D-11. 9641 Meadowlark Lane Driveway Construction Projecti
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952,227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
7901 Park Place
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician
DATE: February 22, 2016 4 �,
SUBJ: 9641 Meadowlark Lane Driveway Construction Project
Wetland Alteration Permit and Wetland Replacement Plan
Planning Case 2016-04
PROPOSED MOTION
"The Chanhassen City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-
04 and authorizes the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency
Water Resource Application, subject to conditions within this staff report,
and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation."
City Council approval requires a simple majority vote.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit under Chanhassen City Code,
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection, and approval of a wetland replacement plan
under the MN Wetland Conservation Act for the construction of a proposed driveway to
access the property at 9641 Meadowlark Lane.
The proposed alignment and driveway construction will result in .022 acres (957
square feet) of impact to Wetland Basin 1. These impacts will be mitigated for using
wetland credits purchased by the applicant from account #1392. This wetland bank is
located in the same Bank Service Area (BSA 9) and Major Watershed 33 as the
proposed project. Therefore, the impacts are required to be mitigated for at a 2:1
ratio, resulting in the purchase of .044 acres of wetland credit from bank #1392. This
is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522 of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules.
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
The applicant had also requested a Variance, which was unanimously approved at the
regular Planning Commission meeting on February 16, 2016; therefore, it does not
Senior Center
require City Council approval.
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Website
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing forTodayand Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
9641 Meadowlark Lane WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 22, 2016
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2016, to review the wetland
alteration permit for the proposed driveway construction project. The commission voted four to zero
on a motion recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit and wetland replacement plan.
The applicant and the applicant's builder came forward during the public hearing to present their
intent for a future single-family residence on the property, and the need for the proposed driveway
with the proposed submitted alignment.
Steve Burke, residing at 9591 Meadowlark Lane, also came forward in favor of the project and
future residence at 9461 Meadowlark Lane.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion approving the Wetland Alteration Permit
and Wetland Replacement Plan:
"The Chanhassen City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-04 and authorizes
the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application,
subject to conditions within this staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Wetland Alteration Permit 2016-04.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 16, 2016.
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 16, 2016.
gAplan\2016 planning cases\2016-04 9641 meadowlark lane variance & wap\executive sunnnary_02_22_2016.doexx
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT #2016-04
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
hereby grants a wetland alteration permit for the following use:
For the purpose of the proposed construction of a driveway at 9641 Meadowlark Lane.
2. Pmpert The permit is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows.
3. Conditions. The Wetland Alteration Permit was approved subject to the following
conditions:
a. Impacts must be minimized to the maximum practicable extent, or arguments and
discussions on alternatives and further minimization must be presented in the Interagency
Water Resource Application in order to fulfill the sequencing requirement, including
narrowing the driveway to 10 feet and presenting alternate alignments at the wetland
crossing.
b. No driveway beyond what is required to access the site and get beyond the wetland shall
be approved until a site and/or building plan is provided and approved.
c. A letter from the Board of Soil and Water Resources stating that the credits have been
debited and applied towards this impact must be provided prior to any disturbance of the
wetland.
d. An erosion prevention and sediment control plan consistent with Section 19-154 of city
code must be included.
e. The plan must indicate how temporary impacts to the wetland and the buffer area will be
permanently stabilized.
f. Culvert shall be aligned with the flow line of the wetland being crossed. Elevations at
both culvert openings shall be indicated on the plan.
g. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
h. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City's approval of a
wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring.
i. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing
wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 — 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code.
j. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources
and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval.
k. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated
wetland credits.
1. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to
City prior to commencement of activity.
4. Termination of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for
violation of the terms of this permit.
5. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the authorized construction has
not been substantially completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse, unless an extension
is granted in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance.
6. Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal
misdemeanor.
Dated: February 22, 2016
2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SEAL
Un
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Dennis Laufenburger, Mayor
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
20_, by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to
authority granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-04 and authorize the
Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application, subject to
conditions within this staff report, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit for the
construction of a driveway in order to access the property.
LOCATION: 9641 Meadowlark Lane (PID 25-7420070)
APPLICANT: David Vogel
105 Pioneer Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential (RR)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Large Lot
ACREAGE: 2.5 Acres
DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-
MAKING:
Wetland Alteration Permit — The city's discretion in
approving or denying a Wetland Alteration Pen -nit is
limited to whether or not the proposal meets the standards
outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the city must approve the wetland alteration
permit. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all
property owners within 500 feet.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 2 of 12
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit under Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 20,
Article VI, Wetland Protection, and approval of a wetland replacement plan under the MN Wetland
Conservation Act for the construction of a proposed driveway to access the property at 9641
Meadowlark Lane.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article IV, Conditional Uses: Wetland Alteration Permits follow the Conditional
Use Permit criteria
Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection
MN Rules Chapter 8420.0500 through 8420.0526
BACKGROUND
David Vogel, applicant and property owner, is requesting a wetland alteration permit for wetland
impacts as a result of a proposed driveway construction at 9641 Meadowlark Lane. Currently,
there are no structures present on the property. The intent of the proposed project would be to
provide an access to the property and allow the construction of a future residence. Currently the
only access is a mowed path that utilizes the neighboring property's existing driveway (See
Figure 1 below). The parcel was platted as a residential lot with Riley Lake Meadows and filed
as a lot of record in 1988.
Figure 1. Existing Access
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 3 of 12
In order to accommodate the project, the applicant is proposing to impact 957 square feet of
Wetland Basin 1, as shown in Figure 2 below.
rr000sea L-awur ioiacx� a nevaaon
ye Iawj dackj
Figure 2. Wetland ILnpacts
I, Igul C J. VV utiallu "tPUIIU'll lua
There are three wetland basins on site.
Wetland 3 is an isolated basin on the eastern
border of the property. A portion of Wetland
Basin 1 runs parallel to Meadowlark Lane,
making impacts to this wetland difficult to
avoid when providing access to the property.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 4 of 12
DISCUSSION
The proposed 9641 Meadowlark Lane driveway project consists of the construction of a 12 -foot
wide bituminous drive from Meadowlark Lane extending into the property approximately 350 feet
(See Figure 4 below). The project will provide access to the property and accommodate proposed
future construction of a single residence. This request is to address the driveway that will serve
this property. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans for a residence or potential future
location of the structure, and is working with staff to meet setbacks and work with the constraints
of the site. A building permit application has not yet been submitted. There appears to be
adequate buildable area on the site that will allow the property owner to build a single-family
home.
W. " -
Figure 4. Proposed driveway alignment
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 5of12
Wetlands within the proposed project area were delineated in October of 2015 by Jacobson
Environmental Consulting. The delineations were reviewed on site by city staff in November of
2015, and the boundary was approved by the City of Chanhassen on November 20, 2015. The
delineation identified three wetland areas on site. The Interagency Water Resource Permit
Application for wetland replacement dated January 4, 2016, was received and noticed on January
5, 2016. The proposed project will result in permanent impacts to Wetland Basin 1, which is one
of three identified wetland basins identified on the property, shown in Figure 5 below. Wetland
Basin 1 has been identified as a Type 3, wet meadow wetland. It runs parallel to the southern
edge of the property and extends north along the western side of the property, containing an
intermittent tributary stream that flows to Lake Riley.
Existing Contour& Elevation
Mn_Topo Lidar (white)
Top of Bank
r
mum 30 Ft. Request. 70'
ment into 100' setback)
Delineated Wetland Boundary
(red)
Proposed Welland Impact
957 SF
(yellow hatch)
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota
[Y .
0 10 20
0
Minimum 10 Ft. Wetland Setback
From Proposed Driveway
Proposed Driveway P,
(12 It wide)
(green) �.
W12In. Culvert
FW r
A
VV-' 1,6256 SF
Proposed Contour (black) & Elevation
(yellow/black)
Figure 5. Proposed driveway alignment and resulting wetland impacts.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 6of12
The proposed alignment and driveway construction shown above will result in .022 acres (957
square feet) of impact to Wetland Basin 1. The proposed .022 acres of wetland impacts resulting
from the project are to be mitigated for using wetland bank credits purchased by the applicant
from account #1392. This wetland bank is located in the same Bank Service Area (BSA 9) and
Major Watershed 33 as the proposed project. Therefore, the impacts are required to be mitigated
for at a 2:1 ratio, resulting in the purchase of .044 acres of wetland credit from bank #1392. This
is consistent with Chapter 8420.0522 of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules.
ALTERNATIVES
The Wetland Conservation Act requires the applicant to list at least two alternatives to the
proposed project that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands or waters (one of which may
be "no build" or "do nothing"). The applicant then must list and explain why the option
described in the application was chosen over these alternatives. The following alternatives were
presented in the MN Interagency Water Resource Application submitted by the applicant:
No Build Alternative
The no build alternative is not considered to be a viable option because benefits such as
lot access are necessary in order to build a residence on the lot.
No impact Alternative
A no impact alternative does not exist in this case.
Alternate 1
A minimum width driveway of 15 feet wide was used in this case. Steep slopes of 3:1
coming down from the driveway top were also employed to minimize fill impacts to the
extent possible. Fill impacts were 1248 square feet.
Alternate 2
A minimum width driveway of 12 feet wide was used in this case. Steep slopes of 3:1
coming down from the driveway top were also employed to minimize fill impacts to the
extent possible. Fill impacts were 957 square feet.
The applicant has decided to propose Alternate scenario 2, instilling a driveway width of 12 feet
in this case in order to minimize impacts, as well as avoid impacts to Wetland Basin 3.
Impact Minimization and Avoidance
The Wetland Conservation Act requires that if avoidance is not an option, the unavoidable
impacts are minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Efforts have been made by the
applicant to minimize the proposed wetland impacts by reducing the width of the driveway,
choosing an alignment that avoids impacts to additional wetland basins as well as increasing
slope grades, to minimize impacts resulting from slopes.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 7of12
OTHER AGENCIES
The applicant is responsible for obtaining any permits or approvals from the appropriate
regulatory agencies and compliance with their conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Wetland Alteration Permit Findings — Section 20-409 of the City Code provides that the Planning
Commission shall recommend a Wetland Alteration Permit and the Council shall issue such
Wetland Alteration Permit only if it finds that:
a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts that will occur with the 9641 Meadowlark Lane
driveway construction have not been found to pose danger to public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare. The goal of the proposed project is to minimize
impacts to the wetlands on-site and to provide access to the future residence.
b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning chapter of the City Code.
Finding: The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and City Code. The proposed driveway construction is consistent with City zoning
for the neighborhood.
c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
Finding: The appearance and character of the general vicinity will not change. The
applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize impacts to wetlands by locating the
proposed driveway further to the west, and requesting a variance to avoid impacts to
Wetland 3. Currently, the proposed project is located within a Rural Residential (RR)
neighborhood, and the proposed project is consistent with the character and existing use
of the area.
d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
Finding: The surrounding uses, as well as the lot itself, are zoned for Rural Residential.
The wetland impacts proposed as a result of the project are not foreseen to cause hazards
or disturbance to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed project is
considered consistent with neighboring uses, as well as providing access to a residential
lot.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 8of12
e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water
and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
Finding: Any changes to drainage structures or additional drainage structures needed as
a result of the proposed wetland impacts will be designed and constructed by the
applicant's contracted consultant in compliance with City design standards. No further
public maintenance is required as a result of the proposed project. The proposed
driveway will be designed and constructed according to city standards.
f. The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
. services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts associated with driveway construction will not
create excessive need for public facilities and services.
g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
Finding: The proposed wetland alterations are not expected to be detrimental to any
persons, property or the general welfare.
h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create
traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts will not create nor interfere with traffic and
surrounding public thoroughfares. When completed, the proposed driveway construction
will result in improved access for the landowner, and terminate the need to use the
neighboring property for access.
i. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts associated with the project will have no impact
on solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
j. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize wetland impacts and
retain aesthetical compatibility within the area. In addition, the proposed driveway
project will complement the area.
k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 9of12
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts have been minimized while still allowing for
the driveway construction project to occur. Though impacts have not been minimized to
the greatest extent feasible, if the conditions of approval are adopted, this requirement
will be fulfilled. The proposed driveway construction will create a safer access and will
be an asset to the surrounding properties.
1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the
City Code.
20-410 (b) When a permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following
standards shall be followed:
(1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological
and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland.
Finding: The applicant must meet the included conditions for the
proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on
the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining
wetland.
(2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
Finding: Efforts have been made by the applicant to minimize the
impact on wetlands and vegetation through a variety of measures,
which included locating the driveway in a way to avoid further
impacts, as well as reducing the width of the driveway.
(3) It shall not adversely change water flow.
Finding: The applicant must meet the included conditions for the
proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on
the hydraulic and hydrological characteristics of remaining
wetland. The preferred alignment indicates that a 12 -inch culvert
will be placed under the driveway but that the culvert will be
placed perpendicular to the driveway rather than along the flow
path of the wetland. Hydraulically this is not desirable. The
culvert shall be placed such that it is aligned with the flow path of
the wetland. The plan must be consistent with section 19-154 of
Chanhassen City code.
(4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum
required for the proposed action.
Finding: The applicant has made a reasonable effort to limit the
proposed wetland impacts, however there are further steps that
could be taken to reduce impacts to the minimum amount required
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 10 of 12
in order to complete the project. These steps are included as a
condition of approval. During construction the contractor is
required to follow approved plans to limit alterations to the
minimum the project necessitates.
(5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining
wetland areas.
Finding: The applicant and their contractor are prohibited from
disposing of excess material within remaining wetland areas as
well as any other activities which may negatively impact the
remaining wetland areas.
(6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion
control and nutrient retention measures.
Finding: The applicant and their contractor must submit a
satisfactory erosion and sediment control plan, and comply with all
applicable sections of Chanhassen City Code, the City's Surface
Water Management Plan, and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
(7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl
breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by
the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish
spawning.
Finding: The applicant and their contractor are required to refrain
from any wetland altering activity during waterfowl breeding and
fish spawning season.
(8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with
the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of
wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a replacement plan as part
of the Interagency Water Resource Application for Wetland
Replacement which was received on January 5, 2016. The
applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland
bank credits. The required replacement ratio is 2:1. This is
consistent with Chapter 8420.0522. of the Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA) Rules, and City Code, Chapter 20, Article VI.
(9) Dedicated buffers in accordance with Sections 20-411.
Finding: The applicant must comply with the City's Wetland
Protection Ordinance.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 11 of 12
In order to accommodate the proposed project, the plan proposes impacts to one wetland, totaling
.022 acres of permanent wetland impact. The applicant, David Vogel, is proposing to replace the
permanently impacted area resulting from the proposed driveway construction, using credits
from wetland bank #1392. This requires a 2:1 replacement ratio, which is consistent with
Chapter 8420.0522. of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules.
The applicant must receive the City's approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any
wetland impact occurring.
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit and approval of a wetland replacement
plan under the MN Wetland Conservation Act for the construction of a proposed driveway to
access the property at 9641 Meadowlark Lane. The applicant has made significant efforts in
reducing and avoiding impacts to wetlands on the property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit
#2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water
Resource Application, subject to conditions within this staff report, and adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation as shown in plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct
a driveway, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision, subject to the following
conditions:
Wetland Alteration Permit
1. Impacts must be minimized to the maximum practicable extent, or arguments and discussions
on alternatives and further minimization must be presented in the Interagency Water
Resource Application in order to fulfill the sequencing requirement, including narrowing the
driveway to 10 feet and presenting alternate alignments at the wetland crossing.
2. No driveway beyond what is required to access the site and get beyond the wetland shall be
approved until a site and/or building plan is provided and approved.
3. A letter from the Board of Soil and Water Resources stating that the credits have been
debited and applied towards this impact must be provided prior to any disturbance of the
wetland.
4. An erosion prevention and sediment control plan consistent with Section 19-154 of city code
must be included.
5. The plan must indicate how temporary impacts to the wetland and the buffer area will be
permanently stabilized.
Planning Commission
9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04
February 16, 2016
Page 12 of 12
6. Culvert shall be aligned with the flow line of the wetland being crossed. Elevations at both
culvert openings shall be indicated on the plan.
7. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation for Wetland Alteration Permit.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application.
4. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice.
5. Letter From Applicant
g:\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-04 9641 meadowlark lane variance & wap\staff report_cc_wap.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
IN RE:
Application of Gayle M. & Richard P. Vogel for a Wetland Alteration Permit for wetland
replacement for proposed impacts to one wetland, totaling .022 acres, as a part of the proposed
driveway construction project at 9641 Meadowlark Lane — Planning Case 2016-04.
On February 16, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Gayle M. & Richard P. Vogel for a wetland alteration
permit to impact one wetland, identified as Wetland Basin 1. The total area proposed to be
impacted is .022 acres. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the wetland
alteration permit which was preceded by published notice. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District (RR).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Large Lot.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows.
Wetland Alteration Permit Findings — Section 20-409 of the City Code provides that the Planning
Commission shall recommend a Wetland Alteration Permit and the Council shall issue such
Wetland Alteration Permit only if it finds that:
a. The proposed project will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts that will occur with the 9641 Meadowlark Lane
driveway construction have not been found to pose danger to public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare. The goal of the proposed project is to minimize
impacts to the wetlands on-site and to provide access to the future residence.
b. The proposed project will be consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning chapter of the City Code.
Finding: The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and City Code. The proposed driveway construction is consistent with City zoning
for the neighborhood.
c. The proposed project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and will not change the essential character of that area.
Finding: The appearance and character of the general vicinity will not change. The
applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize impacts to wetlands by locating the
proposed driveway further to the west, and requesting a variance to avoid impacts to
Wetland 3. Currently, the proposed project is located within a Rural Residential (RR)
neighborhood, and the proposed project is consistent with the character and existing use
of the area.
d. The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
Finding: The surrounding uses, as well as the lot itself, are zoned for Rural Residential.
