1g. Wetland Permit for Filling in a portion of Class A Wetland, SW corner of Kings Rd and Minnewashta Pkwy I ' - ' ,
CITY OF P.C. DATE: July 5, 1989
I \,1 .
Y s C.C. DATE: July 24 , 1989
� I CHANHASSEN'
CASE NO: 89-6 WAP
Prepared by: Olsen/v
il
STAFF REPORT
IPROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for the Partial Filling
of a Class A Wetland
Z
V LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings
SI:� Road
APPLICANT: Daryl and Debra Kirt
Q P.O. 692
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I 1 ,
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
IACREAGE: 6 . 28 acres
IDENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
IAND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
S- Lake St. Joe
16 E- PUD; townhomes
o W- RSF; single family
IW WATER AND SEWER:
F. Available to the site
IF) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : A majority of the site is a Class A
wetland with lakeshore on Lake St. Joe.
II2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
1.
.0 I r� ri
_ ( I � 1 / .-. M I
_ 62ND . �� w
4 SIP c ti 2 ry,,,/ - Inv '' r sit s4 k,- .`*� t
...� o ' � �j a/-..-.�ligur.- i r . pallii„
,,,,-,
_,...;.:1.1-1,444.,;, \)
,,
,!., (___- - i
il .,, ,i
_,:,,, _ ...._ 47)„..0...-4.4„. ___;___
,,
•
1-10,4"... •,:4',..40,110 v.,,,,i..
, ., 0.,.., ,.._7.4v...,,z4.-%it e . : _-_,/
3'4tj!J
.2 to"?'
mu
4
LAKE
444/1
1 l e 1 6/ N E by A S /� T A
�
vs
1 -
�
r' I e- 1 fad
KING ROAD - \ PUD—R t, _
k ,40-i„- .\\; NA •
4.
STJOEi � •• . ,•
= PON•_ i w le
t o , II
lif Zit tiro\ \
■ft1 P RR
MALE SHORES
'
DRIVE .
U i r4 N oo ■
,' I D R i
-t ( /
I
b 6. IF- ra.';0 ,... .. Imilm
ate \i.: „. , ..
le
1! LIM
-
' 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) .
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 Wildlife
11 Service to determine the edge of the wetland and the extent of
filling which would be acceptable. The area and extent of the
I
11
Kirt Wetland Alteration Permit
July 5 , 1989
Page 3
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 1
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.
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: 1
"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. '
1
I : .
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
dr.,I APPLICANT: si->ar,[r` c--- v-,6.,a <pi OWNER:+
ADDRESS ,, O CS 90
ADDRESS
CAah%iassen .5-S3/ 7 - .
TELEPHONE (Daytime) Zip Ode
y e) g•/g aD3 -. Zip P Code
IIREQUEST: • 93`/yi�'
Zoning District Change _
Planned Unit Development
I
• Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
_4_ Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan
- Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment
Subdivision ..
Land Use Plan Amendment
Platting
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation -
ISite Plan Review
)( Wetlands Permit
IPROJECT NAME - .
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
IIREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING
I - REQUESTED ZONING
• USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY �[
...)8 Aq_Fs ' - • a- - j. — 580.crD 1244 --3%.3;C ss°-4777/-
N' LOCATION /2A,� Q,,` U N cJR sflT' 7/`/ /o e 4-.s-r7
x REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST a 7(` _ 71 ..� s
II j NO e.t - - 1 jr A.4 ,
r
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) •
JUN 71989
Clii DE CHANHASSEN
1
•
City of Chanhassen
II
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS : '
This application must be completed in full and be t
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information tan or I
plans required by applicable City Ordinance d
filing this application provisions. Before
to determine the specific andfproceduralerequirements '
applicable to your application. is
FILING CERTIFICATION: II
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
II
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances . '
/
Signed By II
`y
Date =/
g
Applicant _
\\)
II
•
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has ' '
authorized to make this application for the peen
described. property herein
II
/ !/ �
Signed By l I
Fee Owner Date _4AZjfiz____.
,e_ WPi9 1
IIDate Application Received 6 -741
Application Fee Paid 41 100 Cc)
City Receipt No. ' II
•
II
* This Application will be considered by the Planning
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their Commission/ II
meeting . •
II
1
•
11
1
l C'vUN.
MINA
1
1
DESCRIPTION
I
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
Ipoint 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
ISouth 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.
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
C I T Y O F BOA DATE: June 26 , 1989
� C.C. DATE: II
.
CUAA7
Y CASE NO: 89-7 Variance
� . r
Prepared by: Olsen/v
li
STAFF REPORT
i
PROPOSAL: A 50 Foot Variance to the 75 Foot Wetland Setback il
for a Structure
F. r
Z
Q
0 LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Minnewashta Parkwa y a d n Kings II
Road
r
Q APPLICANT: Daryl and Debra Kirt
P.O. 692
II
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
II
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family r
ACREAGE: 6 . 28 acres
DENSITY: r
End �_y 043
ADJACENT ZONING
.°'`'""'__ -
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family Datx,_.._ ,� I
S- D39. rg..
