Loading...
CAS-04_9641 MEADOWLARK LANE VARIANCE & WETLAND ALTERATION7700 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:952.2271160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Flnence Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227-1110 Park & Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 Fax: 952227.1110 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 Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us February 29, 2016 David and Amy Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Planning Case #2016-04, Variance and Wetland Alteration Permit Dear Mr. Vogel: This letter is to inform you that on February 16, 2016, the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approved a variance for a driveway that encroaches into the shoreline setback (Planning Case 2016-04), subject to the following conditions: 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. On February 22, 2016, the Chanhassen City Council approved a Wetland Alteration Permit to impact .022 acres of Wetland Basin 1, and authorized the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application, and the plans included in the application and its attachments and addendum dated January 5, 2016, to construct a driveway subject to the following conditions: 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. Chanhassen is a Co mmu nity for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow SCANNED David and Amy Vogel February 29, 2016 Page 2 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. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to City prior to commencement of activity. The City will record the Variance and the Wetland Alteration Permit on the property with Carver County. The applicant must comply with Chapter 8420.0522. of the Wetland Conservation Act Rules. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1173 or by email at kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, A �-,, L Krista Spreiter Natural Resources Technician ec: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator Drew Ingvalson, Planner 9:1p]an\2016 planning cas V016-04 9641 meadowlark Zane variance & wap`approval letter new.doc OR CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA Grand Oak Office Center 1 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 3/1 /16 2016-04 ATTENTION Jean Olson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 2/16/16 16-04 Variance 2016-04 for 9641 Meadowlark Lane 1 2/22/16 16-04 Wetland Alteration Permit 2016-04 for 9641 Meadowlark Lane THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO: Drew Ingvalson, Planner Krista Spreiter, Environmental Resource Technician David Vogel, 105 Pioneer Trail copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED IN CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2016-04 Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: 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 in plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a driveway. 2. Pro e . The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. 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. b. Any future structures including, but not limited to, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) shall meet all ordinance and setback requirements. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: February 16, 2016 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) D nny Lauf nburger ayor AND: �Aw Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of d Q ✓G ( l 2016by 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. L�4Q.v� NOTARY UBL �'"�\ ltiM T, MEUWISSEN re; N0;3ry p�� Mrs,.:-rwa„insi,207p DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 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. Prop 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. 9 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 Penalri. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: February 22, 2016 4 SEAL STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN �. its✓ /_ �� DiF . _ • •� •dd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of t\1 Ctr-c h , 2011k, 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 Pu) c . 14wKIM T. MEUWISSEN My cemnr, On ExpW . J a,, zw DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ko oq 1Iz Document No. A623970 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certified Recorded on -March 07, 2016 123 PM Fee: $46.00 IIII IIII I II III II III CLuke C ounty Recorder CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2016-04 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: 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 in plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a driveway. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: a. 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. b. Any future structures including, but not limited to, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) shall meet all ordinance and setback requirements. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: February 16, 2016 SCANNED STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: D�hny Lauf hurgerr, ayor AND: J—1` Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _[?day of /' t Q ✓G 2016by 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. " KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary'ubfio'Minnesota MryCUmm•:s:r. F,plreeJen31, J�N"�NWNI City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 e, Rey- b Co.r� pbe 11 Knu isoY� 1�-Oq 4z Document No. A623971 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certified Recorded on -March 07, 2016 3:23 PM Fee: $46.00 IIII 623971 II II III County Recorder 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. Pro 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. SCANNED r . . 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. Temvnation of Permit. The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing for violation of the terms of this permit. 5. )use. 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 Penaltv. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. Dated: February22, 2016 Fa •'r►,� �<-• w..•••'''� sir i . Nis •,, STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CHANHASSEN �. its✓ / . -� • By: odd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1— day of /\4 (t YGh , 20j,ta , 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. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 �CF- VD..Caf-y- e 0 Y-n Q VsDn Notary PA_. KIM TPMEUWISsSEN ary blic-Motallot �'s- My Canmq•Ip, E•pira• Jan 31, Y020 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VARIANCE IN RE: Application of Gayle M. & Richard P. Vogel for a 70-foot shoreland setback variance from a tributary to construct a driveway on property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) — Planning Case 2016- 04. On February 16, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a 10-foot wide driveway to access the property is a normal use of a property in a residential district, which is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District. Providing adequate driveway access is a standard accessory use for the property. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The location of the tributary stream, as well as the location of the three identified wetland basins on the lot, creates practical difficulties in providing access to the lot. In order to avoid wetland impacts to an additional wetland basin on site, and provide reasonable access to the lot and future residence, a shoreland setback variance from the tributary is necessary. CANNED f 46 c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home on a lot of record in a residential zoning district and is trying to provide adequate access. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of both the tributary stream and wetland basins creates a unique circumstance in constructing an adequate driveway to the lot. None of the water resources were created by, nor was their location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (similar home sizes). Finding: The homes located on either side of the home are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, a rural residential district. f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2016-04, dated February 16, 2016, prepared by Krista Spreiter, et al, is incorporated herein. 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 in plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a driveway, subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16a' day of February, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Mark Undestad, Acting Chairman IL CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Nancy Link for an Interim Use Permit to permit construction of a private horse stable (Planning Case #2016-05). On March 15, 2016 the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Nancy Link for an interim use permit to allow a private stable for the property located at 6285 Ridge Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed interim use which was preceded by published and mailed 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 RSF, Single -Family Residential District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for residential low density use. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1, Meyer's Addition. 