The wetland impacts proposed as a result of the project are not foreseen to cause hazards
or disturbance to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed project is
considered consistent with neighboring uses, as well as providing access to a residential
lot.
e. The proposed project will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water
and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
Finding: Any changes to drainage structures or additional drainage structures needed as
a result of the proposed wetland impacts will be designed and constructed by the
applicant's contracted consultant in compliance with City design standards. No further
public maintenance is required as a result of the proposed project. The proposed
driveway will be designed and constructed according to city standards.
f. The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts associated with driveway construction will not
create excessive need for public facilities and services.
g. The proposed project will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
Finding: The proposed wetland alterations are not expected to be detrimental to any
persons, property or the general welfare.
h. The proposed project will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create
traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
2
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts will not create nor interfere with traffic and
surrounding public thoroughfares. When completed, the proposed driveway construction
will result in improved access for the landowner, and terminate the need to use the
neighboring property for access.
i. The proposed project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts associated with the project will have no impact
on solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
j. The proposed project will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The applicant has made a reasonable effort to minimize wetland impacts and
retain aesthetical compatibility within the area. In addition, the proposed driveway
project will complement the area.
k. The proposed project will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed wetland impacts have been minimized while still allowing for
the driveway construction project to occur. Though impacts have not been minimized to
the greatest extent feasible, if the conditions of approval are adopted, this requirement
will be fulfilled. The proposed driveway construction will create a safer access and will
be an asset to the surrounding properties.
1. The proposed project will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the
City Code.
20-410 (b) When a permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following
standards shall be followed:
(1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological
and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland.
Finding: The applicant must meet the included conditions for the
proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on
the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining
wetland.
(2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
Finding: Efforts have been made by the applicant to minimize the
impact on wetlands and vegetation through a variety of measures,
which included locating the driveway in a way to avoid further
impacts, as well as reducing the width of the driveway.
(3) It shall not adversely change water flow.
3
Finding: The applicant must meet the included conditions for the
proposed wetland impacts in order to avoid an adverse effect on
the hydraulic and hydrological characteristics of remaining
wetland. The preferred alignment indicates that a 12 inch culvert
will be placed under the driveway but that the culvert will be
placed perpendicular to the driveway rather than along the flow
path of the wetland. Hydraulically this is not desirable. The
culvert shall be placed such that it is aligned with the flow path of
the wetland. The plan must be consistent with section 19-154 of
Chanhassen City code.
(4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum
required for the proposed action.
Finding: The applicant has made a reasonable effort to limit the
proposed wetland impacts, however there are further steps that
could be taken to reduce impacts to the minimum amount required
in order to complete the project. These steps are included as a
condition of approval. During construction the contractor is
required to follow approved plans to limit alterations to the
minimum the project necessitates.
(5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining
wetland areas.
Finding: The applicant and their contractor are prohibited from
disposing of excess material within remaining wetland areas as
well as any other activities which may negatively impact the
remaining wetland areas.
(6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion
control and nutrient retention measures.
Finding: The applicant and their contractor must submit a
satisfactory erosion and sediment control plan, and comply with all
applicable sections of Chanhassen City Code, the City's Surface
Water Management Plan, and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
(7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl
breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by
the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish
spawning.
Finding: The applicant and their contractor are required to refrain
from any wetland altering activity during waterfowl breeding and
fish spawning season.
0
(8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with
the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of
wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a replacement plan as part
of the Interagency Water Resource Application for Wetland
Replacement which was received on January 5, 2016. The
applicant is proposing to replace the impacted area using wetland
bank credits. The required replacement ratio is 2:1. This is
consistent with Chapter 8420.0522. of the Wetland Conservation
Act (WCA) Rules, and City Code, Chapter 20, Article VI.
(9) Dedicated buffers in accordance with Sections 20-411.
Finding: The applicant must comply with the City's Wetland
Protection Ordinance.
5. The planning report #2016-04, dated February 16, 2016, prepared by Krista Spreiter, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign
the Interagency Water Resource Application, subject to conditions within the staff report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of February, 2016.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1M
Chairman
2-�ok�', -- 0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY of CUMNSEN
Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
j APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW J t
Submittal Date: i + ' PC Date://I NCC Date: 30 -Day i0 -Day Review Date: _ —T ►F�
(Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application)
❑
Comprehensive Plan Amendment .........................
$600
❑ Create over 3 lots .......................$600 + $15
❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers .....
$100
❑
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300
❑ Single -Family Residence ................................$325
❑ Consolidate Lots..............................................$150
❑ All Others.........................................................
$425
❑
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
❑ Final Plat ..........................................................$700
❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence..
$325
(Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
❑ All Others.........................................................
$425
❑
Rezoning (REZ)
through the development contract.
❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ..................
$750
$300
❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD .................
$100
❑ All Others.........................................................
$500
❑
Sign Plan Review ...................................................
$150
❑
Site Plan Review (SPR)
$150
❑ Administrative..................................................
$100
❑
❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500
$100
❑
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:
$500
( thousand square feet)
*Include number of existinrr employees:
*Include number of Qew employees:
❑ Residential Districts .........................................
$500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
❑ Subdivision (SUB)
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
[Notification Sign (city to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200
❑� Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application meeting) .................................................. $3 per address
(_ addresses) 4 1S,S
❑✓ Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)....................................................................... $50 per document
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Pian Agreement
❑ Vacation (Variance Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements( easements) i 20
TOTAL FEE:
Description of Proposal: Proposing to impact approximately 1248 square feet of wetland area for construction of a
driveway in order to access private property directly from street.
Property Address or Location:
9641 Meadowlark Lane
Parcel #: 257420070 Legal Description: NE 1/4 of Section 25, T1 16N, R23W
Total Acreage: 2.40 Wetlands Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Present Zoning: Rural Residential District (RR) Requested Zoning: Rural Residential District (RR)
Present Land Use Designation: Residential Large Lot Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Large Lot
Existing Use of Property: Currently no structure on property.
0 Check box is separate narrative is attached.
❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300
❑ Create over 3 lots .......................$600 + $15
per lot
( lots)
❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300
❑ Consolidate Lots..............................................$150
❑ Lot Line Adjustment .........................................
$150
❑ Final Plat ..........................................................$700
(Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
*Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
❑
Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........
$300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
[ErVariance (VAR) ....................................................
$200
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
✓❑ Single -Family Residence ...............................
$150
❑ All Others .......................................................
$275
❑
Zoning Appeal ......................................................
$100
❑
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).................
$500
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
[Notification Sign (city to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200
❑� Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application meeting) .................................................. $3 per address
(_ addresses) 4 1S,S
❑✓ Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)....................................................................... $50 per document
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Pian Agreement
❑ Vacation (Variance Wetland Alteration Permit
❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements( easements) i 20
TOTAL FEE:
Description of Proposal: Proposing to impact approximately 1248 square feet of wetland area for construction of a
driveway in order to access private property directly from street.
Property Address or Location:
9641 Meadowlark Lane
Parcel #: 257420070 Legal Description: NE 1/4 of Section 25, T1 16N, R23W
Total Acreage: 2.40 Wetlands Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Present Zoning: Rural Residential District (RR) Requested Zoning: Rural Residential District (RR)
Present Land Use Designation: Residential Large Lot Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Large Lot
Existing Use of Property: Currently no structure on property.
0 Check box is separate narrative is attached.
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information
APPLICAN"n C7HERl THAN PRC PERTY OWNER: In signing th isi applioeition, I, as eippliceint, neprlselnt to have atteiinec
suilhoriaailian fram the praperty cimnen to filEl ilhis appliaatian. I eigme 10 to bon rid ty canditians of appraval, su t.jeici anly to
1fa right 10 abjecit at ffic hcanings an 1t EI appliceiiion or c u rind the appeal penioc . 11111 is Eippliceilion h Eis not teen signec by
the proper y awrin, I t EIVEI aitlached sciplaritei daaumerdation of full IEigal capacity toile it a eippliceition. This appIlication
Sit (ILIC to promiseic in my name anc I eim the party %hom It ei City show IC aontacit rEigarc ing any matten pertaining to th is
applicrciticin. I will keEirl myself infonmeld of the deeic lines far su t misvicin of material aric the pragrcEiv of it is applicaiticin. I
fu rtt em u nc envIvrid Rad adc ilional fele, may t e at eingec fan carisu lling feie:i, feiasib ilily stu c ies, eiia. with an witimale prion to
any En.th anizatian to procecc milt the slue y. I seer illy lhat lhel infarmaiion aric eixhibiis Ubmittec ares trLe and canrEicit.
Name: C onlacd:
Ac c ness: Ph cirie:
City,ISlale,IZiFI: Cell:
Email: Fax:
SigriatIL ne: Date:
PRtORERTY OWNER: In signing th is applicatian, I, as praperty awnEln, h eive fu II legal capacity to, anc hEuieby c a,
authorize tfei filing of lhiv arplicalian. I uncein;iiaric that cioricitiorl of arlrinoval einEi biricing and aciree to bei baunc by lhase
concitiaris, sub jci l orily ici the nigh I to ot,ject al the hearirigs or (L ning the eippEial ricnioc s. I mill kEiEip myself informec cd
the c eac lines fon siubmisSlion of material and it eI r1nogress cd th is applicaban. I fu r her u ncerstand It at etc c iticirial feEis may
to ch angEic for (iansu Itincl fees, fEa;iit ility stn c iEls, Eita. with an estimate rinion io any aI tr arizaticin to praaeEic with the
sludy. I cEirtify that the infarmalion aric eixhib its ,it tmitlEid arEi lnuEI eirid ciornecst.
Name: Cleivic � ogel C onlacd: Dav id Vagel
Ac cress: 109 Pioneer Tnail Pharie: 1612, 991-28z El
City)ISlale,IZiFI: ChasnhEiscein, MN 99317 Cell: (161-91; g91 -284f1
Halvil: A dpvagel@dnlalil.carTI Fax:
Signatures Date: 4 i'1io
Th is vp1pliuilion mu sit be ciampleted in fu II aric mu Sit b EI vcicamFlarikic t y all infanmaban anc pleiris nequ roes b y
applicieit lei City C nc irincEi pno\dSliorl. Beifane filiricl thi;l arlFlliaaliori, nefer to ih EI aFlprciFldale P Flplicaticiri Cheiaklist
and aorifen v itt the Planning Deplartmeril to c eilcomine It ei speaifici anc ineincie and applicablEi procedural
requireimenils anc fees.
A c ete amination of aamplletelness of IhEi appliaal ion stall bEi mac EI N ith in 19 b L siriElss c eiys cd applice ian su b mittal. A
m nitten riciliue cd applioeiticiri c efiaienaies sh all be mailec to It EI airlplicairit within '15 business days of a pplicatian.
PROJECT ENGINEER 111aprllicablei)
NEimes
Conlacd:
A c dress:
Pharie:
Ci1ydSlailei1Zip:
C ell:
Emvil:
Falx:
Section 4: Notification
Information
Who should rec civei copies of staff reports?
*Othcir C arstact Informations:
r❑ Pnopeiny CwriElr
Via: ❑✓ Email
❑ MasilEic ParIEm Copy
Nainic:
❑ Applicanl
Via: ❑ Email
❑ MaiilEid PaFlerCapy
Acdris.r.
❑ Engineer
Via: ❑ Email
❑ Nailed PaFler Capy
CitlydSteiledZip:
❑ 011 Ecn"
Via: ❑ Email
❑ Neiiled Paper Capy
Email:
INSIIRUCTICNS 710 APPUICAINT: Camplelte all neaeiswy fonm fields, then soleal: SAVE FC RM to salve a coyly to your
c eivicie. PRINT FORM aric c eliver io city along with reclu inec ( ciau meats and Flay melnt. SUBMIT RORM to sent a digital
ciopy to the aity foes pracEl9: ing Qrelcluirac ). SAVE FORM PRINT BCIRN SUBMnI NORM
We meed 111is uarianaci 10 build a driuewayl foci t1k blouse that we plan 10 build in lhle
spring of 2016. T .Ici anihe ditch) Has bears designated as wetland, and we necid to go withlin
50 Rid of the stream lci amoid aonstruciting part of the driivievwaM amer additional vwet:land
on lhci north) side oflthe ditcH. This mariiation will not only amoid laking out additional
wetland, but also minimize the number of:larga tresis rcieded la be remiavud thlal are also
lacated in that ansa and bcrAond. The vast of 1ho new drimevwaM will mosllM fo:lla w lha dart
road that our family) blas uscid for oucai a i! 0(1 Mears 10 get to the lake w;ilhl minimal rcrmoual
of any additional treses.
Project Name and/or Number: 2015-275
PART ONE: Applicant Information
If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the
applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent's
contact information must also be provided.
Applicant/Landowner Name: David Vogel
Mailing Address: 105 Pioneer Trail
Phone: 612-991-2848
E-mail Address: dpvogel@gmail.com
Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): SAA
Mailing Address:
Phone:
E-mail Address:
Agent Name: Wayne Jacobson, PSS, WDC Jacobson Environmental
Mailing Address: 5821 Humboldt Avenue North
Phone: 612-802-6619
E-mail Address: jacobsonenv@msn.com
PART TWO: Site Location Information
County: Carver City/Township: Chanhassen
Parcel ID and/or Address: 9641 Meadowlark Lane
Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Sec. 25, T116N, R23W
Lat/Long (decimal degrees):
Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways.
Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 2.4
If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must prcvide the
names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to
your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/do!: regulatory/RegulatorVDocs/engform 4345 2012oct.pdf
PART THREE: General Project/Site Information
If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other
correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number.
Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The
project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements
that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings
showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts.
See Appendix A Project Description, Appendix B Implementation Schedule, Appendix C Project Purpose and Need.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 11
Project Name and/or Number: 201.5-275
PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary
If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each
impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view
map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed
impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table.
lIf impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the "T". For example, a project with a temporary access fill that
would be removed after 220 days would be entered "T (220)".
21 mpacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the
nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact
along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6
feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet).
3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter
°Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3`d Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2.
5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7.
If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated
i with each:
PART FIVE: Applicant Signature
❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre -application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have
provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked.
By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein.
Signature: X Date: 1/4/2016
I hereby authorize Wayne Jacobson to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this application.
4*oel
' The term "impact' as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify
activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to
indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 11
Aquatic
q
Type of Impact
Duration of
Existing Plant
County, Major
Aquatic Resource
q
Resource Type
(fill, excavate,
Impact
Overall Size of
Community
Watershed #,
ID (as noted on
wetland, lake,
drain, or
Permanent (P)
Size of Impact2
Aquatic
Type(s)
and Bank
overhead view)
tributary etc.)
remove
or Temporary
Resource 3
G
Impact Area
Service Area #
vegetation)
(T)'
of Impact Areas
W1
W
F
_ —_P
0.022_-
N/A
10,33,9--
-_
_
—SM_ -
lIf impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the "T". For example, a project with a temporary access fill that
would be removed after 220 days would be entered "T (220)".
21 mpacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the
nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact
along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6
feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet).
3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter
°Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3`d Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2.
5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7.
If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated
i with each:
PART FIVE: Applicant Signature
❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre -application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have
provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked.
By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein.
Signature: X Date: 1/4/2016
I hereby authorize Wayne Jacobson to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this application.
4*oel
' The term "impact' as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify
activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to
indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 11
Project Name and/or Number: 2015-275
Attachment C
Avoidance and Minimization
Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a
description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management,
and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings,
roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management
plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary:
See Appendix C Project Purpose and Need
Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist.
Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives
that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites; and/or
not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 Q. Applicants a,e encouraged
to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis:
See Appendix D Avoidance and Minimization
Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest
extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water
resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4):
See Appendix D Avoidance and Minimization
Off -Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal
will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be
required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete applicat on but must
be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final
decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project
Manager,
N/A
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 7 of 11
i
Project Name and/or Number: 201.5-2.75
Attachment D
Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation
Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road
wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements.
Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an
existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your
repiacement/compensatory mitigation requirements.
----�—
Bank
-------------
Wetland Bank Major i
Credit Type
County
Account # Watershed #
Service
(if applicable)
Number of Credits
Area #
1392 10 33
9 SWC
.044
Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at
least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase
agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the
j applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants ore advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the
j mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU.
Project -Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions
(restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed
project.
Corps Mitigation Bank
WCA Action Eligible Credit % Credits Major
Compensation Acres 3 County Service
for Credit 2 Requested Anticipated Watershed #
Technique Area #
rteier w Lilt name aria suupari numoer in IVIN mule 842u.u52b.
2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota.
3 I WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA.
Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile......)
and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy
language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique:
Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant
features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, land use'
on and surrounding the site existing soils drainage Systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a
( g ), g g Y..
topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (inlets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.):
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
Attach a map of the existing aquatic resources, associated delineation report, and any documentation of regulatory review or
approval. Discuss as necessary:
See Appendix E Wetland Delineation Approval
For actions involving construction activities, attach construction plans and specifications with all relevant details. Discuss and
provide documentation of a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site to define existing conditions, predict project outcomes,
identify specific project performance standards and avoid adverse offsite impacts. Plans and specifications should be prepared by
a licensed engineer following standard engineering practices. Discuss anticipated construction sequence and timing:
See Figure'? Plan Sheet
For projects involving vegetation restoration, provide a vegetation establishment plan that includes information on site
preparation, seed mixes and plant materials, seeding/planting plan (attach seeding/planting zone map), planting/seeding
methods, vegetation maintenance, and an anticipated schedule of activities:
For projects involving construction or vegetation restoration, identify and discuss goals and specific outcomes that can be
determined for credit allocation. Provide a proposed credit allocation table tied to outcomes:
I
Provide a five-year monitoring plan to address project outcomes and credit allocation:
Discuss and provide evidence of ownership or rights to conduct wetland replacement/mitigation on each site:
Lot is owned by David Vogel
Quantify all proposed wetland credits and compare to wetland impacts to identify a proposed wetland replacement ratio. Discuss
how this replacement ratio is consistent with Corps and WCA requirements:
2:1
By signature below, the applicant attests to the following (only required if application involves project-specific/permittee
responsible replacement):
• All proposed replacement wetlands were not:
• Previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or permit
• Drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years
Restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs
• Restored using private funds, other than landowner funds, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual
or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in
writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement.
• The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland.
• An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security will be provided to guarantee successful
completion of the wetland replacement.
• Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of
Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located and suomit proof
of such recording to the LGU and the Corps.
Applicant or Representative: David Vogel Title: Landowner
Signature: Date: 1/4/2016
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 1.1
0
Proposed Contour & Elevation
(black)
Proposed Wetland Impact l
1248 SF
(yellow hatch)
x<
Existing Contour & Elevation
Mn_Topo Lidar (white) ,.