QLake St. Joe
IIE- PUD; townhomes
6/az/P3_ _
LI W- RSF; single family
W II
F. WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
II
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : A majority of the site is a Class A
wetland with lakeshore on Lake St. Joe. I
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
II
•
r
' 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 ordinary 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
I
r
Kirt Variance
June 26, 1989
Page 3
i
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-
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
r
r
r
•
I
I § 20-407 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
C '/
-
I (4) Sedimentation basins for construction projects.
(5) Open storage.
I (6) Animal feedlots.
I (7) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(8) Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications.
I (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 24(5-24-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20408. Prohibited uses in class B wetlands.
IThe following uses are prohibited in class B wetlands:
1 (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
1 solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.
(2) Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transf
disposal sites. er or
(– )
1 (3) Animal feedlots.
(4) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
1 (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-6), 12-15-86)
ISec. 20409. General development regulations.
Within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal distance of two
Ihundred(200)feet, the following minimum provisions are applicable:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
I (2) The minimum structure setback is seventy-five(75)feet from the ordinary high water
mark.
I (3) Septic and soil absorption system setbacks are two hundred(200)feet from ordinary
high water mark.
I (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 maintenance
I costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost action.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-13), 12-15-86)
ISecs. 20410-20420. Reserved.
1190
I
■
33 —.-
I
IL
0
I
4i z
'► J
z
I
v I
1 I ,
I
I
0
1
0
iii ,c) I
Iti) 1 �9 1 i Q
4--+I. .0I N i i
?' N M p '!
i
N cc
v 4 0
to i
I9590 Z I
\ .4) I
90r . I 1
953•ry j
/ERnslohl C LZ1 DL,#,
g
I
3
■
• POwER • ' I V
Ki a
E
I
MEDF WETLAUO /
.I
I
?.#.w. 715.2) • 4'y 9'V5,-• 9y9 !�
• e I !
I
. " r• '• 4 r aO0 ao 953x1
PEaPose• ° / \ r �a� House o� J
ku
1
• 9y5p q4 A- �y�
i Sti
BI �q 953./
�o WA
x\ 7N.Na / C
iiW �l , i�� 9(19.y
• L� \ay pg0 (03,/
SE O �� P V , \�. LOWEST FLOOR PROPOSED ELEVATIONS XX�
. 1 9 go 0 (XXX)
38 ARq(�E i GARAGE FLOOR- 95/ o
II /I U11/kR�SEWER TOP OF FOUNDATION- q53 33
�[ Ft S'(ATtOnI
�'f9 Q�� r�/ �- EASEMEU"( \ I
t i
il 16 NOTE:VERIFY SANITARY SEWEF
> � �`�� 9y6�'� r-''.� i I PRIOR TO ANY FOOTIN
X50 ■9 9S7x/ �
• ' LIFT sra-g._.6.v.{ \ !
-.
9118.r l i y.r._
l
Cu'. I
re1sERJ I \ 1
_________z 1 Mloenu
1 11:,4114iLEI PouxR78—� �ly o W PocE •' f���
---- 9V8 z j - POWER I4 I
�LAC� ,To r I vow
9Si v �_ —
f-- - 'UF-�L� �' I r 0—L•11Al1FioLE
I�5� ___--___ f -
`R K X1,4 Y- — — — -- NA,� _ ---
■
IICity Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
II
lir- Councilman Johnson: I think we need a time table. We can talk to Enterprise
Property 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
I fall.
Don King: Either that or sodding.
ICouncilman 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.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, probably better in the fall now.
Councilman Boyt: July and August might not be a very good time.
ICouncilman 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
ISeptember 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.
II 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.
I 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.
)1)1` k PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE WETLAND SETBACK, DARYL AND DEBRA KIRT, LOCATED
j
"w; AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KINGS ROAD AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY.
e Jo Ann Olsen: The site is at the corner of Kings Road and
li
ng Minnewashta Parkway.
, - ..V It is an existing lot of record. A little over 6 acres. A majority of the site
�rr is a Class A wetland. The applicant intends to locate a single family residence
)i on the home which they have the right to do. They y must receive a variance to
the wetland setback. They are maintaining the front yard setback from
II _ 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
Ithey 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 41 t of this site and are recommending approval with two conditions on page 3.
tMayor Chmiel: Is the applicant here? Please state your name and your address.
I
II 11
I
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
Daryl Kirt: Daryl Ki.rt, 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 Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this?
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler 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?
Councilman Boyt: They didn't review this.
Mayor Chmiel: No, the Board did not review this.
[11_
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. I
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be smart, right.
Councilman Boyt: The other thing I would also state and we'll see if the rest I
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 4C)
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
T- Councilman Workman: 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
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 them filling the whole
thing.