3. When approving an interim use permit the city uses the standards for a conditional use permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a. The private stable will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The stable will be integrated into the site and be similar to other accessory structures in the neighborhood. b. The private stable will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning code. The stable will be an accessory use to a single-family home. c. The private stable 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 similar to other accessory structures in the neighborhood. d. The private stable will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses because the stable and paddock will be contained within the site perimeters. `'CANNED I. e. The grading operation 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. The grading is temporary which does not need to be served by public facilities and services. The proposed grading will improve storm water management in this area. f. The private stable will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community since this site already contains a home and will generate no additional demands on public facilities. g. The private stable will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare due to excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The conditions of the approval will provide standards by which the activities should be minimized. h. The private stable will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. The private stable will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The installation of the stable should minimize the removal of significant, healthy trees. j. The private stable will be aesthetically compatible with the area since the accessory structure is similar to others within the neighborhood. k. The private stable will not depreciate surrounding property values since the location will minimize its impacts on the surrounding properties. 1. The private stable will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 5, Article III, Division 2 of the Chanhassen City Code. 4. The planning report #2016-05, dated March 15, 2016, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 2 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the interim use permit to permit a private stable on property located at 6285 Ridge Road. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15u' day of March, 2016. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman U CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Application of Ryan and Carolyn Majkrzak for a variance from the maximum fence height of three feet six inches for fences within the 75-foot shoreland setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2016-06. On March 15, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: Section 24 Township 116 Range 023 ALL THAT P/O GOVT LOT 2 24-116-23 LYING SE OF CENTERLINE OF LYMAN BOULEVARD PER DOC T90333 & 189939. CENTERLINE OF LYMAN BOULEVARD DESC AS: BEG AT W QUARTER CORNER OF SECT 24, TH S89*E WHERE E/W QUARTER LINE BEARS S89*E 2186.62; TH ELY 28' ALONG TANGENTIAL CURVE 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to construct a 175-foot long, 6-foot 6-inch tall privacy fence along Lyman Boulevard. The shoreline fence section of city code is meant to protect the views of, and from the lake. The variance request is not from the lake proper, but rather from the inlet channel into Lake Riley. If the lake inlet did not exist, the fence would be permitted without a variance. It is not the intent of this chapter to protect the views of and from lake inlets, but rather to protect the views of and from lakes. As the proposed fence is SCANNED Ib located over 75 feet from the lake proper, the construction of the fence will be in keeping with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The practical difficulty of complying with the maximum fence height for fences within the 75-foot shoreland setback is created by a lake inlet located on the subject property. The maximum fence height requirement created by the lake inlet eliminates the opportunity for the property owner to construct a functional privacy fence between their rear yard and Lyman Boulevard, a busy arterial road. The property owner is requesting the variance for the fence to decrease noise caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, reduce light caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, and prevent people from trespassing across their property to access Lake Riley. It is clear that westbound traffic on Lyman Boulevard could potentially impact the repose and comfort of the applicant in their rear yard. Requesting a variance for a privacy fence is a reasonable request and the proposed fence should remedy the issues currently experienced by the applicant. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The intent of the request is not based upon economic considerations alone. The applicant has stated that the fence height variance request is to decrease noise caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, reduce light caused by vehicle traffic on Lyman Boulevard, and prevent people from trespassing across their property to access Lake Riley. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The difficulty of complying with the maximum fence height is due to the lake inlet on the property. This circumstance is unique to the property and was not created by the landowner. Generally, property owners are permitted privacy fences in their side and rear yards. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The construction of the proposed fence will minimally reduce the visibility of the lake from Lyman Boulevard., but the proposed fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The view of the lake from Lyman Boulevard is already obstructed by thick vegetation and the construction of a fence will not cause a major change to the character of the area. f. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2016-06, dated March 15, 2016, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment, approves a three-foot fence height variance for a six-foot six-inch tall, 175-foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report, on property zoned Single -Family Residential District, subject to the following conditions: 1. A gate, at least 14 feet in width, is included with the fence and placed so that City will have convenient access to the outfall should maintenance be required. 2. The applicant applies for and receives a zoning permit. 3. The applicant applies for and receives an encroachment agreement from the City." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15a day of March, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY:� Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VARIANCE 10211 A Application of Dan Hanson for a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) — Planning Case 2016-07. On March 15, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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. 4. Variance Findings —Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway is a normal use of a property in a residential district and is permitted in the Rural Residential District. The subject proposal is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. " RR" Rural Residential District. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The buildable area of the lot is significantly limited by the required shoreland setback from the tributary. The property owner proposes to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway. The narrow buildable area on the property has created a practical difficulty for the property owner from using the site in a reasonable manner, which requires relief from city code. gCANNEL) NO c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on a lot of record in a residential zoning district. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of the tributary stream creates a unique circumstance for the property owner to work around when attempting to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on the lot. The required setback from the stream creates a narrow buildable area on the lot. The subject tributary was not created by, nor was its location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The homes located on either side of the property are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, located within the Rural Residential District. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2016-07, dated March 15, 2016, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #4 of the staff report, subject to the conditions of approval. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15te day of March, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: c2ELE� Chairman 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 nimize 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. SCANNED 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. s 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. (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. 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 16a' day of February, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN ON Mark Undestad, Acting Chairman Chanhassen City Council — February 22, 2016 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated February 8, 2016 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated February 16, 2016 Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 26, 2016 4. Resolution #2016-16: Approve Lease Assignment for Old Village Hall. Resolution #2016-17: 2016 Street Improvements Project 16-01: Approve Plans & Specifications. 