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota
Phone: (612)-802-6619
5 10 20
�"� E-mail: jacobsonenv@msn.com
` Project Name:
wY`
Figure 6
0 g seal Meadows
FPP} n------MDX Name:
sees�uusai:Wc;te
Existing Contour & Elevation'
Mn Topo Lidar (white)
A
11
Delineated Wetland Boundary
(red)
Property Boundary
W-1`1625&,q�;
16256'-S�-,
Proposed Wetland Impact
957 SF
(yellow hatch)
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota
0 5 10 20 +
Minimum 5 Ft. Wetland Setback
From Proposed Driveway
Proposed Driveway IMP,
(12ftwide)
(green)
W-32567
Proposed Contour (black) & Elevation
(yellow/black)
Phone: (612)-802-6619
E-mail: jacobsonenv@msn.com
Figure 7
Proposed Drivewav Imi
MDX Name:
41111
APPENDIX A
Project Description
Project Description
This project proposed by David Vogel is for a construction of a driveway in order to access his lot from
Meadowlark Lane. The driveway will be a minimum width of 12' of bituminous on the top with a 3:1 fill
slope on the sides. A 12" culvert will be placed in the center of the crossing in order to facilitate water
flow in the wetland. The location of the crossing is at a point which will be 5' away from a wetland on
the east and at least 35' away from an intermittent ditch which occasionally carries water to Riley Lake.
The Figure 7 plan which reflects required avoidance and minimization reflects 0.022 acres of permanent
fill impacts to low quality (as measured by MNRAM) reed canary grass dominated wetlands, and
replacement by high quality 0.044 acrE! wetland bank credits. A wetland bank purchase of 0.044 SWC
acres from bank service area 9 within watE!rshed 33 would be completed from the Minnesota Wetland
Bank to fulfill the mitigation requirements.
APPENDIX B
Implementation Schedule
Project Implementation Schedule
Item Proposed) Completion
1. Initial Project Grading
April 20115
2. Initial Spring Construction
April 20115
3. Construction Inspection
May 2016
APPENDIX C
Project Purpose and Need
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the project is to provide driveway access to the lot for home construction from
Meadowlark Lane. Currently the lot has no access available to it because the entire south portion of the
lot has a wetland separating Meadowlark lane and the lot. The wetland crossing is necessary in order to
provide access.
APPENDIX D
Avoidance and Minimization
Avoidance and Minimization
No build alternative
The no build alternative is not considered to be a viable option because benefits such as lot access are
necessary in order to build a residence on the lot.
No Impact alternative
A no impact alternative does not exist in this case.
Alternate 1— Figure 6
A minimum width driveway of 15' wide was used in this case. Steep slopes of 3:1 coming down from the
driveway top were also employed to minimize fill impacts to the extent possible. Fill impacts were 1248
sf.
Alternate 2 — Figure 7
A minimum width driveway of 12' wide was used in this case. Steep slopes of 3:1 coming down from -the
driveway top were also employed to minimize fill impacts to the extent possible. Fill impacts were 957
sf.
APPENDIX E
Wetland Delineation Approval
MinnesotaWetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit (LGL)) Address
City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1- P'RO.IFCT INFORMATInN
Applicant Name
David Vogel
( Project Name Date of Application
9641 Meadowlark Lane Application :Number
10/28/2015 2015-08
Attach site locator map.
_
J -------.__
Type of Decision:
® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Seyuercing
❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation
❑ Approve
❑ Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach):
2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION
Date of Decision: November 20, 2015
❑ Approved ® Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied
BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 1
of 3
LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary):
Jacobson Environmental PLLC, on behalf of David Vogel, has performed a wetland determination
and boundary delineation, for the parcel located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane, in Chanhassen. This
parcel is located in the NE'/ of Section 25, TI 16N, R23W and has the following parcel 11):
257420070. This delineation identified three wetland basins on-site.
Wetland basin 1 is located at the southern edge of the property and extends north through the property
to Riley Lake, which includes an intermittent stream which flows into Lake Riley, and drains a 73
acre watershed. It has been identified as a Type 3, wet meadow, PEMCd wetland. Wetland basin 3 is
located in the southeast corner and has been identified as a Type 2/6, wet meadow/shrub swamp,
PEM/SS 1B wetland. Wetland basin 4 is located on the southwestern border of the parcel, and extends
into the property to the west. It has been identified as a Type 4, deep marsh, PEMF wetland.
Wetland basin 4 has been identified on the National Wetland Inventory map. None of the identified
wetland basins on site are identified on the DNR Public Waters Map. However, Lake Riley lies at the
northern border of the property.
Based upon our review, the City of Chanhassen, as the LGU responsible for administration of
Minnesota R. 8420, concurs with the delineated boundary and types as identified in the wetland
determination and delineation report prepared by Jacobson Environmental PLLC, dated October 231,
2015, and the wetland boundaries shown within the report. The Application for Wetland Boundary
and Type was noticed on October 28, 2015. No additional comments were received from the
Technical Evaluation Panel members or from the public. This concludes our review.
Upon the provision of the electronic representation of the delineated boundaries (*.shp or
*.dwg), this delineation will be considered approved.
For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank:
Bank Account #
Bank Service Area
County
Credits Approved for
Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest
.01 acre
Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the
approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following:
❑ Financial Assurance: For project -specific replacement that is not in -advance, a financial assurance
specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9
(List amount and type in LGU Findings).
❑ Deed Recording: For project -specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the
BWSR "Declaration of Restrictioms and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" :Forms
have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located.
❑ Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR
has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan.
Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been metl
BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page?.
of 3
LGU Authorized Signature: _
Signing and mailing of this completed fbrm to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255,
Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as
specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner
and are available from the LGU upon reguest. ^ __
Name Title
Terrance Jeffery, WDC Water Resources Coordinator
Sign4tu Date Phone Number and E-mail
952.227.1168
__ "1f �r tjeffery ci.chanhassen.mn..us
Additiona vals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all
appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands.
Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period
for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be
responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts.
This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP
and specified in this notice of decision.
3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION
Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition
for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice
to the following as indicated:
01, ,.Ir n ..
Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send Appeal of LGU governing body decision.
petition and $50.00 fee (if applicable) to: Send petition and $500 filing fee to:
Chanhassen City Council Executive Director
c/o Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
7700 Market Blvd, PO Box 147 520 Lafayette Road North
Chanahssen, MN 55317 St. Paul, MN 55155
4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES
® SWCD TEP member: Chip Hentges, Aaron Finke
® BWSR TEP member: Ben Meyer
❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact):
® DNR TEP member (notice only):
® DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member):
® WD or WMO (if applicable): Claire Bleser, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District
® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): David Vogel
® Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): Wayne Jacobson, Jacobson
Environmental, PLLC
® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only) Melissa Jenny
❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only):
BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 3
of 3
5. MAILING INFORMATION
➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives, see:
www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/work-ai-eas/WCA areas.pdf
>For a list of DNR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state,mn.us;wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contarts.p f
Department of Natural Resources_ Regional Offices:
NW Region:
NE Regan:
Central Region:
Southern Region:
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Reg. Env, Assess. Ecol.
Reg. Env. Assess.
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Div, Ecol. Resources
Div. Ecol, Resources
Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
2115 Birchmont Beach Rd.
120113. lJwy. 2
Div. Ecol, Resources
261 Hwy. 15 South
NE
Grand Rapids, MN
1200 Warner Road
New Ulm, MN 56073
Bemidji MN 56601
55744
St. Paul, MN 55106
For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/diir regionsm f
➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers, see:
www mv_p usace army.mil/regulatory/def,iult.asp?pageid=687 or send to:
➢Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to:
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Wetland Bank Coordinator
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
ti. ATTACHMENTS
In addition to the application, list any other attachments:
® Joint Water Resources Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary, dated
October 26, 2015.
® Memorandum and Wetland Delineation Report, dated October 23, 2015.
BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page ,;
of 3
APPENDIX F
Wetland Delineation Report
Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsone!nvironmental.com
Environmental Consultants Wayne 7acobson, P.S.S., W.D.C.; P.W.S., A.F.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...._
5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com
October 23, 2015
David Vogel
105 Pioneer Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Project Name: 9641 Meadowlark Lane Delineation
Comm. No.: 2015-234
Project Location: City of Chanhassen
T116N, R23W, Section 25
Project Description: Wetland Delineation Report
Dear David:
(612) 802-66111, CeIP
As discussed, Jacobson Environmental, FLLC. (JE) visited the above referenced site to perform an
official wetland delineation in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation,
Midwest Region.
Adjacent site land use includes resident al lots, wetlands, woodlands, Lake Riley, and roadways on all
sides. This parcel is a combination of a woodland, and three wetlands at 9641 Meadowlark Lane in
Chanhassen, Minnesota. Figure 5 is a Wetland Delineation Map of the property. Figure 1 is a site
location map of the property. Al.figures referenced by this report are presented at the end of the text.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the project area, ident fy areas meeting tt:e technical criteria
for wetlands, delineate the juriscictional extent of the wetland basins and classify the wetland habitat.
Woodland Species Noted Wet Meadow -Shallow Marsh Species
Trees
Cottonwood
Quaking Aspen
Box Elder
Red Maple
Silver Maple
Red Oak
Shrubs
Quaking Aspen
Common Buckthorn
Herbs
Herbs
Smooth Brome
Reed Canarygrass
Kentucky Bluegrass
Tusssock Sedge
Common Plantain
Stinging Nettle
Tall Goldenrod
Water Smartweed
Common Dandelion
Lake Sedge
Red Raspberry
Lesser Duckweed
White Clover
Jewelweed
Ground Ivy
Broadleaf Cattail
Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis -T & E Surveys 1
Phase I Environmental Assess ments-EAVI's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation-Envirorinental Referrals
Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans
Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com
Environmental Consultants Wayne 3acobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S.
5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-66191 Cell
Email; jacobsonenv@msn.com
The growing season for this site is approximately from 4/15 to 10/15 where the air temperature averages;
above 28 degrees F. The growing season in 2015 started in April. This site is in the big woods
subsection ecoregion according to Minnesota DNR and the annua' precipitation averages 30.93 inches.
The presettlement vegetation was maple -basswood forest in this area.
The precipitation for the previous three months along with the comparison of the 10?6;15 precipitation
worksheet data was as follows:
Sept Aug July
Worksheet (Wks) 3.19* 2.82* 7.64 * = NWS [)a*.a
30% less than 2 20 3.09 2.48
30% more than 4.15 5.33 4.86
2015 Wks Interpret Normal Dry Wet
Multi -month score (3*2) + (2*1) + (1'3) = 11 Normal (10 to 14 being normal)
The delineation was performed on Octooer 6, 2015 and it is unlikely the precipitation totals in this pericd
affected the boundary of any wetlands in this delineation, since the period was norma,. Precipitation data
is located in Appendix: A. This wetland delineation was performed and reported by Wayne Jacobson,
Minnesota Professional Soil Scientist #30611, Society of Wetland Scientists — Professional Wetland
Scientist #1000, University of Minnesota / BWSR Wetland Del neator, Certified #1019 American
Fisheries Society —Associate Fisheries Scientist #A-171.
Methodology
The wetlands on the subject property were delineated using the routine determination methodology set
forth in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manuai. Wetland boundaries vre e
determined through a routine analysis of the vegetation, soils and hyd•oiogy which must all show wetland
characteristics in order for an area to be delineated as a wetland. We:lands are areas that are saturatE!d
or inundated with surface and or groundwater at a frequency and diaration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted 'or life to hydric; soi
conditions. Examples of wetlands inc ude seasonally flcoded bas -ns, floodplain forests, wet meadows,
shallow and deep marshes, shrub swamps, wooded swamps, fens, and bogs
Vegetation
The plant species within the parcel were catalogued and assigned a wetland indicator status according to:
Lichvar, R.W., Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W. N. Kirchner, 2014. The National Wetland Plant List. 2014
Update of Wetland Ratings, Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42.
In the text of this report and on the enclosed data forms, the plant indicator status folio-,ros the plants
scientific name unless a status has not been assigned. The hydrophytic plant c,iterion is met when more;
than 50 percent of the dominant species by the 50/20 rule for each stratum (herb, shrub/sapling, tree. anc;
woody vine) were assigned an ooligate (O8L)', facultative wet (FACW), andfor fact.rlta,ive (FAC) wetland
status.
r 0131- -Obligate Wetland, occurs in estimated 99% in wetlands. FACW-=Faculnttive Wetland, has an estimated
67%-99% probability of occurrence in wetlands. FAC—Facultative, is e(IM 11) likely to occur in wetlands anti non-
ttctlands, 341,o-66% probability. FACU�I:,ICUI(ative Upland, occurs in NkTilands on:N occasiun.tlly, 19,0-23"o
probability. UPL Upland, almost never occurs in wetlands. •: l",o probabil i\. Nl— No Indicator insuflicient
information available to determine an indicator status. Positive or nesative sign previousl\ ind cited a Irequertc\-
toward higher ( • ) or lower (-) frequence ofoccurrence with in category.
Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis -T & E Surveys
Phase I Environmental Assessments-EA1A!'s-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Clelineation-Environmental Referrals
Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans
Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com
Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S.
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (61.2) 802-6619 Cell
Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com
With the 50/20 rule, dominants are generally measured by absolute °/> cover in each stratum which
individually or collectively account for more than 50% of total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any
other species which itself accounts for at least 20% of the total vecetative cover.
Soils
A hydric soil is a soil formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the
growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper oart. If a soil exhibits the indicators of a
hydric soil or is identified as a hydric soil the hydric soil criterion is met.
The break between hydric and non -hydric soils was determined by excavating soil pits along transects
crossing the wetland/upland eco -tone and evaluating the soil colors, textures and presence or absence
of redoximorphic indicators (i.e., mottles, gley or oxidized rhizospheres) Hydric, Soil Indicators for the
Midwest Region were noted as presented in the National Technical Committee for Hy1ric Soils Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the !Inited States version 7.0 (USDA NRCS 2010) if present at each samp.e
point. Also, upper soil profiles were compared to the mapped or inclusionary soil senets found in the
sample area for soil identification purposes.
Cautions used in applying the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
There are hydric soils with morphologies that are difficult to interpret. These include soils with black, grafi;,
or red parent material; soils with high pFl-, soils high or low in content of organic matter; recently
developed hydric soils, and soils high in iron inputs. In some cases we do rot currently have indicators to
assist in the identification of hyd ,ic soils in these situations. As long as the soil meets the definition of a
hydric soil, the lack of an indicator does not preclude the soil from being hycric. The indicators were
developed mostly to identify the boundary of hydric soil ,areas and generally work best on the margins.
Not all of the obviously wetter hydric soils will be identified by the :ndicators. Redoximorphic features are
most likely to occur in soils that cycle between anaerobic (reduced) and aerobic (oxidi ed) conditions.
Morphological features of hydric soils indicate that saturation and anaerobic condition: have existed
under either contemporary or former I-ydrologic regimes. Where soil morphology seerns inconsistent with
the landscape, vegetation, or observaole? hydrology, it may be necessary to obtain the assistance of an
experienced soil or wetland scientist to c'elermine whether the soil is hydric.
To clarify on some Carver County sites,
1. Many of these soils have black or gray parent materials
2. Many of the soils have a high organic matter content
3. The hydric soil margin is typically higher than the wetland boundary margin on the site
4 Not all of the obviously wetter scils will be identified by the indicators
5. Many of the hydric soils are Mollisols which are classic prob ern hyd,ic, soils in many cases
Wetland Classification
Wetland classifications discussed in the -:e:<t are set forth in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79i31, Cowardin et al. 1979) zinc Wetlands of the United States
(USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and =redine, 1971.) Additionally, plant community types as, named by Eggers
and Reed (1998) are given.
Topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory maps, the Web Soii Survey, Aerial Photographs, and
DNR Protected Waters maps were consulted to locate potential wetland habitats.
Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis -T & E Surveys
Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineatiom-Environrnental Referrals
Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans
Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com
Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S.
---------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ------
5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-66151 Cell
Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com
The Routine On-site Determination Method was used on this site !n this method, the following
procedures were used:
1) The vegetative communi-y was sampled in all present strata to determine
whether 50% of the dominant plant species were hydrophytic using the 50/20 method
2) Soil pits were dug using a dutch auger to depths of 18"40". noting scil profiles and any
hydric soil characteristics.
3) Signs of wetland hydro ogy were noted and were compared to field criteria such as depth
to shallow water table and depth of soil saturation found in the soil pits.
Wetland edges were marked with orange numbered pin flags. 4 -foot wood lath marked with orange
"wetland boundary" flagging tape or flagging tied on vegetation may be used if site conditions warrant
Any wetlands were mapped using modern survey methods by others. At least one sample point transect
crosses each delineated wetland edge. These transects consist or air uplane sample point, and a
wetland sample point. Other sample pcints may be located in areas which have one or more of the
wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrologic characteristics present, or Where questionable conditions exist.
Sample points are marked with orange prn flags with a pink ribbon tied on them. Sample data sheets are
found in Appendix B.
Results
Basin 1
Basin 1 is a PEMCd ditched Type 3 shallcw marsh comprised of 3% broadleaf cattail, 500% reed
canarygrass, 5% jewelweed, 30% open water, and 10% lesser duckweed along with a few other species.
The wetland boundary was typically a transition from common buckthorn to reed canarygrass wilh a
topographic break. The soils changed from dry Hamel soil to saturated Hamel soil in the wetland. Soil
saturation was present in the wetland, and hydrology disappeared in the upland.
Basin 3
Basin 3 is a PEM/SS1 B ditched Type 2/6 wet meadow/shrub sward) comprised of 60$o sandbar willow as
shrubs, 40% reed canarygrass, 20% jewelweed, 20% stinging nettle, and 10% great ragweed along with
a few other species. -he wetland boundary was typically a transition from common buckthorn to reed
canarygrass with a topographic break The soils changed from dry Hamel soil to saturated Hamel soil in
the wetland. Soil saturation was present in the wetland, and hydrology disappearec in the upland.
Basin 4
Basin 4 is a PEMF Type 4 deep marsh comprised of 5% swarrp sty)artweed 20% reec: canarygrass, 10 4:
coontail, 35% open water, and 30% lesser duckweed along with a few other species. The wetland
boundary was typically a transition from common buckthorn to reed 3anaryg,ass with topographic
break. The soils changed from dry Hamel soil to saturated Hamel soil in the wetland..8oil saturation was
present in the wetland, and hydrology disappeared in the upland.
Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis -T & E Surveys �t
Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineations -Environmental Referral!;
Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans
Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com
Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S.
