Loading...
1b. Wetland Permit for Pond in a Class B Wetland, 1200 Lyman Blvd. b, C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 5 , 1988 C.C. D1988 CASE 1 • Prepared by: Olsen/v • 1 ,� STAFF REPORT • 1 1 PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit to a Class B Wetland for the Construction of a Pond Action by Gay n, ii;iiNii! 1 Endorsed, 6`"� Modified I LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 2 , Hillside Oaks Rejected Date_ 9/.3,9 zeir. -.. Date Submitted tL; i;,!)i.nr I a,d APPLICANT: Brent Miller l�te Sub�tr:c! c: c4.tu;.ia 1200 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: A-2 , Agricultural Estate 1 ACREAGE: 3 .8 acres DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; vacant S- A-2; agricultural R . E- A-2; single family residence IId . W- A-2; single family residence I 1.11j WATER AND SEWER: The property does not have sewer and water available. 1 Cl) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a single family residence and a Class B wetland located in the northern portion of the lot. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural 1 • - i IOP 01 Vit P • *19 , )°'' ?. f ,I -' ./ lr: , . s stp 1 — ,. _.:i ..-/-* . .....-..„...._ ,44te■ o /,) L A KE SUSAN • :, J ` co RD il 0 -,_, lif PUD R 0 3 IF a Pow' ■ illr . , Q co "'l ' -W2( IX , RSF , cc ■,_ ,T, 0. 3-41 P At■ LW/ 4 1.2263 B• EVARD Lo s I _, r I iQOf�75ED A 7 A2 W '-4kb I ■ % _ _ _ 1 ■ I \VI I L- -'--r--\----N---Th • INW 1 ■PRA! 1 Miller Wetland Alteration ' October 5 , 1988 Page 2 ' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for the ' creation of a pond within a Class B wetland (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES ' Fish and Wildlife Service Attachment #2 BACKGROUND In the fall of 1987 , the applicant met with staff to discuss the construction of a duck pond in his rear yard on property located at the northeast corner of County Road 17 and Lyman Boulevard. At that time, staff stated to the applicant that there was a wetland in the area he was proposing for the construction of a duck pond and that a wetland alteration permit would be required. The applicant stated that he would contact staff when he made the decision to construct the duck pond. In the meantime, staff visited the site with Dr. Rockwell to determine whether or not a ' duck pond would be recommended for approval in the wetland. It was felt by Dr. Rockwell that the construction of a ponding area within the wetland ,if designed to the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service would be an improvement to the wetland. The ' applicant did not contact staff about pursuing the wetland alteration permit. It was brought to staff' s attention by the Building Department that a pond was being constructed on the subject site. Staff visited the site and found that the applicant had constructed the ponding area within the wetland without contacting staff or pro- ceeding with a wetland alteration permit process. Staff con- tacted the applicant by letter stating that his action was in violation of the Wetland Ordinance and that he would be required to go through the wetland alteration permit process (Attachment #3 ) . ' ANALYSIS The applicant has made application for the wetland alteration permit and has provided the necessary information. The construc- tion of the pond did meet the recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife Service by providing varying depths and left in a natural state. When the applicant had the pond constructed, the fill from the pond area was placed within the wetland area. This is not permitted by the city. Staff visited the site again with Mr. Paul Burke, of the Fish and Wildlife Service, to determine whether or not steps should be taken to remove the fill placed in the wetland area and whether or not the existing pond should remain as is and is a benefit to the wetland. Mr. Burke felt that although the placing of fill in I 11 Miller Wetland Alteration October 5 , 1988 Page 3 , the wetland is not desirable, it had not impacted the wetland vegetation or function of the wetland. Mr. Burke felt that it was best to maintain the pond as it is rather than remove any fill from the wetland. The applicant had at one time stated to staff that he would like , to clear an area around the ponding area. Staff and the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that the wetland area around the pond must be maintained in its natural state and that any additional of clearing of the wetland vegetation would not be permitted. RECOMMENDATION Although the pond was constructed within the Class B wetland prior to city approval, it has been confirmed by the Fish and Wildlife Service that the design and construction of the pond has not negatively impacted the wetland and will actually be an improvement. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit to allow the existing pond to be main- tained as is . Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-15 with the following conditions : 1 . No additional alteration to the pond shall be permitted and no additional fill material is permitted within the wetland area. 2 . The wetland area surrounding the pond shall remain in its natural state. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland alteration permit with the conditions as recommended by staff . The Commission was concerned with the number of cases where wetlands are altered without city approval and directed staff to review how the wetland ordinance could be better enforced. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #87-15 with the following conditions : ' 1 . No additional alteration to the pond shall be permitted and no additional fill material is permitted within the wetland area. 2 . The wetland area surrounding the pond shall remain in its natural state. I 1 Miller Wetland Alteration ' October 5 , 1988 Page 4 ' ATTACHMENTS ' 1 . Section 20-421 from City Code. 2 . Memo from Paul Burke dated September 20 , 1988 . 3 . Letter to Mr . Brent Miller dated November 19, 1987, and January 25 , 1988. ' 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 5 , 1988 . 5 . Site plan dated September 13 , 1988 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I (-- ZONING § 20-422 I DIVISION 2. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT I Part A. General Provisions Sec. 20421. Required. The following activities are prohibited in the wetland area indicated unless the city III council issues a wetland alteration permit allowing the activity: (1) Scientific research projects in a class A or class B wetland which alter the wetland. (2) Public works in a class A or class B wetland except for emergency public works which I shall not require a wetland alteration permit. (3) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways or water I courses of a class A or class B wetland. (4) Removal from class A wetland of trees or vegetation except hay, crops and diseased I and storm damaged trees and vegetation which shall not require a wetland alteration permit. (5) Docks, walkways and boardwalks, within class A or B wetland. I (6) Installing or replacing drain tile or ditches in a class A wetland. Repairing existing drain tile,in a class A wetland if the property has not been in active agricultural use I during the twelve(12)months preceding February 19, 1987. (7) Development in any class A wetland or within two hundred (200) feet of a class A wetland that is within the wetland's watershed. ' (8) Septic or soil absorption systems in a class B wetland. (9) Sedimentation basins in a class B wetland. I (10) Any structure in a class A or B wetland except for minor expansion and additions to single-family detached dwellings existing February 19, 1987 that do not require a wetland alteration permit. (11) Digging, dredging, filling in a class A or B wetland. (12) Advertising signs in a class A or B wetland. I (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 24(5-24-7), 12-15-86) Sec. 20422. Application,issuance,etc. I The applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall furnish the information required by the city including but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data and hydrological data for I the review of a wetland alteration permit application. A wetland alteration permit shall not be issued without having been first reviewed by the planning commission and approved by the (.....- council following the review procedures set forth for conditional use permits. The applicant I shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent and other provisions of this article.A permit must be approved by a three-fifths vote of 1191 I I IIMemorandum to File Subject: Report of Field Investigation of Two Wetland Sites within the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, MN } Field Investigator: Paul J. Burke Date: September 20, 1988 1 - Following my on-site review, I have found the following: _ I ---- Site 1: This is a small ( 2 acre) wetland (Palustrine Scrub-Shrub) in the back yard of Mr. Brent Miller at 1200 Lyman Boulevard in Chanhassen. It appears that Mr. Miller had a small ( .125 acre) pool excavated for landscaping purposes, with the IIexcavated material being graded over the adjacent wetland --* vegetation. This activity occurred about a year ago (my estimate) . II found the site to be stabilized, with a dense mat of reed ,. canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) growing over the graded fill from the pond. While placing fill in a wetland is a IL prohibited practice, the amount in this case was sufficiently small, and the results almost insignificant to the overall function of the affected wetland. In principle, the fill should be removed. But in this case, such a IL� requirement could result in more ecological impact than _. allowing the fill to remain. I would suggest that an after- the-fact permit be issued for the project as it now exists. `�- Site 2: Iri,p:,- :,, This is a large tract with two wetlands that are proposed ' for alteration by the developer (Rosemont, Inc. ) . An entrance road and parking facilities are planned that, along 4- preliminary landscaping plans, would adversely �� � with some . ;; -. affect wetland sites #1 and #2 (see Rosemont, Inc. site = " ` s1- plans, dated September 13 , 1988) . The consulting engineers -,,o,S. - (OPUS, Corp. )P• ) have gone to some effort to plan the incorporation of the wetland complexes into the aesthetics _ _'f4�? �, of the project site However, the plans appear to emphasize ''' aesthetics over other wetland functions and values. The : <,,N,' total values associated with these wetlands is best conserved by reducing to a minimum the work planned for --r- their "improvement. " I would recommend that wetland site 1 :' be left undisturbed. If the plans call for an employee , recreation site, I would suggest the use of an elevated board walk (on piles) with wide spots for tables and •',t "' benches. y'' 4. S - - — - .t..J�N .u.:1.