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 coming 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
back and change ordinances, we then 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 Kirt: 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?
IJo Ann Olsen: The area that's shown is already including an addition.
' 13
—C'ity Council Meeting - June 26, 1989 r
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 I
of the garage and that's actually not even there. That corner of the garage is
not there?
Debra Kirt: Yes, that corner is there.
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
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?
II
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 '
I
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
7'
breezeway. Yes...
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 P ronger 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?
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 it 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 IUD and blah, blah, 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.
' 15
I
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
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: No.
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.
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 I
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 asking for a 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 Chmiel: 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 ,
U
City Council Meeting - June 26, 1989
lir-■
Councilman Johnson: Right but the house print's not shown quite here. That's
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.
IDebra 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 Chmmiel: Your porch might be our deck or vices 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. 6e can' t leave condition 2 the way it is.
ICouncilman Johnson: Well your condition 2.
Councilman Boyt: Alright.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Wor_knan 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
' 17
■
'Ci`ey Council Meeting - June 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. 1
3. A correct survey be presented to the City prior to issuance of a building
permit. ,
All 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 sane
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 Cbmiel: Okay. I guess I just have a couple questions that I'd like to ,
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. 11
Mayor Chmiel: When does this constitute a business of raising dogs and having
litters within that residential segment? Would 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 I
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?
Ell
18
I
r
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 5, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. .
1 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 Kirt: . . .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. . .
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted oted zn
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 put a
boardwalk over that wetland? Is that a problem?
' Olsen: They couldn ' t do it without a wetland alteration permit.
' Headla : How about in the wintertime running 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
11 place?
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 2
Olsen: The wetland alteration permit is 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
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 bales "
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
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 no
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 . I
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 thin
this gentleman wanted something.
Daryl Kirt: The wetland actually dries up. The wetland . . .
Batzli : How much wetland are they actually filling in here Jo Ann? We've II
said minimal but.
Olsen: It was I 'd say a tenth of an acre . It ' s a very small amount . I
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 even
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
I
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 3
better wetland?
Olsen : This one, really it was a Class 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.
r 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?
r 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.
rBatzli : 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.
r
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 4
Erhart : How big is that lot above the ordinary high 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? 1
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 acres ,'
the buildable area is pretty small .
Olsen: There' s no question about that .
Erhart: So we're trying to make it bigger 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 tot
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 II
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. 1
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 I
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 II
alteration can be?
Olsen : We ' ve got it on file and then we record it.
Conrad: It' s recorded on the plat?
■
Planning Commission Meeting
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
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
' 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 .
Olsen : It ' s a very minor loss but yes , there' s really no reason to improve
any of the rest farther out.
11
•
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 6 '
Conrad : And how does that fly in the face of our ordinance? The ordinanc
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 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 to
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 becausil
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 anci
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
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 Minnewasht
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 .
Conrad: Is it really an A wetland Jo Ann?
Olsen : This?
Planning Commission Meeting
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 just . . .
' Conrad: Dave, did you have a point?
Headla : I started to think about the line you were 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
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
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 there 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
11 property into the wetland .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 8
Conrad : I would assume not much is draining over their property right?
Olsen: Not in that area .
Conrad : Which way is the water flowing, just out of curiousity?
Daryl Kirt: South. '
Headla : The road in front will catch most of that. Very little water
comes right off their property.
Olsen: I can go out there. Paul is gone for a month in Alaska but we can
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.
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
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 II
read that.
Emmings: What' s the bottom line of what they say?
Daryl Kirt: 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
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 I
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 a
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 thing,
to do. I don' t need any more justification than that. Obviously there' s a
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
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 no
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 there'
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. . .
■
Planning Commission Meeting
July 5, 1989 - Page 9
IConrad : Would you ever put fertilizing restrictions on a house this close?
Olsen: Sure you can.
IConrad : But you haven' t volunteered that?
Olsen: It's just that who' s to say if they do it or not.
I
Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
I approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-6 as shown on the site plan
stamped "June 23, 1989" subject to the following conditions :
I1. 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.
IAll voted in favor except Conrad who was silent and the motion carried
unanimously.
Conrad : My only comment is, ou can hear we' re sensitive ve to what you want
to do. We' re also real sensitive to the wetlands and I think you' re doing
I 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 I 'm kind of comfortable. We spent far 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
I 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.
IMrs. Kirt: . . . I 'm going to try to keep it natural around there.
I Conrad: Now see if you would have said that before I probably would have
voted . That ' s important .
Mrs. Kirt: We like it natural .
IHeadla : 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
I the night of the 3rd and early the morning of the 4th . It' s the first year
that they've been nesting there.
IConrad : They' re nesting?
Headla : I 'm hearing them through the year now. Are you the ones who put
in the dock in Minnewashta?
IDaryl Kirt : No .
I
•