6. Mission Hills 3' Addition: Approval of Final Plat, Development Contract and Construction Plans. 7. Resolution #2016-18: Approve Purchase of Fire Department Mini Pumper. 8. Approve Massage License for The Transformation Club, 1363 Park Road, Suite A. Owner: Justin Yule. 9. Resolution #2016-19: Approve Resolution Authorizing No Park Zone along Lotus Trail. 10. Approve Award of Quote for Toro Sentinel Irrigation System. 11. 9641 Meadowlark Lane, Planning Case 2016-04: Approve Wetland Alteration Permit to Construct a Driveway on Property Zoned Rural Residential District (RR) and Located Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows. Applicant/Owner: David Vogel. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: COUNTY COMMISSIONER GAYLE DEGLER, PRESENTATION OF HIGHWAY 101 BRIDGE MEMENTO. Mayor Laufenburger: Welcome Commissioner. Gayle Degler: Thank you Mayor, council members. My name is Gayle Degler and I do live at 541 Pineview Court and I serve as. Mayor Laufenburger: In Chanhassen. In Chanhassen. SCANNED 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2016-04 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 2, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Variance to the shoreland setback and a Wetland Alteration Permit to construct a driveway on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) and located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows). Applicant/ Owner. David Vogel. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us/2016-04 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician Email: kspreiter@ ci.chanhassen.mmus Phone: 952-227-1173 (Published in the Chanhassen Pillager on Thursday, January 21, 2016: No. 4229) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 70aQ was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijkhnnopgrstu Y� Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this �, day of 2016 N Pub is JMNE F BARK vOPYFUC-M:NNOTA RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch lb—v1( 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 Mark Randall Steve Burke Dan Hanson Wayne Beuban 8735 Flamingo Drive 6460 Yosemite 9591 Meadowlark Lane 1450 West Farm Road 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 SCANNED 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. 2 t 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 13 a 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 mad the entire length of the mad as it currently sits. Placement. We were not going to be excavating that mad. 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 belpfiil to understand the, so this survey was submitted last Thursday so the packet had gone out. The wetland sequencing all that was done. Crone 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. 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: Sothis 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 abetter picture because I'm struggling. Spreiter: I know we don't have a lot of. 1'1 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. W 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 IN 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 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. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. Shoreland Setback Variance 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016 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. Yusu£ 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 251 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 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: 952.2271110 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 Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Website www.ci.chaflhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Drew Ingvalson, Planner DATE: March 15, 2016 SUBJ: Shoreline Setback Variance — 9641 Meadowlark Lane Planning Case #2016-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #2 of the memorandum dated March 15, 2016, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision" Staff is revising its recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding Planning Case #2016-07 based on evidence obtained after the completion of the staff report. City staff inspected the potential septic system sites at 9641 Meadowlark Lane on March 11, 2016, inspections were not possible prior to this date due to winter conditions. Upon inspection, staff found that the sites proposed by the applicant are the best septic system sites due to unsuitable soils south of their location. Based on this information, staff has withdrawn its recommendation of approving a plan based on Attachment #15 of the staff report, which would have relocated the septic fields to the south. This leaves four altematives available for the Planning Commission to consider for Planning Case # 2016-07. 1.) Approve the variance request based on plans that move the house and garage south of the septic sites (see Attachment #1). Moving the house south of the septic sites would reduce the driveway length and minimise the shoreline setback variance request to the greatest extent possible. However, with the submitted house plan without alterations, the structure will not meet the 50-foot wetland setback or the structure will not meet the 20-foot septic system setback. This plan will require the applicant to alter their house plan to meet building code. The house will also lose views of Lake Riley with this plan. This would be stabs preferred plan if the structure was altered to meet the required setbacks. SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 3 2.) Approve the variance request based on plans that move the house east (see Attachment #2). This plan proposes moving the proposed house 9 feet east so that the east house wall lines up with the east garage wall. This plan will provide a 79-foot shoreline setback from the tributary (exceeding the required shoreline setback for sewered properties) and will reduce the shoreline setback variance request. This is staff's preferred plan with the existing house plan. 3.) Approve the variance as submitted by the applicant (see Attachment #3). The plan submitted by the applicant does not reduce the variance request to the greatest extent possible. This is not staffs preferred plan. 4.) Deny the variance request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #2 of the memorandum dated March 15, 2016, subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department 1. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit and/or zoning permit for all structures. 2. The applicant shall erect temporary fencing around the proposed septic locations prior to any operation of equipment on the site. Water Resources Coordinator 3. The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. 4. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. 5. No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. 6. All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. 7. Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. 8. All other pertinent aspects of City Code Section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. 9. The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Forestry Official 10. Clearing and construction limits shall be located outside of shore impact zone and will be no closer than 100 feet to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). 11. Clearing of vegetation along the shore shall be limited to a strip of 30 feet, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore impact zone. The applicant shall use this clearing for views and access to the lake. No additional clearing is allowed by ordinance. 12. Per city ordinance, all trees 10 inches and larger within the construction limits shall be shown on the building permit survey. Fire Marshall 13. Address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. 14. No bunting permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. ATTACHMENTS 1. Option 1 2. Option 2 3. Option 3 Ucffi\cfs%h data\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-07 9641 meadowlark lane variances\planning commission memo.doc CITY OF CAANNAS3EN 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:952.2271110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone:952.227.1300 Fax:952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone.952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Website www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Drew Ingvalson, Planner DATE: March 15, 2015 SUBJ: Shoreline Setback Variance — 9641 Meadowlark Lane Planning Case #2016-07 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #2 of the memorandum dated March 15, 2016, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision" Staff is revising its recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding Planning Case #2016-07 based on evidence obtained after the completion of the staff report. City staff inspected the potential septic system sites at 9641 Meadowlark Lane on March 11, 2016, inspections were not possible prior to this date due to winter conditions. Upon inspection, staff found that the sites proposed by the applicant are the best septic system sites due to unsuitable soils south of their location. Based on this information, staff has withdrawn its recommendation of approving a plan based on Attachment #15 of the staff report, which would have relocated the septic fields to the south. This leaves four alternatives available for the Planning Commission to consider for Planning Case # 2016-07. 