}`•...tea II C1TYOF i CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 November 19, 1987 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dear Mr. Miller: Approximately one month ago you met with me at City Hall to ' determine whether or not you could construct a duck pond on your property located on the northeast corner of County Road 17 and County Road 18. At that time, I told you that it appeared that the area was a wetland and was protected by the city and that any alteration to the site is not permitted unless you receive a wetland alteration permit. I explained that there was a wetland alteration permit fee, and a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council. You stated that you would contact me the following week so that we could establish a time to go out to the site with Dr. Rockwell from the Fish and Wildlife Service. I never heard from you that week but did visit the site with Dr. Rockwell. We saw where you had staked out the area that you wanted to construct the pond. Dr. Rockwell felt that a ponding area would be beneficial to the wetland if it was designed to the six design standards of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Since I did not hear from you, I assumed you were not going to pursue the matter since it was understood that you could not do anything without receiving a wetland alteration permit. It has come to my attention that the pond has been constructed and that you have altered the wetland without receiving permissio from the city. This is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance And you must comply with the ordinance regulations. You must now apply for a wetland alteration permit to receive permission from the city for construction of the pond. If the city does not approve the wetland alteration permit, the land would have to be returned ' to its natural state. I am sending this letter by certified mail and am requesting that 1 you contact me within ten days of receipt of this letter. Should I not hear from you within ten days upon receipt of this letter, you will be contacted by the City Attorney. ' 1 ' Mr. Brent Miller November 19, 1987 Page 2 ' I feel that this issue can be resolved but until you contact the city and receive city approval you cannot alter the site any more ' than it already has been. I will expect a call from you within ten days from receipt of this letter. incQrely, • I Jb Ann Olsen 14 —_ ' Assistant City Plan er JO:v ' cc: Jay Johnson Gary Warren Ron Julkowski 1 1 1 I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: �i`L'/11t /SIJ�C/d l�%//c OWNER: .s.4A C 4.5*PL%c f ADDRESS / .2o D / y 11/0 ADDRESS ' Aeik hts S cw 55-3 17 Zip Code Zip Code I TELEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE 93 - 7o 3 7 REQUEST: , Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan 1 Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME ' PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION /Q4644 ' PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING , USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY 6 At:its LOCATION /ccV L i m cav at 1/0 - 1 REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) ///1/3/4 Oak- I II • City of Chanhassen Land Development Application ' Page 2 ' FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or ' clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements ' applicable to your application . ' FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifi ' that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all es applicable City Ordinances . ' Signed By �' ,✓�1 A ppli i� cant _ Date 9c�� o � `fig}, ' The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . 1 Signed By Fee Owner Date Date Application Received Application Fee Paid • City Receipt No. 1 * This Application will be considered by the Plannin Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their g Commission/ meeting . -.-'i.int4M:•YN.dSreMC.r d CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING l ., OCTOBER 5, 1988 1 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli II MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson, James Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HE , U HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND, 1200 LYMAN BOULEVARD, BRENT MILLER. Public Present : Mr. and Mrs. Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Boulevard ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Brent Miller : My name is Brent Miller . I am the property owner at Lyman Blvd. . I had a couple questions. What determines a wetland area? How does the City determine a wetland area? Olsen: The vegetation, the type of soils . ' Brent Miller : So do they make an on-site inspection of the area prior to? I guess what I 'm trying to say, I assume there was a wetland plan that was adopted in 1984? My question is, how do you determine what a wetland area is without going on the site prior to my applying for this permit? Olsen: What they did was they used a lot of the DNR' s maps or they had an I aerial of some vegetation and standing waters and soils. Your wetland had been designated . . . Brent Miller: By the DNR? ' Olsen: By the map adopted by the City which consolidated DNR information. Brent Miller: Prior to my digging this, and before I contacted you, I 11 went to the DNR and also to the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation. Both of them, both places showed no wetland, Class A or B on my property. II I guess also when I did purchase the property back in 1984, the developer did not inform me that the land was a wetland area. Is he supposed to inform me by the plot sheet or by someway notifying me that it is wetland area. The City approved it right? The development? r Olsen: Your subdivision was approved prior to the wetland ordinance. What happens now is that the wetland will be designated as part of a subdivision procedure. The area will be designated as wetland area and protected and it will have to show up on future site plans. But it is a • I . Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 2 ' protected wetland by the City and it had been confirmed twice by Fish and Wildlife. ' Brent Miller : This is after the fact that I inquired it right, you determined it was a wetland area. You determined it before that without informing me it was a wetland area? Olsen: No, I told you it was. . . ' Brent Miller : You said the developer had approval of that property before the wetland came into effect. I bought the property in 1984. The plot sheet that I got did not show a wetland area on that . So it was approved before 1984 and that' s the reason why. . . ' Olsen: In the fall of 1984. ' Conrad : But I don' t think that' s relevant. Is it relevent at all? If it's a designated wetland, regardless of when the plat was approved or when you bought it, it is a designated wetland period. The DNR gave us a ' map of where the wetlands were. We adopted their map for Chanhassen. Regardless of whether it' s on their map or not , if you have a wetland , based on vegetation and based on soil, you can' t dig in it without a permit. So timing in this case, Jo Ann correct me if I 'm wrong, but timing is not a factor. It' s simply a case where you have a wetland and you wanted to do something to it and we have a regulation, as does the DNR but we have a regulation that says you can' t without a permit. Brent Miller : But the DNR did show that it was a wetland there on their map? Olsen: The DNR may have told you that it ' s not protected . We have a lot of wetlands that we protect that are not protected by the DNR. II Brent Miller : The City doesn' t have to contact the private owners? Olsen: We did go through a whole public hearing process during the wetland alteration ordinance. We did not contact every single owner . That's why when you come in, we look at it then. Brent Miller : That ' s all I ' ve got.b Conrad: Jo Ann, in the case where somebody has a wetland on their property and they decide they want to do something to it, and they' re not ' putting in a building, they want to do something to that wetland, what is to catch that? Would an owner expect to , what ' s going to trigger any kind of staff review of what they' re doing? If there ' s not a building, we ' re not talking about a building permit here. What ' s going to get staff involved? Olsen: When they contact us , that ' s when we' re notified . A lot of times ' they will contact the DNR or other official agencies who then contact us. But we really have no idea of what ' s going on in every back yard . • . I Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 3 ' ir Brent Miller : How is a person' s taxes affected by the wetland area? Conrad: Normally they' re much lower. Brent Miller : How is it that the County Assessor had no knowledge of my property being a wetland? Conrad: Then I think you should inform him and I think it' s typically a case, and we've looked into this in the past that wetlands are, wetlands is non-buildable property, period . Typically it ' s taxes that way. More II than likely you could ask them how it's assessed and you can make some adjustments for future years . You don' t have any recourse for the past to my knowledge, and I 'm getting out of my league when I start talking about taxing but I understand from past. . . Brent Miller : . . .the fact that the City did not contact me telling it was a wetland. . .where I 've been paying taxes for the last 4 years and all of a II sudden it' s . . . Prior to buying that, I had no knowledge. . . I was told it was a buildable lot. Conrad : A building lot you can put one house on it . That ' s a buildable I lot. Anywhere that' s permitted. Any other comments? Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Does this happen on a regular basis? We approve this after the fact? Olsen : It has happened a couple other times . One of the most recent ones was a dock that was installed through a wetland in Lotus Lake. Batzli : Are these the normal conditions that we put in? ' Olsen: . . . in a conditional use. Batzli : I guess one other question I had . You indicated there was an attachment dated January 25th. Did we not get that or wasn' t there a second letter? Olsen : The second letter is just referring to the letter to Brent Miller stating that the Corps of Engineers, he had contacted the Corps of Engineers. . . to see whether or not it was in violation of the Corps . They have stated that. . . Batzli : As I understand it though, the second person from the DNR that went out there, Paul Burke, he said that it appeared to him that the pond II was constructed according to the normal 6 conditions that we would have imposed if the ,applicant had come in before hand? Olsen : He said to alter it would have harmed the wetland more. I . Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 4 Batzli : But as far as slope and that kind of stuff, that was all . . . Olsen: It was pretty close. He did provide a uneven bottom. The wetland vegetation has grown back around the pond to provide the protection for wildlife. He was satisfied. Batzli : What' s our rationale for passing this after the fact? Olsen: Again, to go in and fill it would be more of an impact to the ' wetland and actually would cause. . .to the wetland. Batzli : Speaking hypothetically, what would it take before we'd prosecute somebody who did this? Olsen: If we would have found that he had, what he had done had harmed the wetland, we would not recommend approval. We would recommend that it be returned to it' s original state . Where that dock is on Lotus Lake, we did make a change so that the conditional use would have less impact to the wetland . Batzli : Okay, I don' t have any more questions . Emmings : I guess I don't have anything different than Brian. It ' s ' irritating that people will find out there are regulations they' re supposed to follow and then refuse to follow them but I guess if there' s , it ' s a no harm, no foul situation so I 'd vote for it on that basis but I 'm ' just wondering though if it wouldn' t be appropriate, since we know about this situation, to take some pictures out there of the situation as it exists presently and put them in a file so if there' s any further ' alterations later on, we have some evidence of what it was . Just as a suggestion. A good basis for prosecution. Erhart: Let me ask Jo Ann, if Mr . Miller had come in, which he did and I . I 'm sure it was explained that this land was wet, what would have been the requirements for him to do what he had requested? What would we have required from him? Olsen: For a wetland alteration permit he would have to provide a plan . . . Erhart: So it would require a surveyor. Would it require contours? ' Olsen : Yes . ' Erhart : And how far away from the pond? How big an area would have to be surveyed? ' Olsen : Typically the whole wetland area . But our major interest is . . . Erhart: So you had requested . . . Olsen : He would have been shown where the boundaries are. 1 ' � Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 5 ' Erhart : Can I ask what it cost to have the pond dug? What do you think a survey would have cost? $200.00 to $300. 00? Does it include all contours? When you did that before the pond was dug . . . My point is , I think it' s great. My view of the wetland is that it's not wet. He' s got about 30 acres of closed wetlands without any open water and for someone to invest and improve the wetland and bring some open water, I think is good . Obviously I would have liked to have seen you follow the II City's procedures. My concern is that the City encourage, I should say, we have a lot of wetlands in the Chanhassen area that are closed and grown over. I 'd like to make sure that we don' t discourage people who want-: II them, that we don' t discourage them making their investment in such a way that we work together to try and improve the wetlands. I 'm not suggesting that you did but discourage them in terms of what kind of hoops they have to jump through and the expense of the drawings and surveys and so forth. 11 I guess I only put that in as a comment in general . Obviously I would have liked to see you follow the procedure. I drive by everyday. I think it' s a nice little pond . I see ducks and geese in it. There' s no ducks and geese in anyplace around there so I support it. Conrad : I guess I 'm disturbed about two things . One, there ' s really no II way to, we haven' t found a way to inform people what our wetland ordinance is speaking to and we kind of hope that somebody comes to the City to stumble into us. The second is that this particular thing happened after the fact. Mr . Miller , the staff report tells me that they told you a year II ago that it was a wetland and that you couldn' t dig in there without a wetland alteration permit. I 'm curious why you went ahead anyway. Brent Miller: After I found out what it would cost. . .the neighbor right adjacent to me has the same. . .put up a pole barn. . . Olsen: The survey didn' t show a wetland on his land . ' Brent Miller : If I would have applied for a building permit , I wouldn ' t have had to go through this. . . ' Conrad : Jo Ann, the other case that he' s mentioned , what happened there? Olsen: We get surveys that show the building site and where the buildings I are and the setbacks and if the wetlands don' t show up on it, then we're not aware that there is that wetland out there, we just sign off on it. Conrad : They' re signed off because we' re not visiting the site? Olsen: If they put it on the plan, we don' t . . . Conrad : And how come we don' t do that? Olsen: Because I get about 20 a day on my desk and we don' t have the manpower . Conrad : So it ' s a manpower issue? Olsen: Yes . __ _ ;.yams-......_ a:�-�:ay;;;��.J,.,,-� M.;.,b..L::R...,..,k_•:� II ' s Planning Commission Meeting IOctober 5, 1988 - Page 6 Batzli : Or is it an issue of trying to match up the building sites with ' our overall map? The wetlands? Olsen : We've got a pretty good awareness of where wetlands are. We check those pretty closely. . . Conrad : Is it unrealistic to have sites checked out? What do other communities do? ' I Olsen: Every site? Conrad : Yes , every site . Maybe that ' s wrong . Maybe I 'm misspeaking. I Maybe it' s so obvious that we don' t need to check out some things like when we' re in town and we' re putting on a deck or putting on a porch. I don't know but are we different than other communities? Olsen : I don' t believe so. I don' t know off hand if they do a site by site inspection. The building inspectors are out there too. . .on other ' regulations and they do see a wetland or something , they will contact us . Conrad: So if it' s a staffing problem, who ' s staffing problem is it? Is it a building inspection function? Is it a planning function? ' Olsen: It would be under planning. Everyone signs off buildings. The planning looks at the setbacks . . . ' Batzli : If a wetlands is partially defined by soils, isn ' t the building department the one that has to sign off on that aspect of it? Olsen: If you have wetlands, you need to determine if