----------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------------- I•-------------..------
5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell
Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com
The National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (Figure 2) identifies Basir 4 on the subject site.
According to the DNR Public Waters Map (PWI) (Figure 4) of Carver County there are no DNR Pub is
Waters on the property.
According to the Web Soil Survey (Figure 3) the following hydric soils existed on the parcel:
Hamel
Photographs of the site s wetlands are presented in Appendix C.
Confirmation of Jurisdictional Status
We are submitting this report to the c,ient and regulatory agencies to request a wetland boundary and
type determination. We have enclosed an official WCA Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary form rr,
Appendix D along with a USCOE wetland delineation concurrence request.
Conclusion
This wetland delineation meets the standards and criteria described ir. the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation :Manual and the 2010 Regional Supolement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation: Midwest Region. TI -is was a Routine Or Site Determination anc the results reflect
the conditions present at the time of the delineation.
If any wetland impacts are planned for this project, permits would be necessary from t,ie LGU (City of
Chanhassen) and other agencies
I certify that I performed the field analysis and wrote the report for this wetland delineation. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide wetland services on this important project
Wayne E. Jacobson
Professional Soil Scientist #30611
Professional Wetland Scientist #1000
Wetland Delineator, Certified #1019
Associate Fisheries Scientist #A• 171
Jacobson Environmental, PLLC.
Regulators: Terry Jeffery, City of Chanhassen
Ryan Maltrud, USCOE
Chip Hentges, Carver SWCD
Ben Meyer. BWSR
Date
Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Perm itting- Mon itoring-Ban king -runctionaI Analysis -'T & E Surveys
Phase I Environmental Assessme-As-EAW s -Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation•Environrnental Referrals
Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
93°33 000' W 93°32.000' vv
93o 31.003' W WGS84 9303M00' b1 —
�•�,7��i-`
� � � ; � . , �ai%n Ur r ti�r� � t � 1� ,• �f.�... ---,—ss#;i �f �trt; .� . ` ,t4� 1 � I � 'L����� •`
rl_ f,,9 �•v ,\w ..i�',.. .
o. «Lr..: /,ai a!Suvair ��e76 ttin t w s3 ilwr�P,�w E
c , • �. {•.:.�� ani' � �, ,47f��v�th 7 r ;:... s^ (/�-^•
rtli`r
' I � - _/ I , L✓` r f • /,..: :dye,.
'ymasi8Ne1
9.a
O +. '✓•1 t r.✓J ti•a l:a/a'!' If'2/L�f - �.l .A1 •(f1� �, l
r.
LA
ra S(. J�,i'f Si..E t %- , L ,. .t17 R 1 1l ,T ' Cr
, vii�arl' 3 '
\ �Ctt�111tY H„wy 1d- 'd
,.,\: rtf .,, "'�"�i.R,dqGol
y (�„ Ar r ! -.sok • a '%S 'r ; ...
•j.._. "✓
•`}t„�f�r�r' i` �' `, .. � r � �? 4 ! C � Y t.,,.{ `.I1 ' -_.. i11�+` 'f `+� + ,+��"r � { r' I
z m� <-. _ y�� fo�.t tf ;- r #✓,..� s a ' � 1 �.,,"�' ,n j.. ) --•ta- , �*� 1 ;`�\ i`,11•
� i a^, f � t 1 � :. r ri • J � I or " '�� ,.'r r,'.+ �:?? - y •
oHe 1r '' Cr l ri tt! - ..•�""".r y_ 2T2 `•:
Ca
°af.L farm Rd..° ,'it akot� e T vj as z
c .. 1 1 t. 6 f t {: �ytrift t r p- o
•
'r . ;, 4, •, �"., •t ..� . _,.;� >... .: �:����� .: _ of
_-
;fn1,
12 0
dasumlrtiyn I in,a � �,A }1 ;:
•212
t f
t i ,RPS" 1s7'ttistutn 4 Cgttst'11{
CO
1_.ro'rr cn
1 � nn Y •. �J}
... . ,._ Y,• Ia i V , � r � � .. .? t f �.'. -, / t7ri f^°.•Jti_F. t�, "
L1tNta't S- .' 10' tfe`vx�jtt^ z:
Iii s c NI4 Y
1...
t"w---
a
Ua created with J2007 National G dura hic; 2005 Tel .Atlas, elf 20 5 ngnty x f ° k
93°33.000' W
93032.000, W - � •--- — �•—-++�11:._. ,.__._---.___..._
93031.0 00' W WGS84 93°30.000' \'J
NATIONALr
MtrS TN A1tJ
GEOGRAPHIC
O ire°
10/22/15
Figure 2 DNR
National Wetland Inventory
NWI
NWi Conardln Class 2004-2034
ECMN_NWS_U7M
Aouauc 3ed
Emergent Veoetadce
r»restr.'
Mess'LK�en
Open Water (Flooded
Areas)
Rock Bottom
r- Rocky Stare
Streambed (]nermittent)
Scrub-Smb Forest
Uncon""'idated Bottpn
(Baso:. & Channels)
Un1mS011dated Sha e
Aquatic Bet
Emergent Ve}Vatan
cres ..c
Moss, 1chen
Open Ware: f,-Icooed
Areas;
Rock Bottom
Rocky Shore
Streembed (Intermittent)
Scrub -Scrub Forest
L' Uncen&Ohdated SM..
(Baslnc R rh—n.ls!
Unwnsolidated Shore
(Sankt &
http:'/nindnr.neaps.arcgis.eoniapps.;UnePane;'basiel,,'iewer..�index.html?aYPid=?l )7.a?6Tfcd449deb8521?68cO698046 10/22%2fii_5
s
t i��r' { � a�../rij4 �i I { • ->< se+l,�`,GR�'Y.t (' � '1 L �p. {�1 aS.'°a E � f (�
0 to
.tSia'tt
•• 7 n. s ,r • � � f..��"k�t 11�',I .K .t• f
� �� i.A• 1 F$t l�i�•
ttr r f
4,4
�+'�$4 - �� R ... .sl"k� ' �t�1•.� ' ( {', '�7��jj� sy � � '�S � � `i.'7 : .. _�. �lt. b. �'I r' t'1 ''�. y�
,yM@adoWl+" i t'r.i '}t jti fr
M MW
r 3
i r
Sod Map—Carver County. Minnesota fig.ire :3 •Soils Map
Map Unit Legend
Carver County, Minnesota (MN019')
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
HM Ilamel loam 0 to 2 percent 40 52 1%
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10122!2015
Conservation Service National Cooperative Sod Survey :1,:gc 3 of 3
slopes
K132
Leste-Kilkenny loams. 2 to 6
0.2
2 7'k
percent slopes. eroded
KC2
Lester -Kilkenny loants. 6 to 12
0.3
3 4'k,
percent slopes. eroded
KE2
Lester -Kilkenny loams. 18 to 25
09
12 1 No
percent slopes. eroded
MK
MusKego and Houghton soils. 0
0.2
2. 4`.!0
to 1 percent slopes
NO3
Lester -Kilkenny clay loams, 12
1 5
19 3%
to 13 percent slopes. severely
eroded
W
Water
06
7 7'yo
Totals for Area of Interest
7.8
100.0%
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 10122!2015
Conservation Service National Cooperative Sod Survey :1,:gc 3 of 3
17•t1tr1 \+•
wv
Ip 'ii •
I j,
�2P t
16
cHar�asscH w
� 2DU
Figure 4
DNR Public Waters Inventory nlap
TN Jacobson Environmental, PLLC;
Approximate Seale 1" =5,280' Project No. 2015-234
Property,
T
Parcell ID Number 257420070 P
Figure 6 Site Mall)
A R V H,
'(A \T N
'MR11C I N d,1 l I ?I cj"()" -Y I-ly 1.14 ly ciij
Itio for
"'S'Y ".. U;! rt
'I fl"s
OW . :":,v " nj'v pao of it oo'(:t P.-ly
111,11;;Ck:'Y,
October 22, 2015
Cou:uy' mw
Figure 7 LIDA R Topo Map
1-ne State of Minnesota and the N innesota Department of Natural Resources makes no representations
or warranties ex pressed or Implied, with respect to the use of maps or geographic data provided
-er with --ga•_•es,, o ,ts format or the mems of its transmission. There is no guarantee or
representation to the user as to the accuracy, cur renty, s ltabiltty, or reliability of this data
for ;n:rpose.'lte U r acCeuis ii,r+riaha as is...
'.e Smote i s•..mesota assumes no responsibility for lots nr riam gP ..1....
rei'a.._- r.., th , a. ,-. . c ani.. _ a _ nc�.rred as a :esu . o any user
- ,,,.._. rna'.,c.• i ^y O iCe-1 Nrre'n ai'eiirl'lC ted by copyngn,
Extreme Care was used during the compilatinn of this product. yo:,.;eve, due tc Changes in ow„,si,ip and
the need to rely on outside information, errors or omissions may exist. if you should discover an rwercpht,
we encourage YOU to let us know by calling the DNR at 1.889.646-6367 or by e-mail at info.dnr!astate.mn.us.
Note: Elevation images and Contours were generatpri from Lm.4R derived e�ewation surfa.xs aCnui,ed 20-w-21312
Scale: 1:4,152
N
t
Created on in -'22,12.015
APPENDIX A
Precipitation Data
Precipitation Documentation \ orksheet Using Gridded Database
Page ' o l• 2
Minnesota Climatology Working Group '
State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota
home I current conditions I journal I past data I summaries I agriculture I ocher sites contact us ( search j
Mj
Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database
Precipitation data for target wetland location:
county: Carver township number: 116N
township name: Lake Minnewashta range number: 23W
nearest community: Shakopee section number: 25
Aerial photograph or site visit date:
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Score using 1971-2000 normal period
Score using 1981-2010 normal period
(values are in inches)
estimated precipitation total for this location_
there is a 30% chance this location will have
less than:
there is a 30% chance this location will have
more than: _
type of month: dry normal wet
monthly score �^
first prior month'
second prior third prior
third prior
month month
(values are in inches)
September
August July
July
2015
2015_ 2015_
estimated precipitation total for this location:
missing^_
missing i 7.64
there is a 30% chance this location will have
2.01
3.12 I 2.76
less than:
there is a 30% chance this location will have
4.15
4 94 —� 5 OF,
more than:
type of month: dry normal wet
missing
_missing
wet
monthly score
missing
missing
1 * 3 = 3
multi -month score:
missing
6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal 1 15 to 18 (wet)
Score using 1981-2010 normal period
(values are in inches)
estimated precipitation total for this location_
there is a 30% chance this location will have
less than:
there is a 30% chance this location will have
more than: _
type of month: dry normal wet
monthly score �^
n.,�w,ar ►_� d� y wet
3x21, "L*3__3
http:; Cllilliitt.Lnllll,edlr;`:ridcled d;ua;prrci}i'��etl:ln�liworkshe::Lash?hasshutm83--ti�Ol1... 15
first prior month
second prior
third prior
month
month,
September
August
July
2015
2015
2015
3.1ti a- _
_2 • $ �' �' _
_7.64 -
2.20
3.09
2.48
4.15
5.33
4.86
n.,�w,ar ►_� d� y wet
3x21, "L*3__3
http:; Cllilliitt.Lnllll,edlr;`:ridcled d;ua;prrci}i'��etl:ln�liworkshe::Lash?hasshutm83--ti�Ol1... 15
Iilgh DENsity radius retrieval 011210
Page l of 1
Minnesota Climatology Working Group c;�'
State Climatology Office • DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Mlnnec.ota
home 1 cu -rent conditions 1 journal 1 past data 1 summaries 1 agriculture 1 other sites 1 contact us I search 1
Nearest Station Precipitation Data Retrieval
Minnesota's precipitation data archive is searched for data closest to a selected target location for each month. Values
from the site closest to the target location are returned below after clicking the retrieve monthly data or retrieve daily
data buttons. The precipitation data are made up of measured rainfall and the measured liquid content of snowfall.
Temperature, snowfall, and snow depth data from National Weather Service reporting statiols are no longer
retrieved from this application. To obtain those data, see our newest data retrieval tool (May A14) National Vileatrer
Service precipitation data continue to be available from this application.
Obtaining data for legal purposes
Guide for column headers in the data table
target location: Carver. Lake minnewashta-Shakopee 116N 23W S25 (latitude: 44.82634 lorgitude. 93.53116)
click to select target location i
years. 12015 vto ! 20 v
number of missing days allowed per month: Y'
. ....._-._. ..... ...... ...j,_._..---- -.....__-_ _-...
retrieve monthly data i I retrieve daily data
results:
Nlnele ,ndlcated Vlssutg rslaes are shown as 'r Gays ,n wha:h xrenp iccumulaled in the gage are shown. as '• 1'-1 RR iS is Iri:'puD in in td suvey'PLS)' or +.egar lucatio oI tnr!
otsInvec data Sector va>.Ies g•eater :*. are ScC1 IC'r C' locations c t.s 100 'NAS IJ' the NaConal V.eatne' Seance Cecpe:atwe ua:-on lumber Pk:a that me'PI.S' w1; d:way> to ce ^mit
for preclp lai!on data *nue the NM, IG' will alv:ays De correct ID.' :ne temperature nat<I if ro ?t S I -to is Supp in me :re h:ns G' numDe appneS *0 a:l Shown diiita
State Climatology Office - MnDNR - Ecological and Water Resources
http://climate.umn.edu/t 11I)raditls/ridius_nc\N-.asp 1 Oi"'':'hli15
Target: T116
R23 S25
mon
year
cc
tttN
rr•W ss
nnnn 00000000
pre (inches)
ais
Jan
2015
10
116N
23W 23
BYRG
.24
1 mi.
Feb
2015
10
116N
23W 23
BYRG
.33
1.ini.
Mar
2015
10
116N
23w 23
BYRG
.85
1 mi.
Apr
2015
10
116N
23W 23
BYRG
2.14
1
May
2015
10
116N
23W 23
BYRG
4.34
1.
Jun
2015
10
116N
23W 23
BYRG
3.50
1 mi.
Jul
2015
10
116N
23W 23
BYRG
7.83
1 ri.
Aug
2015
10
116N
23W 23
BYRG
2.82
1 n)i.
Sep
2015
10
116N
23W 15
NWS C:HAN_NWS
3.19
2 mi.
Oct
2015
m
999 mi.
Nov
2015
m
91,;)9 mi.
Dec
2015
m
999 mi.
Nlnele ,ndlcated Vlssutg rslaes are shown as 'r Gays ,n wha:h xrenp iccumulaled in the gage are shown. as '• 1'-1 RR iS is Iri:'puD in in td suvey'PLS)' or +.egar lucatio oI tnr!
otsInvec data Sector va>.Ies g•eater :*. are ScC1 IC'r C' locations c t.s 100 'NAS IJ' the NaConal V.eatne' Seance Cecpe:atwe ua:-on lumber Pk:a that me'PI.S' w1; d:way> to ce ^mit
for preclp lai!on data *nue the NM, IG' will alv:ays De correct ID.' :ne temperature nat<I if ro ?t S I -to is Supp in me :re h:ns G' numDe appneS *0 a:l Shown diiita
State Climatology Office - MnDNR - Ecological and Water Resources
http://climate.umn.edu/t 11I)raditls/ridius_nc\N-.asp 1 Oi"'':'hli15
APPENDIX B
Sample Data Sheets
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region,
Project/Sete %¢.( W. CltyrCounty: r.ja� , _Sarnolr)g Date: fes. fi,$'-
Aoplicant/Owner: State: �azz—Samplirg Point t� -
Irvestigator(s). (,� � Section, Township, Range: _ �' &A so _
Landform (hillslope. terrace, etc., '--TQ Local relief (concave, convex. none) Gorh�t�
S ope (°,o):_ Lat: Long: Datum:
SDil Map Unit Name tta.1 'JIM Classi'icat.on.
A -e climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? _Y tlf no. explain in remarks)
Are vegetation �j_ ,soil jV_ or hydrology -,AL signific;antly disturkle:d %Are "nc ,mal circum;slan;;es"
Are vegetation _�, soil _ or hydrology r_ naturally problemati:;? present? _Y
• a n" rr riur�ia�n
vNlvnrlr%IX 1 Vr , 11 11%J to ntltluCu. t;Ap"1111 drly iinJWeI5 III It-rIWK5 f
Hydrophytic vegetat-on present?
Hydric soll presents T Y Is the sampled area within a wetlan
VVetland hydrology present? _ I f yes, optional wetland site ID
Rl�marks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
V cvc I M1 Ivry -- vac oL M1111il., 110111co ui NlanLa.
Absolute Dominan Irdicator
Dominance Test Worksheet _
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3,,l )
°/1 Cover t Species haus
Number of Domi ant Species
hat are OBL, F'A(.lN, or FAC. (Ai
2 4cabe�42
�_
Taal Number of Dominant
_
Spec es Acress all Strata ! (B)
Percent o` Dorni ant Species
that are OBL, FA ,W, or FAC: (p�
Total Cover
_?AIB;
3aplingrShrub stratum (Plot size: (j', � ;
_ T
Prevalence Index Worksheet
i
Total % Cover of
2
OR species G x 1- 0
:3
FACW spec.es C x 2 - 0
4
FAC species C x 3 _ �0
FACU species C c 4 :_ �0
0 = Total Cover
UPL species C x 5 _ ~0
Herb stratum (Plot size: ��Ne�l
Col;.mn totals C A) —G !;B)
°L*t+�'�"
14O7
(--Ac;
Prevalerce Ind=, K = B/A =
-
—. R -
3
Y,�
Hyd,ophytic Vegetation Indicators:
q_
_
��G,
Rapid tes fr.r hydrephyti ; vegetati:>r,
Dominance ;est s >500/b
i?meA
Index is :.3.0'
45JO"A 14— C-0 at�_
—FA(.--Prevalerce
�� �
~ Morphocica adaptations' (provide
8
st.pporting data in Remarks x cn a
g
_
separate sh::let)
10
Problematic hydrophytic vegetal cin'
= Total Cover
(explain)
I,Voody vine stratum (Plot size: e �J _)
_
•Ind calors of •iydr -; sod and tvecand h•rdrolect: W LSt C4:
present, unless d sturoed or pml)iernal c
yd rophyil_: w-
0 = Total Cover
vegetation
present?