1.) Approve the variance request based on plans that move the house and garage south of the septic sites (see Attachment #1). Moving the house south of the septic sites would reduce the driveway length and minimize the shoreline setback variance request to the greatest extent possible. However, with the submitted house plan without alterations, the structure will not meet the 50-foot wetland setback or the structure will not meet the 20-foot septic system setback. This plan will require the applicant to alter their house plan to meet building code. The house will also lose views of Lake Riley with this plan. This would be staff s preferred plan if the structure was altered to meet the required setbacks. SCAN NE.D Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 3 2.) Approve the variance request based on plans that move the house east (see Attachment #2). This plan proposes moving the proposed house 9 feet east so that the east house wall lines up with the east garage wall. This plan will provide a 79-foot shoreline setback from the tributary (exceeding the required shoreline setback for sewered properties) and will reduce the shoreline setback variance request. This is staffs preferred plan with the existing house plan. 3.) Approve the variance as submitted by the applicant (see Attachment #3). The plan submitted by the applicant does not reduce the variance request to the greatest extent possible. This is not staffs preferred plan. 4.) Deny the variance request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #2 of the memorandum dated March 15, 2016, subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department 1. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit and/or zoning permit for all structures. 2. The applicant shall erect temporary fencing around the proposed septic locations prior to any operation of equipment on the site. Water Resources Coordinator 3. The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. 4. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. 5. No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. 6. All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. 7. Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. 8. All other pertinent aspects of City Code Section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. 9. The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Forestry Official 10. Clearing and construction limits shall be located outside of shore impact zone and will be no closer than 100 feet to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). 11. Clearing of vegetation along the shore shall be limited to a strip of 30 feet, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore impact zone. The applicant shall use this clearing for views and access to the lake. No additional clearing is allowed by ordinance. 12. Per city ordinance, all trees 10 inches and larger within the construction limits shall be shown on the building permit survey. Fire Marshall 13. Address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. 14. No burning permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. ATTACHMENTS 1. Option 1 2. Option 2 3. Option 3 \1ofs5\cfs5Wmred_dam\plan12016 planning cases\2016-07 9641 meadowlark lane valimcesiplanning commission memo.dcc aw eeAX wv eea>aJ -,�►/ j $ u 11 1 III1111 �\ \ *e / I / I I 1 y / / / i j.TTvas 1lllll 1 \ �. `• C\ \ _ / / / / / lt', , ! // f/ �� // ,/ / �nylain r Ere lon5wpP4Let, / 61z.le sw S1f1.541 S2-0/12-F // I2j .M"-t ]� y 1 \ \ \ i -"�• ` I OA1tA::F APRONS€Y' \ �jv MO.4 0 o i T. / : / go"- ^ r41 T PROTECTIOA x` k W ' Wo l I I iytrkofm FFI'OON \ \ — —' , fJ SxMC TRAIL/ L lxt'.t r ^ �;k (,6as hEq jc a -i1------------ 8 o� "' 1�(�, �i9' — r / �J'W r— Est r �I �._ 1� am/ / \ �' X. 10 10-8 gel r_ C: — CONSTRUCTION+ - ' �cra+� Ilel am'? �+ ti =.110 4� AS OF 1/nE/W� ' ` A L.w—— — �-I•� .�'� cto-�'..'�er �•.rsi �S� reap` ~ �' A 0 r 6D NE TI AND 7Hj6—ANAf#1tL f+4[17EN_f' — �. _ eAuLW-. JD 460, 74 � 54"'J2 Qg^E 9 t\ j' y �' � J �.Ee��� WA LL r r j 1 HMO1 1 1 11111 •, i t I I "`n SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROPOSED GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, AND WETLAND BUFFERS Q PROPOSED I& EVATONS Ova" Flow of d4ve - E66.0 Too of Grope Food. - 08&4 lop of "W" Frond. - EB6.g I f ".. a�Flarr .ems -at Area - 14 can See Proposed erpeMaa Cclauletlons an Skirt 7 WET.AVM Wetlands as From We 944ineoted by 4mobson Cm*onmonla. SN the Wetland Deinectkn Report b additkml irfrmation. SEVC4AARK loin d SPXE ae Horn. Ek.. 576.54 LEGEND ( OOf.X Dames Proposed Elevctior xxxx Denotes E-ierhg ilawlim --� Donates S/rfoos Drainage E-t Donates 01W. Hub w Sake Donates Drain. and J01ty Eon. • Dnates Manumrt rawld O Donates Manumrt Set --48,:-- 3enotes ExMmg Cantor s p134 'mote Propamed C.r'ta ' • — 'danatq weftno ... _ ......:motes 'ap Bank HOUSE DETAIL 0 30 wale h Feet e r' p 3 / M / PON) u� KE 8". Bm.5 dl AS OF 1i116/16 G S \ rg EX S4'-1de m, PUP ARO• 1 Q 'A'fi N oN trSM A \ wv, M 34 s \ s•�� lq bS o � 1 1 ,m ..0 � 8i � U d is 05.4 m 1205.0 s §5 a s 1 I o -- N N b.0 I fWD.EC- -10-. e 1604 9-In d— �_ ------ ,/o -_ 3 J 1 ! t n\I \ \ \ HMNE 11111 \\ \ \ \ pelt f Lmd SuN•ying it Enyln•wing bvr.54/ 52eD0/12-E f oosx WOPOSEDr�� / P / ,� / I �!� -- h it TT RROTECTIOA rocuHEDSEC ATIC z ME W l I I /02144E k;o AR _V - H - i----------------------------,"`,1- t I � Ind I ................ _...-;- FrM la-D'� `\ \\�....Y^�`� 5..� ..1 .i:-y.I •• ' 1 I a / n IAYEN-my 11 I — — EI — '�\-�.- �• .....- .-_ 8 I +J� �, CHIP eE6.3 � .,� ��\ ,.,t �- KCDH9TRUCTI04 �M/ .�-• '�\ \ � `" 'eJ,a6l+"""o•�.: �_.�"r' •- _`Rat 3 3 I�BEit alas i d tut .Ee, i r , ( \ ` �\ ` - - _ hsr � _ "ryo . rs•'. +� s 4 4 E p k A - ^ O R7 or 11MA4 0 $ tx r1v. eaa. !� 54I' !-- \ a� \;�' E'r i \��� 1 + - .- '-'• � .... ....R�.y-..-. �wne.: - -�'!^�/' / 1l - / ESL 54' 11,01-5• �S' AFo- h.'j WS M A � \ s '415 r~_\ 460,74 \S4002 R81 E,aS grw t%1 q llOxim1 et w uG E ! \ t I \/ I�j / i«„ __�/`�i�// � II II 11 i 1\ \ I\ .�• � f 1 11 E¢ 23 I to SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROPOSED GRADING' EROSION CONTROL, AND WETLAND BUFFERS Q 0 O b U oROPCSEDESEVA7`O 81 ti: ' Gas" Flow et 46%* - 80 0 D HOUSE DETAIL it - 4Q13 Tap of 9"" Fmrd.- SM.4 lop of House Farad. - 8M.9 in 1 0 30 U54 Lowest Floor - 87&2 N 0.1 Scow i E«t $ ` MA I9 $ I AREAS 0� !a li Lot Arec: 2-4 can -- Ses Proposed krpemaus Celculetbne on Sleet 7 LEGEND AT7,AV05 � Donates Proposed Elewtar I W Im RD> 1 Retl7,ds as NX n we dNhwted by Ax06W Entroft"Wto- See tee XXX >< Dena[n E.Iera•.q ile.etlon I TF B 'r % Ilktiv�d DeineC.icn Revwt kt oddil'mvl infamatlon. —+ Denotes Sjfloce Drci+ogs a712 1-1 Denales Other Hub a yoke 8 DECX g t,- ' BLVC'MARK Donates Drain. cnd Aillty Evx. y rt lap o' Ce tnan. • Dsnotes Monufrrt road A B40 x a Elew. 876.54 .54 O Vmatas M:non•rl Set n �d - --sn-- :motes ExlsLnq Camov MA-) 3e 01 a ISapumd Zd Iox — • — DOW" Rrlone .......... Denotes 'eF Bank a i 0 1604 1 �oF 3 4¢ CZHr. e6:.tl g�/i /i I I 11 1 // f/ f/ // // nv 6e�t/ lane surveying \ }}}}1}�1\\\ .` ` �__ ' / // , / ! &Engineering l l i i 11 } \ \ \''� \ . �- — r �� / / / *• 10775 po w'w Chas". M S5318 %e4( .sat s2'00h2-� / t 2 APRONS ' v ' \ \ , \� -� _ f/:� / C / ,t / ,� �r//�- ^ .r11 T PROTECTIOkY€`. '11 8 } \ I \ — —eT6-1 (wo) f �t��. / f r / I r I RtQURED i AM at , ] - IOU -royE Vn�Nony for 1 r --- ------ --r"-r i 1 t - I 1 / }\ r 10 tu-a / \ -era • `-I--_ ai f / 1`2 1 ,� �-- -••_..._ _..�._.__.�-••"I [] RI I \ I•1 r 1 � � \ -ram -/'� �-�.'.....: ..... � %viN-my /Ioog0;0p ..� / Pam IIAI Dais.: j I �•\ '\� — SP--�y7y�L �IYiS� = +-�/ f \ ._ �i.,-' r %!6/t ICE E_":. ee5L31 {1 I — _ r` -- .� — — i .iKr..-_ •�� — �•'` ...i - _ - ��-�.•:� KE ®iV. !EELS 2 m f /_ ,...... _ x AE r`` i. a Q AS Gr , 6 G g AS 1F 1/zs/,e� I r 1 `' �. L..r.. ~� 1� ` _ — _ ^ .�J96{r_�`n.��' 4 M p Uf I Q WETLAND 1 —'"' �t� 6.. 1-^•�• �r..� �w�..,.e�..'�" // / dt►� — / kv 61'-tE'II765 R.?_AI°pe u 0I �ORMIA �rlpj Z � � � � ��y6-- � � ' � .� — f ` \"••....7 MY efiSM k \ '' 460.74,,54902 ST z t man 0 / FauTEPon SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROPOSED GRADING. EROSION CONTROL. AND WETLAND BUFFERS � � PROPOSED EEVAncNs Garope Flea at Over - 30 0 4417 r` 66 Too a txreps Fond. We ° s� HOUSE DETAIL 1 Top W ,6a,ee Farts. - E96.9 in ea- 0 30 lS54 1 V Lowest now . e7a2 1 D ' 8 I tF Eb6p.6 ®E.a B ,.Id` : e S oA ` 1� I SCde it 1 ► 7 Feet AREAS0 T- DD l.ot Area - 24 saes I g _ z See Proposed krpw%40us Catcutotlons an Sheet 7 LEGEND ,� "'00 D� C-a WO LANr6 (J. Donates Prapcaed Elesetim I 11F (Yq) a ' XXX.X DYIOtAA E�IAt hq �{R•CtiM' 1F 6D6.( retlyrde as IhoAel afire dNhested by Jocabeon En.voomertos See the --� Denote* S,,rraps Drohogs I U 676.2 ' �w ratknd Ddw,wtion RspaFt b odditks,ol hiamotkn- 1-1 Dtroles Oche' Hub a Spire 8 DECK BCNC*MAAK DmOtes Druh. cod Allty Eose. lop on SPKE as snoen. a Donates manjn art pantl PA110 J �� P50.EC- SG EI°r. 576.56 O Drnates Menan•ert Set --Sao-- 'enotm Existing Contov 1E00 Xw o_ C5s•) !note! P opaxd atcw �' —7wot6Atyriona is . ...... .. .'motes'ap Bonk 1 p PROPOSED MOTION: `The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, & " approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #15 of the staff report, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision" SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance from the 100-foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway. LOCATION: 9641 Meadowlark Lane (PID 25-7420070) APPLICANT: Dan Hanson Wausau Homes 1463 White Oak Drive Chaska, MN On behalf of Gayle & David Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: 2.4 Acres DENSITY: NA Rural Residential (RR) Residential Large Lot LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. 