there is a wetland . If you look at vegetation or soils. . . Again, most of the lots out there, they don' t have soil borings performed on. . . Batzli : When do we normally require soil borings? Only if we think. . . ' Brown: Only in areas such as Woodcrest where it' s fairly obvious that we'd expect to see poor soils . ' Erhart : I think there' s a real problem here. We' ve had two garages built in wetlands down by me and I ' ve contacted Jo Ann and Barb about both of them to try and figure out how these things, this is before I even understood the whole process but within the last 3 years. It' s ' incredulous to me that these things got as far as they did before anybody. They had discovered them about the same time I did. Conrad : It ' s real irritating . The gentleman , Mr . Miller is doing it because he saw somebody else do it and they did it on a much grander scale so therefore no big deal . Erhart : It ' s a big difference in putting a building down there. Are we prosecuting that guy now? 1 w;, II Planning Commission Meeting October 5, 1988 - Page 7 II 47 Olsen : The City signed off on it. I Erhart: Is Ron now pretty aware or is the building department. . . Olsen: Yes . In fact I had one the building inspectors out measuring with II that fellow yesterday but again, if it' s not on a site plan or it's not an area that we know is a wet area . - ' Erhart : I think we have made a lot of changes in the building inspection department. Very positive changes. i Conrad : Is this a case , it bothers me, this is a case where we want Jo Ann or staff to come back with a recommendation on the situation? If we' ve got it happening, it ' s a case where we' re just trusting the land II owner. There' s nothing triggering anything here. Do we want staff to look into it a little bit or should we just say there' s nothing we can do and we' re comfortable with the way it is? Should we have staff report II back? Batzli : I 'd like to hear their recommendations for what can be done to have something be put in the specs somehow or would it take another II person? Conrad : Could you do that Jo Ann? Make recommendations to us , what it 1 would take and the costs of implementing such a thing without a big consultant oriented research project. Emmings: It isn' t as simple as looking at an overlay because that will II only catch the ones that are obvious and well known. Erhart: You alomst have to go back and try to put the wetlands on all II plats. Conrad : You go back and that' s what we stayed away from. We adopted the II DNR map and just trusted that it was as accurate and that we couldn' t spend the time to do it ourselves . To go back through the entire City of Chanhassen to develop our own map. I suppose that' s one alternative. I Erhart : One of the things you could do is hand out with any building permit application, a small map that shows all the wetland area in the City. One of the questions in the building permit application, I believe, II is there a wetlands? Isn ' t that one of the questions? Well , the idea is that with the application is a stapled map that shows all the wetlands and the question, does this application involve any of the areas shown on the attached map? If the guy says no, then he ' s blatantly misstated the facts . Conrad : Okay. Put that down on the things to do list Jo Ann. Anything II ( else on this issue? Is there a motion? Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-15 with the following conditions : - !I . Planning Commission Meeting ' October 5, 1988 - Page 8 1. No additional alteration to the and p shall be permitted and no additional fill material is permitted within the wetland area . 2. The wetland area surrounding the pond shall remain in it' s natural state. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : Steve, did you want to include that as a condition? You just wanted to make a note for the staff? Emmings: Yes , it ' s just a suggestion. I don ' t want it to be a condition. ' PUBLIC HEARING: ROME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (1450 PARK COURT) : ' A. SUBDIVISION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2 INTO TWO PARCELS OF 2. 25 ACRES AND 1.36 ACRES. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 , 700 SQUARE FOOT STATE LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER. Public Present : Roman Roos - Applicant Jerome and Linda Carlson Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . ' Roman Roos: Roman Roos from the Rome Corporation. A couple weeks ago we came before the Planning Commission with a zoning text amendment to allow a free standing day care within the IOP. As of last week we had the first ' reading and approval on that so this evening we' re here to continue that process. It is actually a two part process . One will be the replat to allow a site for the proposed day care center and the second would be the site plan approval . This evening we have Jerome Carlson and Linda Carlson here . The day care center is going to be used by the employees of Instant Webb, United Mailings and Victory Envelope and Linda Carlson has been working with the architect to prepare the overall structure and the use of that structure for the employees of those companies . I think this evening I ' ve got behind me a map showing the Lot 1, 2 and 3 of the original -� business park. What we ' re doing in essence, we have Lot 2 in the orange. Lot 1 and Lot 3. Back in 1984 , I built this building down here . At that point in time it was my intent and probably noted to Council that we would eventually put in something in the better portion of this lot . When I put