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or or a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
SOIL
Sampling Point: f,,,.VJP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
finches) Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist] `ic Type' Loc"
Texture Remar{s_
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (131'3)
_
High Water Table (A2)
_
—True Aquatic Plants (1314)
J-
9 - Zf: I&MIJI
7. n15-4,4 Z 61 :!tl_
4,111,
Water Marks (B1)
�O>udized Rhizospheres on Living Roots
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
(C3) �'
Saturation /is'ble or Ae•!al Imagery .,C9)
Drift Deposes JB3)
— Presence of Reduced Iron tC4)
Stunted or Stressed Plants ;D 1)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
r Recent Iron Reduction in Til ed Scils
Geomorph ; Position (D2)
T/pe: C = Concentration. D = Depletion, RM = Rediced Matrix, IVIS = Masked Sand G-ains "Location PL = Pore Lining; 1`1 = f�latrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histisol (A1) Sandy Gleyec Matrix (S4;
�Histic Ep:pedon (A2) `Sandy Redox (S5)
Black Histic (A3) ^ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) —Stripped
Mucky Mineral (F1)
_Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
2 cm Muck (AID) Depleted tvlalnx (F3)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ~Redox Depressions (F8)
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
_ _Coast ?rairie Redox (A 16) (LRR K, L, R)
Dark Surface (S7) ;LRR K, L)
~' 5 cm Mucky Peat,. r Peat (S3) (LRF? K, L., R)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R;
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (712)
Otner (explain in remarks,
'Indicatcrs of hydrophytic vegetation and veitane
hydrology must be ;resent, unless cist,rt-,ed or
p oblemat c
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type.
Depth (niches)
—Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Hydric soil present i—
Remarks
_ -
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Pri Hary Indicators (minimum of one s required: check all that apGo Seconder Iv ndic.: tors (minrmurn of c%jo,•e( uire i
Surface Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (131'3)
Surface S; I Cracks (B6)
High Water Table (A2)
_
—True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Drainage r- atterns (BID)
Saturat on (A3)
_
r Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Dry-Seaso Water Table (C2i
Water Marks (B1)
�O>udized Rhizospheres on Living Roots
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
(C3) �'
Saturation /is'ble or Ae•!al Imagery .,C9)
Drift Deposes JB3)
— Presence of Reduced Iron tC4)
Stunted or Stressed Plants ;D 1)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
r Recent Iron Reduction in Til ed Scils
Geomorph ; Position (D2)
ron Deposits (65)
(C6)
FAC-Neulr id Test (D5)
Inundation Vis ole on Aerial imagery (87)
—Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
____ Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Oja!er-Staired Leaves (89)
~ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? Yes
No c Depth (inches). +--..
Wetla id
Nater table present? Yes
`
No � Depth (inches) ��,
hydro ogy
Saturation present? Yes
No _� Depth (inches): _�
prase rt?
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial phclos, previous inspectic:ns), if available:
Re•narks
US Army Corps of Engineers IAidwest Region
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Project/Ste Mo -d& -m is rlooda. City/County � _— Samp1mg Cat(:
ApplicantiOwner��-`I� 1 — State `���—Samp,i :g Point
In,7.- estigator(s): 1� Section, Township, Ranye^'+1)�/�
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) �I�oJf�ss �n Local relief (concave: convex, none) J�'�� �-'7'`"�T
S'ope (%): �^ Lat: _ Long: Datum _
SDil Map Unit Name �� L T,NI C assification:
ke climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? �^ -if no, explain in remarks)
A'e vegetation ji,,j-, soilr or hydrology significantly diSturbed'r Are "nc,•mal circumstances"
ke vegetation ��, soil _ or hydrology f. naturally problematic? present?_—Y--
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed. exo ain anv answers in rer.•arks
Hydrophytic vegetat•on present? Y
Hydric soil present? _,
Is the sampled area within a wetlai, 1r
---+-------
Wetland hydrology present?
f yes, optional Inetland site ID
Remarks: (Explain alternative prccedures here or in a separate report)
v r-ur= i m r tvly -- vse sulenanu narnes or planis.
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Dominance Test Worksheet
Number of Domi rant Species
that are OBL, FACK or =AC: T (A)
Taal Number of Dominant
Spec es Acress all Strata- (B)
Percent of Dominant Species � _
that are OBL, FA:W, or FAC: A'B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
Absolute Dominan Ird:cato,
Tree Stratum (Plot
size: a i )
°! Cover t Species Staus
OBL species
C
x 1 =
0
3
C
x 2 -
a
FAC species
—
x 3 :_ ��0
-
FACU species
0
x 4
--T— = Total Cover��
Sapling/Shrub stratun'
(Plot size:
x 5
I
Column totals
0
-�
+0 -;B)
3
= B/A =
0 = Total Cover—�
Herb stratum
(Plot size
Zo
f
T
1 C�
=Total Cover W
Woody vine stratum
(Plot size:
L
_
0 :: Total Cover M1
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Dominance Test Worksheet
Number of Domi rant Species
that are OBL, FACK or =AC: T (A)
Taal Number of Dominant
Spec es Acress all Strata- (B)
Percent of Dominant Species � _
that are OBL, FA:W, or FAC: A'B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
Total % Cover v`.
OBL species
C
x 1 =
0
FACW species
C
x 2 -
0 -
FAC species
C
x 3 :_ ��0
-
FACU species
0
x 4
UPL species
0
x 5
Column totals
0
rAl
+0 -;B)
Prevalence Inde <
= B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ Rapid test for hy: rcphytic ve_retation
Dominarce test is >50%
Prevalence :-Idex is <_3.0"
Morphogica adaptations' (provide
supporting cata it Remarks or on a
separate sh =et;
_._ Problematic nydropnytic vegetation'
(explain)
'Irdicatcrs of hydw; soil anc wet:and ryd c; xi; ris: of
present. u, ess disturbed or problemnat c
HY rop yyilc
vegetation
present?
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
SOIL
Sampling Point: / .-wr-r-
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conflrm the absence of indicators.))
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(Inches; Color (moist) % Cc cr (moist) % Type' Loc"
Text.rre Rerrnaro-cs.
Se ondary I �dlcatca rnin!mum �f t_r c re � ed:
Su face Water (Al)
-
Soil Cracks (135)
Higr .Nater Table (A2)
__True Aquatic Piants (814)
--Surface
Patterns (6100)
K Saturation (A3)
-Iyorogen Sulfide Odor (C:1 }
_—Drainage
Dry -Season Water Tawe (C2)
Waw !darks (131)
Ox;daed Rhizospneres of Living Rocts
Crayfish i3urrcws (008)
Sediment Deposits (82)
+C3)
�_ Saturatio, Vis ble on Aeral ?riacef�, (C9)
Drif; Deposits (133)
Presence of Reduced Iro.i (C•9;
Stunted c•r Stressed Planls iD1;
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
Recent Ion Reduction in Tilled Soils
_v Geomorphic Position (D21
-- I,or. Deposits (65)
C6)
^� FAC -Neutral Test (051
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
�'rhin Muck Surface (C7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RIA = Reduced rMatr;x, MS = iflasked Sard Grains. '"Loc:at!c:n: P.. = Pore Lin'irg, M= Matox
I- Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Scils:�
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Hislisol (Al) Sandy G.eyed Matrix (S4)
Coast Prairie Redox to^:E) (LRR K, L.
R
Hist!c Epipedon (A2) ^ Sandy Redox (S5)
i
Dark Surrace (Sr') (LRR K, L)
No - - Depth (riches): ""'"
I Black Histic ;A3) '~Stripped Matrix (S6)
5 cm Mucky Pea: or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R.,
Hydroger. Su,fide (A4) -oamy DlUCI'y Mineral (F1)
� Iron-lalanganese Masses (F12) (LRR H;, L, R) j
TStratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
present? �M-
cm M1iruck (A10) - Depieted Matrix (F3)
Dep'eted Below Dark Surface (Al i; R=dox Darr Surface (F6)
Othe' (explain in remarks)
MF -
_
Tnick Dark Surface (Al2) .___ Depletec Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy i."ucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions •;F8)
uc
5 cm Mky Peat or Peat (S3)
"Ind Gators of hydr.Dphy;ic vegetat,on e rd ,veltand
hydrology must ba present unless dis,..,jr„ ed o,
problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type
-
Hydric soil present? -�
Depl.h (inches):
F emarks:
HYDROLOGY
VJetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Ind caters (minimum of one is reduired: check ali that ar)Gi '
Se ondary I �dlcatca rnin!mum �f t_r c re � ed:
Su face Water (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Soil Cracks (135)
Higr .Nater Table (A2)
__True Aquatic Piants (814)
--Surface
Patterns (6100)
K Saturation (A3)
-Iyorogen Sulfide Odor (C:1 }
_—Drainage
Dry -Season Water Tawe (C2)
Waw !darks (131)
Ox;daed Rhizospneres of Living Rocts
Crayfish i3urrcws (008)
Sediment Deposits (82)
+C3)
�_ Saturatio, Vis ble on Aeral ?riacef�, (C9)
Drif; Deposits (133)
Presence of Reduced Iro.i (C•9;
Stunted c•r Stressed Planls iD1;
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
Recent Ion Reduction in Tilled Soils
_v Geomorphic Position (D21
-- I,or. Deposits (65)
C6)
^� FAC -Neutral Test (051
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
�'rhin Muck Surface (C7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Ga.ge or Well D"cla (D9)
Water -Stained Leaves (89)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations:
S,rface water present? "es
No - - Depth (riches): ""'"
Wetland
Water !able present? "es
No Death (inches): �i$�
hydrology
-'
Saturation present? "es -.�
No - Depth (:,fiches):
present? �M-
;i^crudes capillary fringe)
MF -
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring .,ell, aerial photos, previous 'nspe tions): if available:
Remarks
'r
tJS Army Corps of Engineers Midw-_sl: �cglori
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Pro;ecUSlte ��f�.f l����Q►rGV/�i� �� CitylCounty: / �_—Sampli-ig Date
Apphcant/0%,,ner: �i= — State: MA/ Point,
Investigator(s). �- `}-"r 3ectior, Township Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). �� . [fs Loca' relief (concave, convex, none): T
G.Drr vrsa�_
Slope (%): 1, Lat: Long: �- Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name �} * MI Classification.
Are climaticihydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? �- (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation tj soil or hydrology n / signlfi:antiy disturbed? Are 'Tcrma circumstances'
Are vegetation �� , soil or hydrology f�� naturally problematic? present?
J!SSUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If reeded. explain any answers it remarks )
Hydrophytic vegetation present?
(Plot size: si T)
Hydric soil present? �/_
Is the sampled area within a wetlan,
Wet.and hydrology present? �_
f yes. opticnal ,vetlanc site ID:
RDmarks. (Explain alternative procedures here or 'it,! a separate report.) --
vwc. rr%r 1Wv -- vac a.-.icinnw tiairtca vi }Manta.
I Absolute Dominan In•dicatcr Dominance Test Worksheet --�
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: si T)
°/ Cover
t Species Staus
2
OBL species
0
x 1 =
0
3
0
)(2 =
0
FAC species
C
x 3 =
0
FACU species
0
x 4 =
�0
UPL species
0
0
= Total Cover --
SaplingiShrub straturr (Plot size: 14% Z )
_
(A) -�0
I
Prevalerce Index
= B/A =
J
3
-
3
0
- Total Cover
lerb stratum
(Plot size: 1Z
d
:i
1(1
--
-
Total Cover
'!Voodv vine stratum (Plot size. �� )
0 = Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or or a separate sheet)
Number of Dommart Species
that .are OBL, FACW, or FAC �� (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across a , S;rata (Bj
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FAC W. or -AC: �f�i - - (ArB,
Prevalence Index Worksheet
ToUI % Cover cf.
OBL species
0
x 1 =
0
FAC W speo:es
0
)(2 =
0
FAC species
C
x 3 =
0
FACU species
0
x 4 =
�0
UPL species
0
x 5 =
�0
Column tota s
C
(A) -�0
-;B)
Prevalerce Index
= B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
!lapid test fcr hydrophytic vegetati;m
Dominance test s =•EO%
_ Prevalence ,ndex is
lAorphooical adaptations' (provide
supporting data in Remarks or on ;il
separate sheet)
Problematic hydrophytic vegeta( cr"
(explain)
'Ird cators of ilpd-i.. soil and wetand by rolog, must til
present, urless d stur,�ed or problernal c:
vegetation
present?
le -
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
SOIL
Sampling Point:
(Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)YT
Depth. Matrix
Redox Features
,Inches? Color (moist) Color (moist) �o Type' Loc'" _ Text -:re Rer•i-=*s
A -7w I.. _o n r, .__
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Fnrnary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that awoly; Secordary I�r_icatcrsrninim��r" �t.t✓;c`er_d'
Surface Water (At)
Agjatic Fauna (B13)
Surface E>oii Cracks (136)
_
H gh Water Table (A2) `—True
Agcatic Plants (B 14)
—_ Drainage PaCerns (B1 C)
Saturation (A3) —_
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —__
I'Ty,e. C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced ?aatnr.,
MS = Masked Sard Grains. ""Locat.cn: Pu = Pore Lir. n., 11 = IVlauix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Crayfish i3urrows ,U)
indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histisol (Al)
Sandy Gieyed Matrix (S4)
Coast Prairie Redox (A'G) (LRR K, _, R2
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Sandy Redox (S5)
—' Dark Sur�ace (S') (LRR K, L)
Black Histic (A3)
`S:rioped Matrix (S6)
� 5 cm Mucky Pea: or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
`Stratified
Loamy Mucky Mineral (171)
— iron-Ivlanganese Masses (F-2; (LRR K, L, R)
Layers (A5)
^2
Loamy Gleyed Iviatrix (F2)
Very Shallow DE ,•k Surface (TF12)
cm h.Auck (A10)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
—__Othe• (expiai•i it remarks)
Dep eled Below Dark Surface (A11)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Field Observations:
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
�Depie;ed Dark Surface (F7)
'i -id calors of hycr)phyhc vegetation ana e✓eltar•d
Sandy Mucky Mineral (91)
Depressions ;178)
hydrology must be present, un ess dis'urbed or
5 cir: Mucky Peat or Peal (S3)
—Redox
problematic
,Restrictive Layer (if observed):
hydrology
Sat„ralion present? "es No
_ �
Depth 'i-icnes): Z
Type:
present?
(i �c'udes capalary fringe)
Hydric soil present? IV
Depth (irches)
Describe recorded data (streamgauge, monitoring wet',
aerial pnotos, previous inspections), if
L
emarks:
I
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Fnrnary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that awoly; Secordary I�r_icatcrsrninim��r" �t.t✓;c`er_d'
Surface Water (At)
Agjatic Fauna (B13)
Surface E>oii Cracks (136)
_
H gh Water Table (A2) `—True
Agcatic Plants (B 14)
—_ Drainage PaCerns (B1 C)
Saturation (A3) —_
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —__
Dry-Sea+on Vvate- Table ((,'2;
VNaler Marks (61)
Oxidized Rhizospneres o) Living Focts
Crayfish i3urrows ,U)
Sediment Deposits (62)
_
;C3)
Saturatioi Vis ble or. Aerie Imagery !Cg!
Drift Deposits (B3)
__
aresence cf Reduced Iro) (C4'.
or Stressed Plants ,,tJ
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_'—Stunted
Recent kon Reduct:cn in Tilled So;)s
Georiorphic-osiUon 021
Iron Deposits (135)
_—
rC6)
—_ FAC -Neutral Test (D51
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) r
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Sparsely' Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) '—gauge
or Well Data (D9)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (69) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
Field Observations:
—'-
St,rface water present? tees No
Depth (inches): ----
Wetland
_
Water table present? tees No
-�-
Depth (i -.rhes): �2> 24
hydrology
Sat„ralion present? "es No
_ �
Depth 'i-icnes): Z
present?
(i �c'udes capalary fringe)
Describe recorded data (streamgauge, monitoring wet',
aerial pnotos, previous inspections), if
ava,labie:
emarks:
i;S Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Pegiot
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Fro;ect/Site%(4( mom.&„ + LG
CdyrCounty: Sampling Date fD y S —
Aoplicant/Owner aa: -4 1 / —State:" My_, ySamplirg Poin':
Investigators) s- Section, To-wriship, Range. s�
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.;:d� �� _ Local relief (concave, convex, none)
S ope (°r:�): �l� Lai: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name �AVI Classi`icat on.
A -e climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? �+ i If no, e:xpla.in in re narks
Are vegetation - soil �_ or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "ncrmal circumstances'
Are vegetation �_, soilor hydrology `� naturally problema•Jc? preSM-.1_ Y
n1 Iwwww w nv nr rnlnnt�n
vVI�11111"11� I —1 1 111v111VV til ImuuCU, V?4MAIII ally 011bMV-1 III ICItId'KS /
Hydrophytic vegetation present'? T�
Hydric soil present? Is the sampled area within a wetlan.�
Wetland hydrology present? `�_ f yes, optional wetland site ID:
Remarks. (Explain alternative procedures here or in a sepa•ate report )
vc..v� r h I Ivry -- vx a�ICI nnw I IaI I Ico vI NIaI ria.
Absolute Dominan Indicator
Dominance To Worksheet �y
Tree Stratum (Plot size: a i }
"A Cover t Spec es Staus
Number of Donn ant Species
1 A �=►��n-'�'��'
�--,�
__.ilk � ..�.
that are OBL, FA W, : A
or FAC.
Total Number of Ocm:nant
.3
__
Species Acress all Strata (B)
Percent of Dornir•ant Species
that are GBL, Fk..W, or FAC: jj9p 1,A1 B:
Total Cover��
;SaplinUlShrub stratum (Plot size: j j sof )
Prevalence Index Worksheet
1 c4 Awc
Total 'i° Cover
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
:3
FACVV species 0 x 2 -^0
FAC species 0 x 3 =- r_r0_
;i
FACU species 0 x 4 - �3
2P_ - Tota; Cover
UPL species 0 x 5 = 3
ierb stratum (Plot size
Column totals 0 A) B)
Prevalence Index = EI/A =
ad
,^
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
�.
_ ---
Rapid test for hydrepnytic vegetatitm
5
Dominance .est is >50%
6
Prevalence ndex is s3.0'
Morphogical adaatations' (provide
E
supporting aata I~ Remarks or on to
c
separate shl:et)
Prob erratic iydrophytic vegetation"
= Total Cover
(explain)
1,Voodv vine stratum (Plot size: i )
_
Indicatcrs of tl dri.: soil ano wet aid h riioloc n.lsl be
1
present. ur ess d sturbed or problerlatic
Hy'tc rophyt1,;
0 = Total Cover
vegetation
present? _Y
Re -narks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region
SOIL
Sampling Point: 9-ld&=
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absen:;e of Indicators.)