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 — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 16 PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a variance from the 100-foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway. The driveway will be 45 feet from the tributary at its nearest point. The single-family home and accessory structures will be 70 feet from the tributary at its nearest point. Proposed structures will maintain a 100-foot setback from the Lake Riley shoreline. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 19, Article VII, Surface Water Management Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20-481, Placement, design and height of structures Section 20-482, Shoreland alterations Chapter 20, Article Xl, "RR" Rural Residential District BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance from the 100-foot shoreline setback from a tributary to construct a single-family home, accessory structures and driveway. Per City Code, structures on properties that have access to city sewer are only required to meet a 75-foot setback from the shoreline; however, since this property is unsewered, structures must meet a 100-foot setback from tributaries. The intent of the proposed project is to provide access to the home and construct a single-family home with accessory structures. Historically, the site has been used as a recreational lot with no primary structures. There is a non -conforming shed located at the northwest corner of the lot. There is also an existing retaining wall that is on the subject property and the neighboring property to the west. Currently, the only access is a mowed path that utilizes the neighboring property's existing driveway (see Figure 2 below). The parcel was platted as a residential lot with the Riley Lake Meadows Development and was filed as a lot of record in 1988. The site is not serviced by city sewer or water. The property is guided for residential large lot and will not have city services in the future with this land use unless there is a systematic failure of subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) in the area and it becomes a public health issue or the area changes to more suburban densities. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 16 The site has two wetlands located on the south side of the property (see red outlined areas in Figure 5 on the next page). The existing mowed road cuts between the two wetlands. There is also a tributary located on the western portion of the property (seen in blue in Figure 3). Water from a pond across the street, wetlands, and surrounding properties drain into the tributary. The water in the tributary flows north into Lake Riley. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 4 of 16 In January 2016, the applicant requested a variance and wetland alteration permit to construct a driveway to provide access to the property. This request did not include a house or accessory structures. On February 16, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved a shorel and setback variance for a 12-foot wide driveway, subject to the following conditions: 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. The City Council also approved a wetland alteration permit in February 2016. Figure 5, the image to the right, is a document submitted to the City for the driveway variance and wetland alteration permit. The driveway area in green was approved with the request and the driveway portion in black was not approved. The City did not approve the entire driveway variance request because the applicant did not provide a complete site plan (including, but not limited to, the house, septic, and accessory structure locations). DISCUSSION Proposal The proposed 9641 Meadowlark Lane project consists of the construction of a 12-foot wide bituminous drive, a single-family home, and accessory structures. The driveway will be a continuation of the driveway approved with the previous variance. The total driveway length will be approximately 350400 feet in length. The majority of the driveway is 12 feet wide, with the exception of the driveway widening to provide access into a three stall garage. The total area of the proposed driveway is 6,357 square feet. The applicant has proposed a two story, walkout home with a three stall garage, patio, and deck. The proposed hardcover for the project is 9.9 percent (20 percent maximum allowed). Based on the submitted survey, the footprint of these structures are: • House- 1,959 square feet. • Deck/Patio- 861 square feet. • Garage- 1,002 square feet. • Existing Shed- 120. • Front Stoop- 177 square feet. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 5 of 16 Figure 6: Proposed Plan �i LAKE RILEY lo / 1 ///'�—�. '-0•4='` DecklPatio Existing =1{{{ Shed r I House, Garage, Porch y,A \ \ \\ r ` Septic Sites \ Buildable Property t+rj j' y� Area Une a + i c i I � -� 11 Driveway .11 \ •� d lip PIT X Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 6 of 16 Figure 7: Buildable Area KE miLEV 11 I- 1 • 11 1 /e4 j I �� �l r+ 1 I• , I I , I ' I t T L. + � • ImIfAPOWLARK `. Buildable Area The buildable area of the subject site is severely limited due to the: • 100-foot setback from the tributary • 100-foot setback from the lake shoreline • 10-foot side yard setback • Wetlands located on the south side of the property It is apparent that the desire of the applicant is to place the home as close to Lake Riley as possible and to orient the structure to take advantage of the views of Lake Riley. This objective is understandable given the nature of the property as it relates to the aesthetics of the lake. However, the narrow buildable area of the lot limits the applicant's opportunity to take advantage of the views of Lake Riley. As shown in Figure 7, the widest buildable area on this lot (measuring west to east) is approximately 44 feet. The widest buildable area width nearest Lake Riley is only 39 feet. However, the desire to locate a structure near a body of water and to take advantage of its views does not, of its own accord, provide adequate justification for being exempt from the requirements that all similar lots must meet. A variance application should request the minimal deviation from City Code needed to create a reasonable use of the property. This request should be approved only if the applicant is unable to avoid the need for a variance completely. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 7 of 16 Alternative Plan The applicant has submitted an alternative sketch plan that shows how the property layout might look if the applicant was required to meet all city setback requirements. As seen in Figure 8, the house would be oriented with the front facing west and the garage would load from the south. Also, the driveway would make an "S" shape to meet the 100-foot setback from the tributary after getting past the wetlands on the south side of the property. To meet city ordinance, the septic systems would need to be moved to the west side of the driveway and closer to the tributary. Per city code, the septic system is required to maintain a 75-foot setback from the tributary and bodies of water, while all other structures are required to maintain a 100-foot setback from the tributary and lake. While the ordinance permits the septic system to be closer to the tributary, staff finds it preferable to have the driveway located closer to the tributary than the septic system. Based on the buildable area of the lot, alternative plan, and review of the site, staff has found that requesting a variance for the driveway, single-family home, and accessory structures is a reasonable request. Staff agrees with the applicant that the site is severely restricted by the existing tributary and lake shore setbacks. Figure 8: Alternative Plan Meeting City Code a z 1. i} Single -Family i t ', Home roo, . Ly k X ._ _ Primary Septic S Alternative � Septic ` I s Y r a Driveway 1 r , WBrW- D MEADOWLARK_ kAME"_ _ �n Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 8of16 Shoreland Impact Zone and Grading In addition to the setback requirements, Section 20-482 subparagraph (b) states that "intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed." The only exception to this is a limited clearing of 30% of the lot width or 30 feet, whichever is less. For the subject property, the shoreland impact zone includes any land within 100 feet of the shoreland. The clearing exemption for the subject property is 30 feet, as 30% of the shoreline would be over 30 feet. This exception was intended to provide for a view of the lake as well as to accommodate access to the lake, but not to overly impinge on the natural look of the shoreland from the lake. The applicant's original proposal did not meet this requirement. Since informing the applicant of this requirement, the applicant has worked with staff and submitted a grading plan that now meets the grading requirements within the shoreland impact zone (see Attachment #5). Grading must have erosion prevention and sediment control practices consistent with Section 19- 145 of city code. The most significant change is