that. Filling that little part off. The better wetland is
just starts here and it ' s the lower kind of an even existing kind of a pond
' area. Then it gets a little bit higher and then you have the wetland
that ' s adjacent right to Lake St . Joe . Anyway, one of the things we always
look at is well if they fill in a portion, how can we improve the rest but
this is one that you just don ' t . . .
Conrad : So it ' s a loss . Basically what you ' re saying is there ' s no way to
improve it. It ' s a definite loss .
.1 Olsen : It ' s a very minor loss but yes , there ' s really no reason to improve
any of the rest farther out. p
I
1 -
Planning Commission ieeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 6
Conrad : And how does that fly in the face of our ordinance? The ordin
an
says philosophy is no loss. I think we' re easily persuaded in a B wetland'
but here we' re talking an A. I 'm just looking for a way to rationalize.
Be consistent. Mrs. Kirt, do you have something to say?
Mrs . Kirt : I 'm not disagreeing at all with what you' re saying . The only
thing I want to sat at this point is what y
p you' re asking for is something
that we' ve already considered doing but I think what you' re asking for is
going to take a little more extensive work because you' re going to have t
start 600 or 700 feet down and start excavating this area out . You can ' t
just go in there because this water only comes seasonally with rain becaull
there' s a drainage ditch underneath the road from the field across the
street from us. So in the spring when it thaws or like this summer when
we' ve had quite a bit of rain , there is this water that comes over here a
it sits and then it stagnates until finally it dries up. What you have,
like I say, it starts 700 feet down so you have to bring it, excavate all
of that 700 feet down. All the way down to where you' re going to build a
house before it would improve the land because it just isn ' t all there. . .
and I wouldn' t see how it would really improve the property. It would be II
nice to do that at a point . . . to do the extensive work and do it correctly.
If you can' t do it right, I don' t see any point to doing it at this time.
If you go into the area and you look at the area that Jo Ann has been
trying to explain, there' s no cattails basically. There' s cattails out
along the , the only place there ' s cattails is going up and down Minnewashta
Parkway beyond where we' re going to build . There ' s cattails there and the,
area we' re talking about filling is . . .just grass and when it dries up
there, the only thing that grows there is grass .
Erhart : Is that correct that there is no cattails up to where you' re
proposing the edge of the fill right now?
Mrs. Kirt : The cattails are all where it says Minnewashta Parkway. '
Emmings : Where on the map?
Erhart : Can you also show on there the area that you see that ' s going to
be filled .
Emmings : Where ' s the edge of what ' s already filled in? '
Olsen: This is the edge of the wetland is this dark line. That' s the
existing edge of the wetland .
Emmings : So that ' s what' s being filled in is from there out to the next
line?
Olsen : It comes in , you can ' t see the contour but it kind of comes up in
here and this is where it has started . . . It ' s kind of on a hill and then
right here is where it gets into the nicer wetland . 1
Conrad: Is it really an A wetland Jo Ann?
Olsen : This?
- 1
Planning CommissionkL-ieeti.ng
July 5, 1989 - Page 7
Conrad : No , the one that we ' re filling?
Olsen: It's all continuous. If it was all by itself, it would definitely
' be a B. This is an edge of an A but I would still consider it a wetland .
It's all one. That's what I always look for is if it doesn ' t need to be
done or improvements but this one is j,ust . . .
Conrad: Dave, did you have a point?
Headla : I started to think about the line ou were
Y pursuing and the land,
the 32 acres to the north I think is part of it. That' s going to be
developed shortly. There' s going to be a lot of homes in there and where
Mrs. Kitt talked about that drainage in the road, that' s going to be a
1 major drainage for that area . It really is just a natural drainage and
maybe someone, either the Village or we should, I certainly agree with you.
I think maybe there should be some type of pond there or something holding
' it and it doesn' t have to be right next to their house or anything. Even
if it' s a little further back in but that could be a tremendous catch basin
for all that runoff of all the different ponds. You' re draining I would
guess , my land drains in there and part of the other so I would guess
' you're draining a good 30 acres .
Conrad : Jo Ann , so how do we justify this? It ' s flying contrary to our
I l ordinance. You' re saying staff agrees with it. I don ' t think anybody is
hostile against what they' re doing but on the other hand , I don ' t know how
to justify. How do we justify it? Under what pretense? The fact that
' there is no degregation? The fact that the runoff is not going to be any
less harmful? Any more harmful? Right now the staff report doesn ' t give
us any reason to justify this other than it ' s minor compared to the 6 acres
yet it ' s still a net impact .
Olsen : That ' s not why because I compared it to the 6 acres . It ' s more
that this is an existing lot of record. They could have come in and said
' we want to put in a house twice as big and filled it in . The reason that
they' re not right on top of the wetland and filling it in, you ' re taking
the position then that they don ' t need it. We' ve worked with them to have
as minimal amount of fill but still give them a lot that gives them some
use other than just the house pad .