Deptl, Matrix
(Laches; Color (moist)
Redox. Features --�—�
Color (moist) % Type' Loc" Text ire Rem .:ks
p "'
Surface Water (A!)
.Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Surface :)oil: Cracks (BC)
H gn Water Table (A2)
'� True Aquatic Plants (314)
Drair age Patterns (B1 C;.
�_
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2;
Type C = Concentration, D = Depletion,
RPA = Reduced Ma -r.„.. MS = Masked Sard Grains. —Locat on. PL = Pore L:n:rg, I\, = Ma:r x
r Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histsol (Al)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Sandy G.eyed Matrix (S41 Coast Praire Redox (A'6) (L.RR K. '_. R.,
T Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 Cm Muck (A10)
Dep'eted Below Dark Surface (Al 1 Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loa.ry \lucky Mineral (F11)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redcx Dart S;irface (F6)
Depieted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions :F8)
5 cm Mucky Pee: or Peat (S3) (LIRR K, L. R)
Iron-1,0anganese Masses (1712) (LRR K, L, R)
Very Shallow De •k Surface (TF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
'Ind cstors of hych ophytic vegeta'•.ior and weltarb
hydrology must t a present, unless dis;„rbed or
prozlematic
Kestrictive Layer (it ooservea),
Type Hydric soil presert?�
Depth (inches):
Ftemarks.
uvnRnl nGY
[oetland Hydrology Indicators:
Fr nary inc:cators (minimum of one is required: chec:< 2 .. that a, q Y; Sec,or da Ing;catc> s rninimurr o; tJ;e
Surface Water (A!)
.Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Surface :)oil: Cracks (BC)
H gn Water Table (A2)
'� True Aquatic Plants (314)
Drair age Patterns (B1 C;.
�_
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2;
Marks (B1)
Oxidized Rh;zospheres orLivinia Foots
Cray°ish 3urrows ;C8)
_Water
Sediment Deposits (32)
;C3)
_ Satura'.ic n Vis ble or. Aer•a Irragery rC )
_
Drift Deposits (63)
Presence of Reduced Iro- (C4'.
Stunted )r Stressed Plan's,.0 1)
Algal Mat or Crust (84)
~ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils
_
Geomoiphic Positior (D2i
Iron Deposits (65)
:C6)
-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerie! Imagery (137)
r Thin Muck Surface (C7)
^FAC
Sparsely Vegetated Corcave Surface (138)
Gauge or Weal Data (D9)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
+—Other (Explain in Rernarks)
Field Observations:
Surface water present? Yea
No K Deoth ;inches): -•—
Wetland
_
Water table present? Yes 1!
-_ +
No Derth (rr6es): ��
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes >_1
No Depth (irches):
pre tent? t
(i^.c'udes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, mon toring well, aerial photos, previous inspections),
if available:
Remarks
W L,y i"64.9 y s
r,, ,,,,+ 4-. - lt.: f
US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest G.egicn
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region
Project/Site `'164. f �Q��i+r.rls4tr_�tr•> City/County t a TSamplinri Date, JP14,
Applicant/Owner: L4-4 Stater-� _Samplinc Point: 4.
Investigators)* Kr 3ection, Township Range t
-21 �
Landform (hdlslope, terrace, etc ). ; / left Local relief (concave, convex none):
Slope (%) 3_ Lat — Long :-_ _ Datum: —
Sod Map Unit Name r7alZ&i `1N1 Classification: —_
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no, explain in remarks)
Are vegetation ��, soil or hydrology - significantly disturbed? Are 'norr ial circumstances'
Are vegetation �soil _ or hydrology
._lL naturally problernatic" present', —Y
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.)
Hydrophytic vegetation present?'
Hydric soil present? �_
Is the sampled area within a wetlanr--�—
Wetland hydrology present? -
f yes. optional wetland site ID
Remarks. (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report ) —
VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants.
US Ekmy Corps of Engineers Midwest Re@.ion
Absolute
Dominan Indicator
Dominance Test Worksheet���
T-ee Stratum (Plot size bi )
`i) Cover
t Species Staus
Number of Dornim nt Species
1 A�t f
�_
that are 0BL, FA.0 W, of FAC. (A)
�4a 1#Nepe
2
i1r
_
-�_
_-moi —^
Total Number o' Dominant
3
_
_
Species Acrosn all Strata:
—_�'____ (13)
4
_
—�_
Perce-itof Dominint Species
5
that are 081L, FACtN. of FAC fA/Bl
V
�-
= Total Ccver-
_
Sapling/Shrub straturr
(Plot size: 13 J
_
i
Prevalence Inde:L Worksheet
1 R
,
y_
• Y
Total '/r Cover of
2 lq�lravq—^-15'_--
���r
OBL spec es 0 r. 1 = 0_
at
)=AW
_ -
FACV1/ species 0 x 2 = - 0
4
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
5
FACU species _ 0 x 4= T O
A^
Total Cover
UPL species 0 x. 5 = 0 �
H?rb stratum
(Plot size. )
—
Column totals _ 0 (A) ` 0 (13)
ray tS
�tZ
C
�_..4
Preva ence Inde): = B/A = ,�
Via[!'
,.—
_
----� -
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Hydrophytic
3T 10 N FAe
4/,a( n
/Q_
7-
7-
��(_ F>4Ge.;
Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetatier
la,
-�016n la
3
�
Dominance test is >50%
6
_
_ _!�L �
+Prevalence in:lex is <_3 0'
?
_
— Morphogical < Japtations' (provide
8
supporting ria a in Remarks o! on a
9
separate she; t)
10
�—
, Problematic h4rophytic vegetation'
=Total Cower—
(explain)
Woody vine stratum
(Plot size. D wryi/
)
^
•indicators of hydnc !oil and wetland hydro oiy oust be
1
present, unless d stvrbod or problenvit,c
2.Hy
ra opFyt`ic _----
0
=Total Cover
vegetation
present?�
Rernarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheer)
^�
US Ekmy Corps of Engineers Midwest Re@.ion
SOIL
Sampling Point: _A--y?E
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absen a of indicators.) ~
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
SurfFce :,oil Cracks (136)
(Inches) Ce!or (moist) Color (moist) qa Type' Loc-
Text..rre Rervrks j
a P
_
—_ Dry-Seairon Wate- Tao.e (C2;
_
Ox dized Rhizospheres o- L;\in(.) Foots
.C3)
Saturatic n Visible or. Aenai I•rageiy 1,C9)
r Presence of Reduced Iro- (C4;
Stunted x St-essed Plants i-:: 1).
Recent Iron Reduchcn in'rilled Soils
_^
�Geomorl:hic Position (D2)
iC6)
i
''Thin tv,uck Surface (C7)
_
M Gauge or Weal Data (D9)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Type. C = Concentration, D = Deplet•on, RPA = Rec'uced Matrix, ifS = Masked Sarc_Gra;ns. ""Location: PL = Pore Un rig, 1V
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:
Histisol (Ai)
Sandy Greyed Matr,x (S4)
Ceast Prairje Redox (A'E) (LRR K, L, R;
Histic Eppedon (A2)
Sandy Redox (S5)
, Dark Surface (S:') (LRR K, L)
Black hlstic (A3)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
5 cm Mucky °ee: or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L. R
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Very Shallow Da -k Surface (-rF12)
2 cm Muck (A10)
^Depleted Matrix (F3)
(itne• (explain tin remarks)
Below Dark Surface (Al1'
Redcx Dark. Sirface (F6)
_Dep:eted
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Depletec Dar,c Surface (F7)
•Ind.cztors of hyo+ophytic vegetation end rreltarc
Sandy M.,cky I'dineral (Si)
Radox Depressions :F8)
hydrology must c a present, uniess dis,. rbed or
�5 cm Mucay Peat or Peat (S3)
pr=lemiatic
—
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Hydric soil preser t?
Depth (:aches):
Remarks.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
I Surface Water (Ai)
r- High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (81)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (133)
A gal Mat or Crust (B4)
Ironos)ts (85)
Inunoatiation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
I— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
I Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
ack a!' that acoly)
Secondary Inctcato�Lrninimuni o; i� c;e urredi.
4gjatic Fauna (B13)
SurfFce :,oil Cracks (136)
Aquatic Plants (314)
Drairage Patterns (B1 C)
_'True
-lydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_
—_ Dry-Seairon Wate- Tao.e (C2;
_
Ox dized Rhizospheres o- L;\in(.) Foots
Crayfisl, 3urrcws 'U)
.C3)
Saturatic n Visible or. Aenai I•rageiy 1,C9)
r Presence of Reduced Iro- (C4;
Stunted x St-essed Plants i-:: 1).
Recent Iron Reduchcn in'rilled Soils
_^
�Geomorl:hic Position (D2)
iC6)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
''Thin tv,uck Surface (C7)
_
M Gauge or Weal Data (D9)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
iField Observations:
Surface wafer present? Yes N _ - Depth (inches) Wetland
Water table present? Yes No -�_ Depth (irches)- hyd ology
Saturation present? res No_- Depth (inches):` pre:+eat? ��_
I(i^cludes cap ilary fringe) — —`
IDescribe recorded data (stream gauge, mon toring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if ova lable:
m
S Army Corps of Engineers Midw�ts': Fegion
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Regititl
Project/Site QGj¢. ( &aw,4um 1� _ City/County. jx,� �_ Sampl ig Date 1,01,1pljr
Applicant/Owner "4:.4 State �� _Sarnoli lg Point
Investigators) 5ectior, Township, Range. -L&C-t 7&.5:, 16& -IAL
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ) Local relief (concave, co,ivex, none)
Slope (°'c): �_ Lat: Long. _ Datum
Soil Map Unit Name �gVVI Classification:—
Are
lassification:—Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? �- (If no, explain in re-narG;s)
Are vegetation �L, soil -^� or hycrology__AL significantly cisturbecl? Are'rorma circumstances'
Are vegetation -, soil or hydrology- naturally prot:lematic? oresel't? Y
.�vrrnvrnr� r yr r nwnvvv to reeaeo, exp am any answers in re-ia.Ks 1
Hydrophytic vegetation presents
Hydric soil present? _� Is the sampled aroa within a wetlan,
Wetland hydrology present? �_ f yes, opticnal wetland site ID:
R=marks: (Explain alternative procedures he -'e or it a separate report } �~
vw� r r r rvr� -- vac a�.rcrnnw nanrca yr Nianla.
Absolute Dominan Indicatcr
Dominance Test Worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ei j
°ri Cover t Species Staus
Nurrber of Dori rant Species
-'
that are OBL. FACW, or FAC
2
�3 _(A)
Total Number of Domirart
3
_ _
Species Acrc ss all Strata
(B)
4
r -
5555___
Percent of Domi dant Species
5
-.hat are OBL. FA 'W, or -AC:
,A:"B i
0 = Total Cover
Sap;;ng/Shrub stratun (Plot size: ��� � )�
Prevalence Index Worksheet yy
T
1
Total % Cover c f.
?
_ _
OBL species 0 x 1 =_ 0
3
_ _ _
_
FACW spec -es C, x 2 0_
_
_
FAC species C x 3 _
_~0
FACU species C x 4 = 0
0 = Total Cover
UPL species C x 5 _ 0 y_
Herb stratum (Plot size. �f.�/ 1
_
Column totals C W! _-_0 -;B)
Prevalerce Index - B/A
Hyd•ophytic Vegetation Indicators:
3 L*wwg 4__ as L_
4
_ Rapid test fc:r hyorcphytic vegetation
Dominance lest is >50%
Prevalence ndex is 553.0'
�tAorphogicai
adaptations" (pro.,de:
El
supporting c ata it Remarks or on <
<J
separate sh(:aet)
Problematic hydropnytic vegetat or'
9,0 Total Cover
(explain)
woody vine stratum (Piot size: r O /i )
9noicatcrs of hydfi : soil and wevaid rryd•o Zig: ,list
bc•
1
presert, u, ess disturbed or crotrenal c.
r -
ty rid _05 FY —�
0 =Total Cover
Vegetation
present?
Re-naks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest REE on
SOIL
Sampling Point: -F
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(Inches) Color (moist) %
Redox Futures
Color (moist) % Type' Loc"
Texture
T~��
'
Remarks
L Inq cacrs minirrum of twore uirec+',
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
--Clsx�l�
�.1e.. ems, .., _
_
High Water Table (A2) —'
True Aquatic Plants (8141
_
Drainage Pat?errs (B4.0)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_^
' Dry -Sea: on Water Tab!e (C2)
i
Water Marks (B1) 'Oxidized
RNzospheres on Livirc; Roots
—'_Crayfish Burrows (U)
�_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
—
(C3)
_ Saturation Visible on Fcer a: Imagery (39) i
Drift Deposits (B3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
^—Stunted c:r Stressed Plants (01)
--Drift
I Mat or Crust (84)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils
__Geomort hic Position (02)
F-- Iron Deposits (B5)
^'
(C6)
ti _ FAC-Ne.:ral Test 1,05)
`Type. C = Concentration, D = Depletion, Rini = Redc.•ced Ma'rix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Ma; -;x ~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histisol (Al) _Sandy Gieyed Matrix (Sz)
Hist:c Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5)
� B(ack Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) —Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Stratified Layers (A5) '— Loamy Gleyed Matrix r.F2)
..__ 2 cm Muck (A10) . Depleted Matrix (F3)
Dep eted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) i Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Radox Depressions ;F8►
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:-�—'�
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L. Rj
Dark Surface (S:') (LRR K, L)
5 cm Mucky Pee: or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (1712) (LRR K, L, R)
Very Shallow Da •k Surface (TF12)
_ Othe• (explain in remarks)
'l,id,cetors of hycraphytic vegetation and %veltaro
hydrology must to present, uncess disturbed or
problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) __.
Hydric soil present? y
F emarks:
I
I
I
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check aliltnat apply
L Inq cacrs minirrum of twore uirec+',
Surface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_
High Water Table (A2) —'
True Aquatic Plants (8141
_
Drainage Pat?errs (B4.0)
Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_^
' Dry -Sea: on Water Tab!e (C2)
i
Water Marks (B1) 'Oxidized
RNzospheres on Livirc; Roots
—'_Crayfish Burrows (U)
�_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
—
(C3)
_ Saturation Visible on Fcer a: Imagery (39) i
Drift Deposits (B3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
^—Stunted c:r Stressed Plants (01)
--Drift
I Mat or Crust (84)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils
__Geomort hic Position (02)
F-- Iron Deposits (B5)
^'
(C6)
ti _ FAC-Ne.:ral Test 1,05)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
"hin Muck Surface (C7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) __.
Gauge o, Well Data (09)
r_ Waver -Stained Leaves (139) —Other
(Explain in Remarks)
Feld Observations:
—
--
S_rface water present? Yes K_ No
Depth (inches): �_
Wet and
Water table present? Yes 1_ No
Depth (inbhes): �'�
hydrology
Saturation present? Yes No
Depth (inches): �
present?
(incudes capillary fringe)
Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring we I,
:aerial photos, previous inspections). if available:
Remarks:
i
US Army Corps of Engineers Mrdwesr Region.
APPENDIX C
Site Photography
Wetland Delineation Approval Forms
Project N;Irne and/or Number:
PART ONE: Applicant Information 4-
If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact pers:)n must be identified. If the
a;)plicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent's
contact information must also be provided,
Applicant/Landowner Name: j ,,;�( Var"
Mailing Address:
Phone;
E-mail Address:
Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): SA,
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Email Address:
Arent Name: (,tJA7✓JQ. t �Oi0 ^� WDC PS's, G�1Y3w� �hV�✓ay,� �., r4
Mailing Address:5_82 1
Phone: (p) Z "�02 ) r�ir�.kl'ir►^, S•(i�J 65�3o
Email Address:
PART TWO: Site Location Informiation
County: C~Ve"- City/Township:
Parcel ID and/or Address: 25 7•`1-•ZDO?D
Legal Description (Section, Township, Range); Sec.. Z,rJ `%I jyN J R;1.34J
Lar,/Long (decimal degrees):
At-ach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways.
Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): I. •¢-ac:,�;�
if you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Eigineei s, you must provice -:he
na nes and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site, This information may be pravided by attach ng a iist to
your application or by using block 25 of the Applicaticn for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at:
http:,(1www.mvp.usace.arm,z.mil/Portals/57/docs/reF;ulat2r RegulatoriDocsferteformr 4345 20;.2oct.pof
PART THREE: General Project/Site Information
If tris appiication is related to a delineatior approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other
co:respondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provice the Corps of Engineers project 'camber,
Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and cornp.et on. The
pic:ject description must fully describe the nature and scope of the p,oposed activity including a description cf al' project elements
that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile dra:virgs
showing the location, character, and dimensions of ,all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form Feb-uary 2014 Page ; of .ti
Project N, me and/or Nurnb,--�r:
PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary 201
s~ z. -i �_
If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lak:?, tributary, etc:.') identify each
impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overnead view
nap, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing ali of the aquatic resources in the p-oject area and the location(s) of the proposed
impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or tette- and identify the impacts in the follcw ng table.
!� Type of Impact' Duration of ^County, Major
Aquatic Existing Plant
'Aquatic Resource (fill, lake excavate, Impact Overall Size of ; Watershed #,
Resource Type 1,I Types) it Community
(wetland, i ID (as noted on drain, or ' permanent (P) Size of Impact"i Aquatic and Bank
� I
werhead view) rernove ; or Temporary ; Resourcea Service Area #
-- -- tributary etc.l z- Impact Area
vegetation) I (T)' I of Impact Area's
i I
'll impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the ir.pacts in days next to the "T". For example, a project witii a temporary access ;ill I.•iat
w:>uld be removed after 220 days would be entered ''T (220)".
2 i )pacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre cr greater should be reported as acres and rounded to tine
nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported ii linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact
along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impa::ts 5D feet of a strearn that is E
feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet).
;This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de mrnimis exemption under Ml\ Rules 84 20.0420 Suop. 8, otherwise ente • "VA".
4 t.se Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3"' Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.040S Subp, 2.
5R,?fer to Major watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp, 7.
If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances as::ar..ated
vrth each:
PART FIVE: Applicant Signature
Check here if you are requesting a pre a licat_2 consultation with the Corps and LGU based or the information you have
provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if This box is checked.
By signature below, I attest tha` the information in this application is complete and accurate. I furthi.r attest that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein.
Signature:
I hereby authorize
Date:
to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon recuest,
supplemental information in support of this application.
yri�i � psISJ'cw� .
' The term "imp as use this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify
activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to
indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page it of 11
Project tq.ime and/or Number:
Attachment A ZV157'-7$+-
Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or
Jurisdictional Determination
By submission of the enclosed wetland delineatioi report, I am requesting that; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
(Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU; provide me with the following (check all that apply):
t%� Wetland Type Confirmation
Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a celineation is a written noti"ication from the Corps and a decision from the ..GJ
concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. De in ration
concurrences are generally val;d for five years ur.less site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address
the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the esources within the review area
(i,)ciuding wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.).
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJC) is a n:m-binding w,i:•:en indication
fr:)rn the Corps that waters, including wet:ands, idertified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. for pu,poses :)f
computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a FJD will teat all
waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advis:)ry in nature arc mai not be
appealed.
[� Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (A10) is an oft tial Corps determination that
jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property, AJDs can generally be relied jpan by the
affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative a:�peaI process.
In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared it accordance with ;he 3.987
CeIrps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Pvlanual, and the Guidelines; 9r
i St,bmitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013).
http: /www.rnvp.usace.army.mil /Missions,/Regulat01'y/DelineationJDGuidance_3iE.c
M nnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 11
APPENDIX G
Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits
Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credit:
RiM
from the Minnesota Wetland Bank
tf tha lavrnrt of this fnn-n lonkc incorrect_ Click on Vievi). Edit Document, then save to your computer.
1. Credit User
To be completed by the person or entity proposing to use the wetland credits
Name: David Vogel
Organization (if applicable):
Street Address: 105 Pioneer Trail
City, State, Zip: Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: 612-991-2848 E -Mail Address*: dpvoge!l@gmail.com
This space is for BWSR use only
Debit Date:
2. Wetland Impact Information
To be completed for the project with wetland impacts that this withdrawal is intended to replace.
Project Name: Vogel Driveway Permit
County of Impact: Carver
Impact Major Watershed #: 33
Impact Bank Service Area: 9
**Sec. 25 Twp. 116 Rge. 23
Wetland Impact Size (acres): 0.0220
Replacement Ratio: 2:1
Total Replacement Required (acres): 0.0440
U.S. Army Corps Permit # (if applicable):
LGU File # (if applicable):
**Projects with multiple impact locations should use the most central location in relation to the project as a whole.
Comments:
By signature below, the proposed user of credits attests that he/she owns or has purchased the credits identified in this
application and has received approval from the applicable regulatory authority(ies).
Credit User Signature:
Date:
3. Regulatory Approval/Authorization
By signature below, the identified agency and authorized representative hereby certify that they have: a) verified that the subject
wetland credits are deposited in the account of the owner/seller, b) approved a wetland replacement plan or similar agreement under their
jurisdiction, and c) approve the proposed use of the wetland bank credits described herein.
WCA LGU/Agency: City of Chanhassen
E-mail address*: tjeffrey@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
LGU Representative: Terry Jeffrey Signature: Date:
(for NRCS, USACE, etc. if applicable)
Agency Name/Location: USACE
Representative: Melissa Jenny
E-mail address*: i-nelissa.m.jenny@usace.army.mil
Signature:
Date:
*Confirmation will be e-mailed to user, seller, and regulatory representative when the transaction is complete. If you would like others notified,
enter e-mail addresses here.
jacobsonenv@msn.com natasha.devoe(a)-state.mn.us
Rev 3/16/2015 Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Page 1 of 2
C!\Users\Owner\Documents\2015 info\2015-279 Vogel 9641 Meadowlark Driveway Permit\Appendix G transaction_ form for_wd of_cred ts.docx
f Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits
ffig
i from the Minnesota Wetland Bank
4. Withdrawal Information
Bank Service Area: 9
To be completed by seller of credits (account holder).
Account Number: 1392 County: 10
Credit
Subgroup
Letter
Federally
Authorized
Credits (Y or N)
Plant Community Type
Cost per Credit
(acre)
Number of Credits to be
Withdrawn (acre)
(acre-ft2/43560)
Cosi: of Purchased
Credits
(cost per credit x number of
B
Y
SM
$40510.80
0.0440
5178:2.48
S0.00 -- _
TOTAL
0.0440
$1782.48
If TOTAL does not calculate, right click, Upda.'e Field
Table Enter County Fee from
www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wetlandbanking/fee and sales data/A'etland Bank Fee Schedule.odf Table (county of seller's D,
bank) 6.5 /4 of sale price
Above TOTAL x County
Transaction Fee (choose either amount) Fee $ 115.86
$ 0.00
Attach check payable to Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.
By signature below I seller and holder of the aforementioned account in the State of Minnesota Wetland Mitigation Bank certify that:
1) The credits described in this application have been sold to the credit user or will be used for my own project;
2) 1 have received payment in full from the buyer (if applicable);
3) The credits described in this application have not been sold or used in any way to mitigate wetland losses other than for the project
and location identified in the wetland impact information block on the previous page;
4) The credits described in this application should be w thdrawn from my account; and
5) 1 will not have a negative balance of credits after the subject credits are debited from my account
Seller Name (print): Elroy Knauer
Seller Signature:
Seller e-mail":
Date:
1. The account holder of the credits is responsible for submittal of this form, containing signatures, to the BWSR Wetland
Bank Administrator so the affected account can be properly debited.
2. No impacts to any wetland or other water resource may commence until the credits have been debited and a copy of
this form, with stamped debit date, has been received by the regulatory authority(ies), the account holder, ,and the credit
user.
3. This form is not an application form. It is a transaction form to be used in association with an approved project that
impacts wetlands and requires wetland replacement.
When this form is completed and all required signatures are obtained, send with the fee check(s) to:
Wetland Bank Administration
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
Saint Paul, MN 55155
Disclaimer any transaction in the wetland banking system is public information.
Rev 3/16/2015 Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Page 2 of 2
C'\Users\Owner\Documents\2015 Info\2015275 Vogel 9641 Meadowlark Driveway Permit\Appendix G t ra nsa ct lo n_form_for wd_of_c red its.docx
Available Wetland Credits - BWSR
1115 Carver 33 -Minnesota 9
(Shakopee)
Page 2 of 2
0.0226 Knauer, Elroy (952) 466-
9882---
I
66-
9882---
1"v"ark , Kviiiaug (Acct ]Vlg-
1444 Cancer Fork Croouthw
7 13.7535 Montgomery) 952 401-8757
Fork Crow 9 ry) ( )
-- mkjolhaugenv.com ext 10
A SWC Y 1 fresh (wet) 5.1221
meadow
B SWC Y 3 shallow 4.6159
marsh
C SWC N U Upland 4.0155
(jump to top of page)
AlBleioIEIFIG IHIIIJIKILIMINIoIPIQIRISITIuIvlwlxlYlz
D --t-- : p to -date a s n.., em't.er 2-11, 20141 5
vuau w up av al Gla6 Gj vl uri liG111UG'1 LU I J
hitp://'apps.bwsr.state.iiiii.us/'Cred'lts/'
(jump to bottom of page)
12/21/2015
C
SWC
Y
U
Upland
0.0226
1.
1349 Carver 33 -Minnesota
9
5 175 Jon , Aune, ennar Account
(Shakopee)
Manager ( 2) 249-3011 --
A
SWC
N
3
Floodplain
5.175
1375 Carver 19 -South
7
20.7506 Richards , Jeff (612) 759-
Fork Crow
B
SWC
Y
2
sedge
2.6706
meadow
C
SWC
Y
3
shallow
1.13
marsh
D
SWC
Y
4
shallow
5.97
open water
E
SWC
Y
U
Upland
10.98
1392 Carver 33 -Minnesota
9
0 6027
Knauer, Elroy (9 2) 466-
(Shakopee)
9882---
A
SWC
Y
2
fresh (wet)
0,1337
meadow
B
SWC
Y
3
shallow
0.309
marsh
C
SWC
Y
4
deep marsh
0.16
1"v"ark , Kviiiaug (Acct ]Vlg-
1444 Cancer Fork Croouthw
7 13.7535 Montgomery) 952 401-8757
Fork Crow 9 ry) ( )
-- mkjolhaugenv.com ext 10
A SWC Y 1 fresh (wet) 5.1221
meadow
B SWC Y 3 shallow 4.6159
marsh
C SWC N U Upland 4.0155
(jump to top of page)
AlBleioIEIFIG IHIIIJIKILIMINIoIPIQIRISITIuIvlwlxlYlz
D --t-- : p to -date a s n.., em't.er 2-11, 20141 5
vuau w up av al Gla6 Gj vl uri liG111UG'1 LU I J
hitp://'apps.bwsr.state.iiiii.us/'Cred'lts/'
(jump to bottom of page)
12/21/2015
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
January 21, 2016, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit — Planning
Case 2016-04 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice
in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such
owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses
of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver
County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of 52015.
Notary ��bh
Kare . En lh dt, I ep ty Clerk
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
Notary Public -Minnesota
My commission Expires Jan 31, 2020
is
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start
until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Variance to the shoreland setback and a Wetland
Proposal:
Alteration Permit to construct a driveway on property zoned
Rural Residential District RR
Applicant:
David Vogel
Property
9641 Meadowlark Lane
Location:
(Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows)
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-04. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous
Questions &
by email at kspreiter(a)-ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at
Comments:
952-227-1173. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
NEW! Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up!
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is
invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify
wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority
vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialfindustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report,
lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start
until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Variance to the shoreland setback and a Wetland
Proposal:
Alteration Permit to construct a driveway on property zoned
Rural Residential District (RR)
Applicant:
David Vogel
Property
9641 Meadowlark Lane
Location:
(Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows)
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-04. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous
Questions &
by email at kspreiter(cDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at
Comments:
952-227-1173. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
NEW! Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up!
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is
invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify
wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority
vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report,
lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
ANN M WILLIAMSON SUSU ADRIAENS NEIL A KLINGELHUTZ
240 EASTWOOD CT 241 EASTWOOD CT 9731 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8683 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8683 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8626
MICHAEL D WISTRAND
9670 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8694
STEVEN F & KATHLEEN M BURKE
9591 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8693
WILLIAM T & CAROL ANN GRAY
50 PIONEER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8627
TIMOTHY A & DAWNE M ERHART
9611 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8695
CHARLENE M SCHUBERT
9610 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8694
GAYLE M & RICHARD P VOGEL
105 PIONEER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8660
MICHAEL T MONK MICHAEL J REILLY DONALD H III & DIANE M KENNEDY
9671 MEADOWLARK LN 9701 MEADOWLARK LN 108 PIONEER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8695 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8626 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8659
My wife and I are requesting that we keep the driveway width at 12 feet with a non -
ninety degree angle for several reasons. Primarily, it is for safety reasons. A 10 foot
driveway is quite narrow and could limit access to fire trucks or emergency vehicles that
have a larger wheel base and could require a wider turn radius. With a 400 foot driveway
and no city water or fire hydrants, any delay of them reaching our house could be
catastrophic. The ditch it will be crossing is quite deep and would be greatly problematic
if they were to go off of the road. In addition, for ourselves and any guests that visit, we
would like the wider road for a margin of safety. In the winter if the ditch fills with snow
and any snow is covering the driveway, the additional width would make it much less
likely to miss the driveway. Plowing the driveway the entire length would also be more
complicated. Because of the length of the driveway and lack of ability for larger trucks to
turn around, the septic system could cause issues with them having to back up the entire
length. Lastly, Wausau Homes will be constructing the house. The wheel base on the
trucks delivering the trusses and frames is approximately 9 foot 8 inches, leaving only 2
inches on either side of a 10 foot driveway which they say is not feasible.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
Acting Chair Undestad called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, and Maryam Yusuf
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Aller, Lisa Hokkanen, and Steve Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Krista Spreiter,
Natural Resources Technician
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Aaron Brady
8735 Flamingo Drive
Mark Randall
6460 Yosemite
Steve Burke
9591 Meadowlark Lane
Dan Hanson
1450 West Farm Road
Wayne Beuban
361 Trappers Pass
PUBLIC HEARING:
9641 MEADOWLARK LANE WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND VARIANCE
PLANNING CASE 2016-04: REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND
SETBACK AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR).
APPLICANT/OWNER: DAVID VOGEL.
Spreiter: Thank you Chairman Undestad and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing
for the wetland alteration permit and variance request for 9641 Meadowlark Lane. The site is
located on the south shore of Lake Riley. It's within the Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood
which is a rural residential neighborhood. The intent of the project is to provide access to the
property and allow for future construction of a single family residence. The existing site does
not have a driveway. The applicant has, or I'm sorry the owner has been accessing the site
utilizing the neighbor's driveway. I don't know why it's not. There are no current structures on
the property. The property contains 3 wetlands. One of the wetlands contains a tributary stream
that flows from the south to north into Lake Riley. The current required setback is 100 feet from
the tributary stream. The applicant is proposing to encroach 70 feet into the required setback.in
order to construct the driveway. The current proposed alignment was chosen in order to avoid
impacts to Wetland Basin 3. Next slide please. This is a drawing of the proposed access. The
highlighted green there is the proposed driveway and alignment. The areas in red are the
wetlands and the area in yellow is the proposed wetland impact to Basin 1. The proposed angle
was chosen to avoid impacts to wetland 3. So while as to provide a safer and easier access from
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Meadowlark Lane, specifically to accommodate construction vehicles and larger vehicles such as
delivery vehicles. City code does recommend a 90 degree angle. In order to achieve this the
driveway would need to be widen and that would result in more impacts to Wetland 1. One of
the conditions of approval also states that the current variance only allow for construction of the
driveway to occur just beyond the wetland areas until a site plan and building permit has been
submitted and approved. Next slide please. The nature of the site currently as well as the
location of the tributary stream makes it very difficult to access the site and comply with the 100
foot setback, especially in the southern portion of the site. Next slide please. Wetlands on the
site were delineated in October of 2015. There are 3 basins on the site. The tributary stream is
part of Wetland Basin 1 which also runs parallel to Meadowlark Lane which also makes it hard
to access the site without having impacts. Next slide please. A total of 957 square feet of impact
is proposed as part of the project. The impacts are to be mitigated for using wetland bank
credits. This is consistent with Chapter 8420 of the Wetland Conservation Act. Next slide. The
Wetland Conservation Act has specific sequencing requirements for wetland replacement
applications including minimizing impacts to the greatest extent possible. Impacts could be
further reduced by bringing the width of the driveway to a minimum of 10 feet allowed by city
code. This was originally not discussed in the original application that was submitted. However
the applicant has submitted an addendum that addresses this minimization. The primary reason
stated was to create a safer access as well as allow for construction vehicles to enter the site in
order to construct the single family residence. Staff is recommending approval with conditions
for both the wetland alteration permit and variance in this case. Next slide please.
Undestad: Okay, thank you.
Spreiter: Sorry, in summary the applicant has made significant efforts to avoid and minimize
wetland impacts. Sequencing requirements for the Wetland Conservation Act were not fully met
in the original application. However the applicant has provided further argument and
explanation of alternatives and minimizations. Therefore staff is recommending approval of the
wetland alteration permit and shoreland setback variance from a tributary stream with conditions
and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. That concludes my presentation.
Thank you and I'll take any questions at this time.
Undestad: Thank you. Back to our commissioners for any comments or questions.
Madsen: I have a question. So are you proposing then that they reduce the width to 10 feet, is
that correct?
Spreiter: No. It was just that it should have been included. That option should have been
included in the original application so one of the conditions was that they provide an argument as
to why they could not minimize to 10 feet which they did at a later time and then that was
submitted as an addendum to the application. So they've now fulfilled their sequencing
requirements.
N
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Madsen: So it is not a condition at this time?
Spreiter: It is a condition but the condition has been met. So after the conditions were made and
the staff report was submitted they came back with an addendum.
Madsen: Okay.
Spreiter: And I believe that was submitted to the commissioners or available online for viewing.
Aanenson: So just to be clear you're making them reduce it to 10.
Spreiter: No. No sorry. The answer is no we're not.
Madsen: Okay because it was listed under the recommendations so that's, I just wanted to
clarify.
Spreiter: Right.
Madsen: Okay, and are you recommending that the intersection be at a 90 degree angle now or
not?
Spreiter: No because it would actually result in more impact but because it's recommended by
city code and it was a comment by engineering I thought I would address it. So the reason for
the angle that's proposed instead of the recommended 90 degree angle is that it allows for a
narrower driveway. Less impact and easier access.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Spreiter: Sure.
Undestad: Anyone else?
Tietz: Yeah assuming that the slide is for future development how will sewer and water be
handled?
Aanenson: Septic will be required for this.
Tietz: It's septic.
Aanenson: Yep, septic and well correct.
Tietz: Okay.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Aanenson: There's no municipal services in this area.
Tietz: There are no, okay so sewer would be a well and septic.
Aanenson: (Yes).
Tietz: Okay, sorry. I should have looked at the map.
Aanenson: That's alright.
Undestad: Okay. Anyone else? This is a public hearing so we'll.
Aanenson: Maybe let the applicant speak before the public hearing that'd be.
Undestad: If the applicant's present would you like to speak?
Dave Vogel: Hello. My name is Dave Vogel. Just thank you for being here tonight and we've
been working with Krista and some of the others at the planning committee for some time. It's
been tough with the dual permitting with Riley -Purgatory Creek district as well but we would
really like to have this set so we can figure out when to put our house on the market and proceed
with other plans including you know the house location and final settlement of everything right
now so. The width, working my builder we absolutely need it to be more than 10 feet. The truck
that would be bringing most the material on, the wheel base is 9 feet 8 inches so also there's a
pretty good ditch there with snow in the winter, I absolutely don't want to have any guests or
heaven forbid myself or my wife go off into the ditch so a wider driveway with the angle and
then also you know it's using an existing road that we've been using for over 100 years. You
can see it on the maps. It's been a dirt road forever. I've got a hard copy if you'd like to see it.
There you go. And the kindness of the neighbor to the right said well just instead of driving
through the ditch just drive on my driveway and take a left so that's what we've been doing for
now but that doesn't work for the future so. That's all I've got.
Undestad: Okay, any questions for the applicant? No. Okay, thank you. This is a public
hearing.
Dan Hanson: Could I?