Conrad : You' re saying it ' s a reasonable expectation on their part to be
' able to fill in because it is a lot of record?
Olsen : I 'm not saying that they would have had the right to fill it in but
' we have, I can' t say that there ' s no net loss . There is a net loss .
Conrad : Forget about the 20 feet that ' s filling in. Is thete going to be
a net impact? What is the impact of filling that in? How much water
drains over their property and into the wetland?
Olsen: I can ' t tell you how much but it definitely does drain over their
property into the wetland .
1 -
.
II
Planning Commission.-,eeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 8
li
Conrad : I would assume not much is draining over their property right? II
Olsen: Not in that area .
Conrad : Which way is the water flowing, just out of curiousity? I
Daryl Kirt: South.
Headla : The road in front will catch most of that. Very little water II
comes right off their property.
Olsen : I can go out there. Paul is gone for a month in Alaska but we call
go back out. He's working on the oil spill . I hesitate to make certain
improvements to it until I can guarantee that those are definitely
improvements. I
Conrad : I 'm just looking for some way to rationalize this Jo Ann. It' s
not Paul Burke going out and saying something. I don' t need him. He' s II
been out there a couple times I assume already right?
Daryl Kirt: The DNR was out there and did a report, maybe if you want to
read that . '
Emmings : What ' s the bottom line of what they say?
IIDaryl Kitt: They say they wouldn' t have any objections to even two
lots . . . they just don ' t want the lakeshore damaged .
Emmings : We ' re meaner than they are. I tell you, this won ' t be a very II
popular opinion for the people I 'm talking to up here tonight but I ' ll tell
you how I 'd rationalize this one. It just plain seems reasonable number
one and number two, it ' s too damn small to worry about . That ' s the way I
feel about it. If I 'm going to have, we either say to them it seems to me,
build your house there and I 'm sorry your backyard isn ' t neat as it comes
up to the wetland. They seem to be kind of filling in a hole and making all
nice smooth edge along there . We either say go ahead and build your house
there and you ' re going to have to live with that raw edge or let them fill
it in and round it off and I think that that ' s a perfectly reasonable thin
to do. I don' t need any more justification than that. Obviously there's '
net loss to the wetland which I think is essentially insignificant because
it' s so small . That ' s the way I looked at it.
Conrad : Dave brought out some point and that point was erosion , the II
permanent erosion control . After the bales or we string whatever , when we
do the landfill , Jo Ann do you feel that on the long term basis there is n'
need? You basically said there was no need for permanent erosion control
because you don ' t feel there is. erosion going across that land . Any water .
Olsen: Once it' s all stabilized , no I don' t. Again, I don' t know if theril
is anything permanent . I know that we have more trouble with,erosion
control breaking down and going into the wetland and not being properly
maintained so I would not be in favor of . . .
II
— 1
Planning Commissionieeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 9
Conrad : Would you ever put fertilizing' P zing x:estrzctzons on a house this close:
Olsen: Sure you can .
Conrad : But you haven ' t volunteered that?`"`
Olsen: It's just that who ' s to say if they do it or not.
Emmings moved , Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-6 as shown on the site plan
stamped "June 23, 1989" subject to the following conditions :
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the site plan.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit from DNR and the Corps of
Engineers .
All voted in favor except Conrad who was silent and the motion carried
unanimously.
' Conrad : My only comment is , you can hear we' re sensitive to what ou want
to do. We ' re also real sensitive to the wetlands and I think you're doing
'f a good job out there from what we can tell . We' d really appreciate it if
you 'd keep that sensitivity. Whether it be through your own personal
vigilance or whatever on that site . It seems like you are and that ' s why
' I 'm kind of comfortable. We spent fat longer on this one than I thought we
would but it ' s also a case of where we have so many of these coming in that
we treat them like they' re going to have an influence on the next couple
and the next couple and Chanhassen is just filled with wetlands that we' re
' trying to preserve as you can tell . They' re a really important resource so
sorry for keeping you here a little bit long but I think it ' s an important
issue.
Mrs. Kirt : . . . I 'm going to try to keep it natural around there.
Conrad: Now see if you would have said that before I probably would have
' voted . That ' s important .
Mrs. Kirt: We like it natural .
Headla : Normally loons stop in that lake coming and going north . This is
the first year since I ' ve lived out there I ' ve seen loons , I just heard it
the night of the 3rd and early the motni.ng of the 4th . It ' s the first year
that they' ve been nesting there.
Conrad : They' re nesting?
Headla : I 'm hearing them through the year now. Are you the ones who put
in the dock in Minnewashta?
Daryl Kirt : No .
1 -