Undestad: Oh sure, come on up.
Dan Hanson: My name is Dan Hanson. I'm with Wausau Homes. I'm the builder for the Vogel
family. Been working with them for the last 6 months on this project and we started about 3
months ago trying to get our arms around the challenges with this particular piece of land and
making sure that we're ahead of the game with regards to, which we found out was quite a bit of
stuff with regards to wetlands and setbacks and all that so we originally went in for the request to
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
build a bridge or a road over that ditch area from the cul-de-sac road to what you can see is that
dirt road that they've been using for many, many years. Our intent all along was to use that road
as the primary road getting to the property and because it was basically a good location. It fed
the lot the way we needed it to and left us with room at the top of that lot near the lake to place
the home. We quickly found with the wetland study that we had some real challenges with
regards to placement of not only the ditch area. The road over the ditch but the road itself
continuing on. Our assumption was when we were going through this process we were
addressing not only that ditch area but we were addressing, excuse me the road and the location
of that so when we were requesting variance we were also hoping to get the same variance for
that road the entire length of the road as it currently sits. Placement. We were not going to be
excavating that road. We were basically building on top of it so we felt best location, least
amount of impact to wetlands because we're not excavating, digging anything up. We're not
creating a new road. We're just going over the top of the existing so we later found that we are
now in a situation where we're only addressing that first few feet of the lot and getting over that
ditch area. We did not have a building survey for the lot at the time we started this because for
us it was like we needed to know whether we could get the road where we want it so we'd know
how to set up the survey. We've since now paid engineers to do quite a bit of work on the bridge
area. We've also had engineer do a complete survey of the lot. We've had a wetland study to
show us everything that's going on with regards to the lot. We think that the survey we've now,
excuse me have is pretty detailed. We were hoping to get as much detail on that survey because
we're not only dealing with the folks in the many departments here in Chanhassen but we've
now been told we have to work through the, through the watershed district as well and they are
asking for almost the same stuff that we're doing here and we are now going through that same
process all over again which keeps setting us back, setting us back. So the reason I'm talking
today is I'd like to at least plant a seed with regards to what we have coming next because it
sounds like we have to now go in and put together documentation to get a variance for the entire
length of that road and the placement of that house. We would like to see that house with the
same setback and road with the same setback as that driveway. Otherwise we have to reroute
that road somewhere else to get to that 100 foot setback from the creek. We submitted the
survey to building officials for them to review so that we could get ahead of the game there and
hopefully not get caught off guard and have to start the process all over again and unfortunately
they came back. We were assuming they were onboard with that same road being used. They
are now saying that they're going to, unless we can come up with some argument, push us to the
100 foot setback from the creek which would now take that road clear to the lot line. To the far
right of the property and it would completely change everything we are doing with regards to our
septic systems drain fields. We've got 2 drain fields in there that have been engineered and they
are actually all fitting in nicely the way they are if the road can go where we're asking it to go. If
they force us to go to the 100 foot setback we will have to, I don't even know if we'll get those
drain fields in because they're very tight already. And even if we do get them in we're still
going to need a variance because they're going to be within the 100 feet so I just wanted to just
at least bring it up that we are, we are really a bit frustrated because we keep thinking we're
getting ahead of things and we keep getting setbacks so but we're going to follow the steps and
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
bring forward to you the next steps which are getting the variance for the driveway the entire
way up. Thank you.
Undestad: Thank you.
Aanenson: Just for everyone's edification I think it's helpful to understand the, so this survey
was submitted last Thursday so the packet had gone out. The wetland sequencing all that was
done. Gone to the watershed district so the concern was from the staff s perspective is does the
driveway need to be that long to accommodate the site and now there's also 2 drain field sites on
that. While they may have been marked we haven't reviewed them. I'm not sure the building
department's looked at them to make sure that they work so that was the question is, is this the
right place for the driveway because we looked at what the setbacks would be, and I understand
what they're saying is that it was their intent that if the driveway would be over here then they
were, if they stayed within that line that, that met their intent but unfortunately it wasn't how we
noticed it. We noticed it for the driveway variance so we're just trying to get a handle on this
because all this just came to light of what their expectations were today so we're trying to get a
handle on that. Understanding that they're saying that these already staked the drain field sites
and again we haven't received any documentation or anything on that and that may be true.
Obviously that's important to make sure they're in the right place so we're trying to work
through that issue. So there was a condition addressing that and I'll let Krista address that. That
was on the shoreland variance setback, condition number 1. Is that the condition that talks about
the driveway not being approved beyond what was necessary.
Spreiter: Right so it's just contingent on having a submitted an approved site plan such as this.
When they came in for the driveway we didn't have a site plan or a certified survey even really
showing where the edge of the creek was so we didn't want to approve just a blanket variance for
a driveway that we didn't know how far it would go into the site. Where it would curve or lead
to a house so that's why that condition was added. That upon approval or submittal of a site plan
and a building permit that we would explore the rest of the driveway.
Aanenson: So you can see the house is in that setback area which we didn't notice on that so
we're trying to find a way to work through that issue so right now the variance you have in front
of you is for the driveway length. The way the condition reads is that if it meets, unless it meets
the setback and I'm trying to get an opinion on that. Whether or not where we are on that. This
meets that test or not so.
Undestad: So what we have, what we're looking at right now is the length. The variance for the
length of the driveway.
Aanenson: Right.
Undestad: There's a good chance we're going to see something else coming up or.
71
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Aanenson: Right. The challenge is, because what's for a driveway if you look at the notice it
was for a driveway location so you know they didn't have'the house there as shown yet so we
were just saying you know does the driveway need to go that far back if you're not sure where
the house is going to go and so because we just received this so their interpretation was as long
as we stayed behind that line we were okay. And I'm not sure if that meets the, you know the
legal interpretation of what we were giving the variance to so we have time between now and
when it goes to City Council and this was scheduled because we were supposed to have it 2
weeks ago but we had snow and so we were going to try to turn it around quickly. We're trying
to meet their timeline so we try to get a legal opinion on that tomorrow and see if it would stay
on or if we need to kind of go back and revisit that so that's kind of where we're sitting right
now but we'd still like you to make an opinion. You should make one as shown. An opinion on
the house setback but a motion for sure of what was presented tonight and maybe just give some
direction on the other I think would be helpful.
Undestad: Okay so again that's all we're looking at tonight is what's in front of us and not
what's dealing with the house location or the.
Aanenson: I think you may want to make some comments on that if it goes to City Council and
they make some different interpretation on that. If that makes sense but correct, you should at
minimum do the motion that's in front of you now.
Undestad: Okay.
Aanenson: The two.
Undestad: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anybody else wish to come up and speak? State your
name and address.
Steve Burke: Hello, Steve Burke, 9591 Meadowlark Lane. I'm just 2 lots to the west of the
property there and I've been there 27-28 years. This is a unique piece of property. I can see
where it's going to be difficult. I just listening I just want to make sure that today's action, your
ruling on getting across the ditch through the wetland and getting them a road. This is any
variance that you grant is for the road. You know the driveway.
Undestad: Right.
Steve Burke: Not for the house site and not for anything else.
Undestad: Yep.
Steve Burke: And other than that we're looking forward to having a house finally to finish off
that development but it is a very challenging piece of property there.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Undestad: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none I'll close the public hearing and
bring it back to the commissioners for comments, questions.
Madsen: So this is just for the access to the, really it's not the final driveway. Or the house.
Yusuf: No it kind of sounds like it would be.
Aanenson: Well the motion doesn't take it all the way back. Do you know how many feet it goes
back approximately? How far the driveway goes back, do you have lineal feet on that?
Spreiter: The current mowed driveway or?
Aanenson: The proposed variance.
Spreiter: The proposed variance only, I don't have a footage. It's only to get beyond the
wetlands so this shows basically what, in this diagram right here this shows what you're
approving.
Madsen: Okay.
Spreiter: That would be all the length that you're approving tonight with that condition that was
added, yes.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Spreiter: If you, do you want. We could maybe go to another image that would zoom out if
you'd like but that image was basically it so just beyond that, you see W3, that wetland area.
That's basically it is what this is proposing.
Yusuf: I think I may have misunderstood. Did you say earlier that we were approving the
length, the total length of the driveway?
Spreiter: No we're not.
Yusuf: Okay.
Undestad: Yeah the access in.
Aanenson: Yeah I'm just trying to get a better picture because I'm struggling.
Spreiter: I know we don't have a lot of.
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Aanenson: Well so the issue is, is once you get, I'm asking a question. So once you get past the
wetland, the impacts are, they can stay without, they can continue constructing without a
variance or?
Spreiter: No then they have to meet the setback as that condition is written right now.
Aanenson: Okay so let's clarify that. I think that's a helpful piece of information.
Spreiter: Right.
Aanenson: So I'm just trying to find out that shows the driveway on there. Let's go back to the
drawing at the end. I think that's what, so what we're saying is once you get past these wetlands
which is somewhere in here correct.
Spreiter: Yeah.
Aanenson: The rest is as long as this driveway stays outside of the required 75 feet setback.
Spreiter: It's 100 feet.
Aanenson: 100 feet. This is the 100 foot then right here correct?
Undestad: The solid line.
Aanenson: Oh 100 feet so none of this is within 100 feet so what we need a variance for all of it
so what you just said is they still would need, okay.
Spreiter: The way that condition is written yes.
Aanenson: Okay.
Tietz: What's the dash, the black dot dash line? That parallels the tributary.
Spreiter: That is the wetland, proposed wetland buffer line.
Tietz: Okay.
Spreiter: So the tributary is in blue there. That's the edge of creek so that's what they're setting
back from or approximate OHW. The dotted red is the 75. These are all approximate of course
because we don't have a certified survey but the 100 feet is the dark red.
0
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Tietz: And the proposed grading for the road within that, within the 75 feet is that proposed
grading or as it's graded today? It looks like the contours have been altered on this drawing so it
looks like proposed grading.
Spreiter: (Yes). Maybe the builder would like to speak to that.
Dave Vogel: Just to go back that road's been there for, I mean it's been in the family for over
100 years. My grandparents owned it. My parents owned it. My mom recently gifted to us and
so throughout the whole time we were trying to not cut down any trees for this driveway because
of these, you know the cattail wetlands were a given. There's a small area that's, it's called
wetland but to avoid that wetland we're moving over and cutting down very nice large maple
trees. We were then going to continue along a driveway. It's compacted dirt. It was tractors
before and now it's you know Ford Explorers. I've been driving on it now so it's, we tried to not
cut down any trees. We're cutting down trees to save the wetland. The cattails, wherever we go
there's cattails just on the ditch itself and so the whole proposal was, what our understanding
was, not catching the conditions part of it until today is that it's only so far. If we have to do a
right angle on that right hand side there I don't understand why we'd be doing this. There'd be
more wetlands if we go to the right because there's one of those screen shots. There's across the
ditch there's another little bubble of wetland and so we were trying to avoid that and that tied in
nicely where the vast majority of the way could go on the existing road and not cut down
additional trees. If we push it all the way to the right, the east end of that lot there's more trees
that would need to go down and it'd be tucked up right against the neighbor and that's also
where the planned septics were going to be going so.
Aanenson: If I may there's, so there's 2 operating rules here. One is the creek setback. Here's
the creek so that's one thing you have to follow. The 100 foot setback from the creek and the
other one was trying to avoid this wetland so those are the 2 drivers and that's how the decision
was made and I'm not sure if you have comments from the watershed district on.
Spreiter: I don't have comments from the watershed district, no.
Dave Vogel: But that group of trees on the east end are also very nice big trees. Part of that is
wetland on the edge there. That you know bottom red dot. Right there. So that's why we.
Aanenson: And hug the driveway right here. That was the intent. That's what was shown on
the other.
Dave Vogel: To follow the existing driveway as much as possible while avoiding those 2
wetland spots yes. And not taking down trees as well and then leaving what little space there is
on the lot so that we could put the house and the garage and the septic and the well. And when
you know my parents sold this land this was all plotted as a developed lot and you know some of
the variances have changed on setbacks and what not it seems but you know never thought it was
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
going to be this hard so we're trying to work with the City as best we can but there's definitely
challenges here.
Tietz: Kate could you bring up in those last 2 images again. I have a question I just want to
follow up on the grading. The image on my left.
Aanenson: If you can say proposed or alternative maybe. They say proposed and alternative on
the drawings.
Tietz: Mark would you tease us ... or does it work?
Undestad: Yeah right there. Oh it just won't show up on the screen yeah.
Tietz: But are those proposed grading? Is that a rough proposed grading plan for access?
Dave Vogel: Yes it is.
Tietz: So even cutting the existing road back to do the grade that you're proposing with the
swales adjacent to it is going to have an impact on the vegetation? It looks like the road goes
right through the trees.
Dave Vogel: No.
Tietz: It's to the east?
Dave Vogel: The road is to the east of the trees.
Tietz: The existing road is completely to the east of the trees?
Dave Vogel: Right.
Tietz: Okay. But this is a proposed grading plan then?
Dan Hanson: It is.
Dave Vogel: We were originally trying to get the driveway in so that we could start construction
right around now and never thought we'd have you know where we're at so that's as Dan
explained, I mean we've been waiting to get this approval to know whether I sign a contract with
him to build. I don't, it's questionable whether we can build if we go to the alternate project site.
I mean so we're trying to get as far down the line as we can but, and again now the watershed
district is also got their own thoughts. We're stuck on a culvert right now and the size of the
culvert which the City didn't have a problem with so you know we're trying and we'd be happy
to work with them on this alternative project and proposed project and working as best we can in
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
there but our intention, our thoughts were this variance would run the length of the creek and that
the house would also fall within that. All maintaining the 100 back from the lake so not moving
closer to the lake in any way. Just getting down the east side of that property line as best we can
for everything else.
Undestad: Okay. Alright, again what we have in front of us we're dealing with.
Dave Vogel: Understood.
Undestad: The initial across the, across the ditch. You know I think at this point what you
presented here and what you're putting together is probably something that you need to continue
working on with staff and try to get something that because obviously we're going to have to
come back and see this again so tonight really all we can do is.
Dave Vogel: Understood.
Undestad: Go with what's in front of us on the initial phase crossing the ditch on there so.
Dave Vogel: We're not building anything until the house is approved so this might just stay the
way it is so.
Undestad: Yeah but at least you can get over the ditch.
Dave Vogel: Well yeah.
Undestad: Okay. Back to commissioners for any comments. I mean it looks like we have a
couple of different issues that showed up here from our original report so, all we can look at is
our proposal for tonight yeah. So if there's no other comments or questions I'll entertain a
motion.
Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Wetland
Alteration Permit number 2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the
interagency water resource application subject to conditions within the staff report and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. And the Chanhassen Planning Commission
acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to encroach 70 feet into the
required 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary stream as shown on plans dated January 6,
2016 to construct a driveway subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Decision.
Undestad: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Tietz: Second.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
Undestad: I have a second. Any other comments?
Yusuf moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that
City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 2016-04 and authorize the Water
Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application subject to the
following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation; And
that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments approves a variance to encroach 70 feet into the required 100 foot shoreland
setback from a tributary stream as shown on plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a
driveway subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
Wetland Alteration Permit
1. Impacts must be minimized to the maximum practicable extent, or arguments and
discussions on alternatives and further minimization must be presented to the Interagency
Water Resource Application in order to fulfill the sequencing requirement, including
narrowing the driveway to 10 feet and presenting alternate alignments at the wetland
crossing.
2. No driveway beyond what is required to access the site and get beyond the wetland shall
be approved until a site and/or building plan is provided and approved.
A letter from the Board of Soil and Water Resources stating that the credits have been
debited and applied towards this impact must be provided prior to any disturbance of the
wetland.
4. An erosion prevention and sediment control plan consistent with Section 19-154 of city
code must be included.
5. The plan must indicate how temporary impacts to the wetland and the buffer area will be
permanently stabilized.
6. Culvert shall be aligned with the flow line of the wetland being crossed. Elevation at
both culvert openings shall be indicated on the plan.
7. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
Shoreland Setback Variance
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
1. The driveway shall not be approved beyond what is necessary to access the site and get
beyond the wetland. No other portion shall be allowed within the setback unless
approved with a site and/or building plan application.
2. Any future structures including, but not limited to, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
(SSTS) shall meet all ordinance and setback requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Undestad: This.
Aanenson: Is going to the City Council next Monday.
Yusuf: Was there anything else you wanted us to add?
Aanenson: No. I think the concern here is on the entire driveway was the setback along that 100
feet. Maintaining that so it appears there has to be some relief somewhere along the way. We
don't have enough information you know for tree loss and I think grading was brought up so
we'll try to get that additional information and see where we go from there. If that the driveway
stays where it is, if that makes the most sense but we don't have enough information based on
the survey that was submitted. If they have details on the septic system and that location, that's
the best location for that would also help to make a good decision if that's the best place for the
home but we don't have all that information at this point so unless you had something additional
you wanted to, yeah recommend or.
Yusuf: No I assume that the applicant would just continue working with staff and to try to find a
working solution.
Aanenson: Yeah, correct.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 2016 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: Thank you on Monday the 25th the City Council did approve the Mount Olivet
Rolling Acres adult daycare so that should be getting under construction and they also, the Golf
Zone withdrew their application so there will not be the paintball activity down there. And then
on the February 8th the council did approve, interim use permit for grading for the additional
width of the driveway accessing out of Minnetonka Middle School West for safety
improvements so that is all I had for action items. For your next agenda we do have 2
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016
applications for March 1St. Both of them, one's an interim use permit for construction of a stable
and the other one would be for a variance for, a height variance for a fence so that will be on
your March 1St. Right now we did not have anything come in for March 15th. We are working
on a couple subdivisions. We've penciled one in on April 19th. Are shooting for that date and
Terry Jeffery also talked about doing some stormwater on that date too so right now March 15
we may not have a meeting. And April 5th was typically our work session where we go through
kind of a year end review. All the cases we looked at and then do some additional training so we
haven't finalized that yet but that would be on the April 5th meeting. And then just for note of
clarification, we will be doing interviews right after this meeting. We'll go into a different room.
Little more comfortable. We have people here for interviews so as we normally incumbents
don't interview. The Planning Commission will recommend people that are applying and then
ultimately the council reviews, interviews everybody so that's all I had Mr. Undestad if you
would like to adjourn.
Undestad: I'll open for a motion to adjourn.
Yusuf moved, Tietz seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting
was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
IR