that biorolls are not an acceptable perimeter control of gradient of water resources including the lake, stream and wetland. Instead, machine sliced silt fence with metal tee -posts must be used. Variance Minimization and Avoidance Staff recognizes that a shoreline setback variance from the tributary is a reasonable request. The property is significantly restricted by the setbacks from the lake shoreline, tributary, and side yard. Nevertheless, any variance approved by the City should be the minimal variance required to achieve a reasonable use. Staff commends the applicant's effort to provide staff with what is needed for the review of the proposed single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway. However, there are altematives to the proposed house plan that could minimize the tributary setback variance request for the single-family home, and driveway. Questions posed by the Water Resources Coordinator, regarding minimizing the variance request, include: • Are the primary and secondary septic sites oriented in the only way possible or, could they be rotated some to allow for the driveway to be pulled further from the creek? • Even if the septic sites are oriented and placed in the only possible way, can the driveway still be pulled further away from the creek? • Can the garage be oriented to the house at a more oblique angle than the proposed 90' orientation to allow for a different driveway radius? • Can the house be pulled east so that it is aligned with the eastern wall of the garage thereby increasing the setback from the channel? • Could the septic fields be moved more southerly on the property and the garage be designed to load from the south so that the driveway alignment could meander and meet the setback for at least the northern half of the driveway? • Could the driveway be narrowed? Specifically, the location of the single family -home and orientation of the garage could be altered to reduce the variance request. Staff has reviewed these alternatives and provided information on these options on pages 9 and 10. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance - Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 9 of 16 Single -Family Home Various reconfigurations of the home and garage could reduce the variance request. Specifically, the home could be pulled eastward, either a few feet or fully aligned with the garage, to reduce the variance request. Bringing the eastern house wall in alignment with the eastern garage wall would minimize the variance request from the tributary setback by nine feet, providing a 79-foot setback from the tributary instead of a 70-foot setback (see Figures 9 and 10). However, this action would eliminate a: • window for a family room. • rear door out of the garage. • 2"d floor egress window (required by building code). Per building code, the 2°d floor bedroom is required to have an egress window; however, the location and shape of this window can be altered from the original plan to meet requirements. Considering the loss of an upstairs bedroom window, any reconfiguration of the house that moved it east would reduce the variance request. The reconfiguration would not necessarily need to be a full alignment between the two walls. The applicant could also place the window on the western wall to provide egress. r— � y� oo - �� > / OF BANK o ♦O m&; ♦ m O / / UM o New Egress f-I . m Window Location r O p / Egress Bedroom _ _ — Removed/Relocated O / Rear Garage D / Door Removed / D r m Figure 9: House Realignment Example Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 10 of 16 Garage Rotation The applicant could reduce their variance request by rotating the garage so that it does not line up perpendicular with the home. Instead the applicant could construct a south loading garage. Rotating the garage would reduce the angle needed to access the garage and allow the applicant to pull the driveway further back from the tributary. The applicant would be able to relocate the driveway further from the tributary, reducing the variance request, if the garage was rotated to become south loading (see Figure 11). Rotating the garage to be south loading will eliminate the main floor and upstairs windows facing south (see Figure 10). Moving the driveway will also require the applicant to relocate the proposed septic systems; however, there appears to be adequate space south to accommodate a relocation of the septic systems. Figure 11 shows a realignment of the house, garage, driveway, and septic system (see Attachment #15 for full version). The proposed rendering keeps the same driveway path as proposed by the applicant until approximately 270 feet into the property. At this point the driveway will curve to the east so that vehicles can enter a south facing garage. There is also a 4-foot wide sidewalk that has been added to the plan. The revised plan maintains the same building footprint submitted by the applicant; however, it reduces the variance request to the minimal amount needed to allow a reasonable use of the property. The structure will maintain a 79-foot setback from the tributary and a significant portion of the road will be moved further from the tributary. The revised plan will require the applicant to reconfigure the interior layout of the home to accommodate required bedroom egress windows and the desires of the property owner. The septic systems will need to be moved south to accommodate the relocated driveway and meet the 75-foot shoreline setback requirement. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 11 of 16 I ��I l IT I \ \ 0 \\ n.. JrT `►i ��TfBNe rr /NCS Example O \ \ Onlyrn Y —874 0n 1 \ \ \1 1 � e 11 Figure 11: House, Garage, Driveway I X \ \ I \ and Septic System Realignment Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 12 of 16 The applicant has been notified by staff that there appears to be opportunities to reduce the variance request. The applicant has declined to make any alterations to the building plan and has decided to move forward with their original proposal. The applicant has provided arguments for the house location in their narrative and responses the Water Resources Coordinator's questions (see Attachment #3). Character of the Neighborhood The subject property is within the Riley Lake Meadows Development. Figure 12 shows five shoreland homes in the Riley Lake Meadows Development that are within 600 feet of the subject property. These homes are typically described as: • Having large front yard setbacks, ranging from approximately 280 feet to over 500 feet. • Being oriented towards Lake Riley. All of the homes appear to have the longest portion of the home parallel with the shoreline. • Having large building footprints (all building footprints exceed 2,500 square feet). • Having a lake shore setback of at least 75 feet and a tributary setback of at least 50 feet (property adjacent to the subject site). 95 Ft' yam, y'%ir,Ls.•� .'.M-i�'^. _ .,i .. 6 76 Ft 114 Ft - �85 Ft ..125Ft'i Sc; Ft ♦ i 53 Ft sq Subject 2583 Sq Ft 6638 Sq Ft •� •.. Site ,. Y w P• r_ I N . r , Figure 12: Existing Neighborhood Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 13 of 16 The proposed home keeps within the essential character of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project has: • An approximately 355-foot front yard setback. • The structure is in an L-shape with the longer portion of the structure oriented toward Lake Riley. • A house footprint of 2,964 square feet. • A lake shore setback of 100 feet (required by city code) and a tributary setback of 70 feet (100-foot setback required by city code). It is evident that the proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The home has a similar location, orientation, size, and shoreline setbacks as the five Riley Lake Meadows Development properties within 600 feet of the subject property. Variances within 500 feet of the Subject Property The Riley Lake Meadows Development does not have a very extensive history of receiving variances. Staff reviewed city records to determine if any variances were granted within 500 feet of the subject property and found one approved variance at 240 Eastwood Court. This property was granted an 18.5-foot variance from the 30-foot bluff protection setback to construct a deck. Response to Comments Made within Narrative The applicant has submitted aerial images of three shoreland properties for comparison of their property and their variance request (see Attachments #3, #10, and #11). Figure 13, on the next page, shows the location of the properties. With the exception of 9611 Meadowlark Lane, none of these parcels are located within the Riley Lake Meadows Development. Staff has provided additional comments regarding each of these three properties below. 9441 Great Plains Boulevard — This home was built in 1960. It has legal non- conforming status regarding any shoreland setback requirements because it was built prior to the City's adoption of the shoreland regulations. 9001 Riley Lake Boulevard — This property is sewered and therefore requires only a 75- foot setback from the shoreline. The property is currently compliant with City Code. 9536 Lakeland Terrace — This property is located within the City of Eden Prairie. Staff has no comments on properties not located within the City of Chanhassen. 9611 Meadowlark Lane — The existing home and accessory structures appear to encroach on the shoreline setback of the tributary. If these structures encroach on the required shoreline setback of the tributary, the home and accessory structures were approved by City Staff in error. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 14 of 16 Z 1u lu a : N The applicant's request for a variance from the 100-foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway is a reasonable request. The proposed use of the property keeps in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20 of City Code and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan will create a single-family home, with driveway and accessory structures, which is consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. This plan will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The buildable area of the lot is significantly limited by the required setbacks and has created a practical difficulty for the property owner from using the site in a reasonable manner. The practical difficulty found on the property is due to natural occurrences and has not been created by the property owner. The proposal meets several criteria needed for a variance request; however, any variance approved by the City should be the minimal variance required to achieve a reasonable request. While the variance request made by the applicant is reasonable, staff believes that the plan submitted by the applicant can be modified to reduce the variance request. Staff has provided an Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 15 of 16 alternative plan that reduces the variance request through realigning the house, garage and driveway (see Figure 11). The alternative plan maintains the same driveway proposal submitted by the applicant until approximately 270 feet north of the southern property line. At this point the driveway curves east to allow vehicles to enter a south facing garage. This plan also requires the relocation of septic system alternatives and adds a 4-foot wide sidewalk to the plan. Staff supports a shoreline setback variance that reflects the plan shown in Attachment #15. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #15 of the staff report, subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department 1. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit and/or zoning permit for all structures. 2. The applicant shall erect temporary fencing around the proposed septic locations prior to any operation of equipment on the site. Water Resources Coordinator 3. The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. 4. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. 5. No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. 6. All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. 7. Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. 8. All other pertinent aspects of City Code Section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. 9. The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. Forestry Official 10. Clearing and construction limits shall be located outside of shore impact zone and will be no closer than 100 feet to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). 11. Clearing of vegetation along the shore shall be limited to a strip of 30 feet, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore impact zone. The applicant shall use this clearing for views and access to the lake. No additional clearing is allowed by ordinance. 12. Per city ordinance, all trees 10 inches and larger within the construction limits shall be shown on the building permit survey. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance — Planning Case 2016-07 March 15, 2016 Page 16 of 16 Fire Marshall 13. Address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. 14. No burning permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Applicant Narrative dated March 2, 2016. 4. Certificate of Survey & Existing Conditions dated March 1, 2016. 5. Erosion Control Plan and Wetland Buffers dated March 1, 2016. 6. Erosion Control Notes & Details dated February 11, 2016. 7. House Plan dated March 1, 2016. 8. Alternative Site Plan that Meets City Code dated received February 22, 2016. 9. Slope Pictures Submitted by Applicant. 10. Applicant Narrative dated received February 19, 2016. 11. Aerial Images of Miscellaneous Properties (3) Submitted by Applicant dated received February 19, 2016. 12. Riley Lake Meadows Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. 13. Email from Jon & JoAnn Dimino dated March 6, 2016. 14. Email from Lisa Reilly dated February 23, 2016. 15. Alternative Plan 16. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. \bfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\2016 planning cwm\2016-07 9641 meadowlark lane variances staff report 2.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VARIANCE IN RE: Application of Dan Hanson for a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) — Planning Case 2016-07. On March 15, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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. 4. Variance Finding — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway is a normal use of a property in a residential district and is permitted in the Rural Residential District. The subject proposal is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The buildable area of the lot is significantly limited by the required shoreland setback from the tributary. The property owner proposes to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway. The narrow buildable area on the property has created a practical difficulty for the property owner from using the site in a reasonable manner, which requires relief from city code. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on a lot of record in a residential zoning district. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of the tributary stream creates a unique circumstance for the property owner to work around when attempting to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on the lot. The required setback from the stream creates a narrow buildable area on the lot. The subject tributary was not created by, nor was its location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The homes located on either side of the property are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, located within the Rural Residential District. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2016-07, dated March 15, 2016, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #15 of the staff report, subject to the conditions of approval. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15'" day of March, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN MN Chairman aot!lo -o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 I _ APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMI Submittal Date: 21,-) 0 r W PC Date: t CC Date: I t (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal infomration b ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Subdivisior ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ Create ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ❑ Create ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ Metes ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Consol ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ Lot Lin ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 El Final P ElAll Others ......................................................... $425 (Includ .n,�.,;,;... ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD).... .............. $750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 ❑ All Others.. .................... .................................. $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review...................................................$150 ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Administrative..................................................$100 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts' ...................... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: (—thousand square feet) 'Include number of existing employees: *Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts ......................................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) through tl ❑ Vacation of (Additional re ❑ Variance (V ❑ Wetland Alt ❑ Single-f ❑ All Othe ❑ Zoning App, ❑ Zoning Ordi CITY OF CHANHASSEN 60-Day Review Date: o�- must accompany this application) (SUB) lots or less ....... ................................ . $300 aver 3 lots .......................$600 + $15 per lot ( lots) Bounds (2 lots)..................................$300 ate Lots..............................................$150 Adjustment ......................................... $150 t.......................................................... $700 $450 escrow for attorney costs)' escrow may be required for other applications f development contract. rents/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 fees may apply) t).................................................... $200 ition Permit (WAP) nily Residence ............................... $150 ....................................................... $275 ...................................................... $100 nce Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 NOTE: When multitle applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee Phall be charged for each application. ❑ Notification Sign (city to install and remove).......................................................... ❑ Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application meeting)...... Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) ................................ El Conditional Use Permit El interim Use Permit ❑ Vacation ❑ Variance ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 dots.) ❑ Easements (_ easi ............. -...................... $200 ................................ $3 per address 6 addresses) ............................... $50 per document ❑ Site Plan Agreement 2 Wetland Alteration Permit TOTAL FEE: NVCal �J Description of Proposal: Proposing to impact approximately 1248 square feet of etland area for construction of a driveway in order to access private property directly fro street. Property Address or Location: Parcel #: 257420070 Legal Description: Total Acreage: 2.40 Wetlands Present? Rural Present Zoning: Residential District (RR) 9641 Meadowl NE 1/4 of ❑ Yes ❑ No Requested Zoning:. Present Land Use Designation: Residential Large Lot Requested Land Use Existing Use of Property: Currently no structure on property. ❑ Check box is separate narrative is attached. Lane .tion 25, T116N, R23W Residential District (RR) Residential Large Lot Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period the property owner, 1 have attached separate documentation of full legal capaci should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should cont application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of mate further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, fea any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and a) as applicant, represent to have obtained by conditions of approval, subject only to If this application has not been signed by y to file the application. This application act regarding any matter pertaining to this ial and the progress of this application. I bility studies, etc, with an estimate prior to hibits submitted are true and correct. Name: �DA N A hf iEgo ri Coi itact: Address: \`i� ciAK Qom- Phone: City/State/Zip: Cal t��iJ . tJ Cel: SAM E ty Email: Fa 95 2-- �3�e Signature: �+�—�C ..�+ Data: a`t"1j.'L%m& PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have ful authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appe the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to legal capacity to, and hereby do, a binding and agree to be bound by those I periods. I will keep myself informed of rther understand that additional fees may my authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: David Vogel Co tact: David Vogel Address: 105 Pioneer Trail Ph ne: (612) 991-2848 City/State/Zip: Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ce (612) 991-2848 Email: dpvogel@gmail.com Fa : Signature: Da : This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all inf applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fling this application, refer to the and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance mation and plans required by appropriate Application Checklist d applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 bu written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 3iness days of application submittal. A 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: i1wV- ki4111 Co tact: �Rz' Address: /O-77� P��a/�7 GAJ Ph ne: Co 1 P-- City/State2ip:— WQV✓lAl S53/$ Ce Email: Gird tk0,l,A0P ':G r./� Fa Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? 'Other Conta t Information: Property Owner Via: El Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: ❑ Applicant Via: ❑✓ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip ❑ Other' Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and I elect SAVE FORM to save a copy to your ayment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing (required). SAVE FORM PRI T FORM SUBMIT FORM 'N^- WET LAND SET BACK VARIANCE- 9641 Meadowlark LN., Chanhassen, MN 55317 VARIANCE FOR PLACEMENT OF: Driveway, House, Septic, Well, Deck, & Patio Narrative 03/02/2016 Argument to be granted a variance, 100' setback from the tributary (Creek). Request for variance for the driveway servicing the new home and the house placement on the lot. House placement to include septic system, well, deck and the patio under the deck as shown on the purposed survey. With the driveway entrance wetland setback variance granted, per the Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting on February 16, 2016. The following request for variance addressing the Conditions applied to our request for wetland variance on the entire proposed length of the driveway, approximately 350',as well as the placement of the new home, at the end of the proposed driveway. Both would fall within the 100' set back from the tributary (wetland) and both would require the same variance set back, per our proposed Land Survey. The septic system placement is the critical element to the drive way location and house placement. The house placement includes a deck and patio under the deck, which is identified on the land survey as well. We are showing placement of the deck and patio under the deck now, even though the home owner will be applying for building permit for these items at a later date. We want to avoid having to request another variance, at a later date, for the deck and patio to be added. Lake Set Back- The proposed House, deck and patio, septic system and driveway location meets the required 100' set back from the lake. In fact our current house foundation is located 120' from the lake. This allows 20' for building the deck, which will be a separate building permit from the house building permit. We are also meeting the 10' set back from the property line for the house and Septic System. Proposed Survey- Wet Land Set Back Variance for Road and House • A critical and essential element to our proposed survey has to do with the placement of the septic system drain fields. These are needed for the proposed home (or any home) to be built on this lot. With our current driveway position, we are able to keep the drain field away from the proposed road, fitting it between the road and the required property line set back. Two drain fields are required by the state, the one closest to the house is the primary, the other is a back- up location, used only if the primary field ever fails. Where we have the fields placed on our survey meets all the design specification provide by a licensed septic engineer, hired to design the system. We have provided a copy of his design specification to a representative for the City of Chanhassen, Community Development Department. The septic system engineering is currently under review. • Our septic contractor has informed us that the drain fields must be placed on ground that is not compacted. The area we have placed them on the survey is undisturbed ground that has not been changed or compacted, which makes it an acceptable location. • Our proposed septic drain field location is approximately 75' from the tributary. The system was placed to accommodate the house location on our proposed survey. • The orientation of the drain fields, is also critical. The fields were designed with the orientation on our current Land Survey to meet speck design requirements. Per our septic system engineer, the drain field must run parallel with the contours of the existing landscape. You can see on the current survey the system runs parallel with the elevation lines marked on the survey. • SEPTIC SYSTEM LOCATION, drain fields must be on undisturbed ground that is not modified or compacted. The only thing that can be added is sand, in order to level the system. There is a limit to how much sand can be added, so if the elevation change is too drastic, the drain field location can be deemed unacceptable. The current drain field location meets the engineer's specifications. Move the septic system from the location identified on our proposed survey will be problematic. We believe this is the best location with the restrictions and conditions we are dealing with. We have the septic system placed as far away from both designated wet land areas and still able to service the home. The drain fields cannot be moved from our proposed location without putting one or both of the drain fields partially on the existing compacted trail or dirt road. • DRIVEWAY LOCATION- the location of the driveway is placed on top of the existing compacted dirt road that has been in place since before the land was developed as a Sub- division in the 60". The placement and orientation of the driveway allow for a straight alignment for large trucks and service vehicles to enter the property and access the home. This would include large equipment needed for construct as well as emergency vehicles like fire trucks. With the wet land set back driving the width of the driveway and limited area for large vehicles to turn around, large vehicles will need to back in or back out of the driveway. It would be very difficult, if not impossible for large vehicles to maneuver a driveway with turns or sharp curves. • If we were to try to angle the driveway in the direction of the East property line, to move further away from the creek (wet land) after crossing the ditch area at the entrance of the property. We would create an S-shaped drive that would make access to the home impossible for large vehicles. That is why we feel the straight driveway in the proposed location is the only option. • Driveway width- The width of the driveway is also critical to accessing the home. The driveway entrance- wetland setback variance was granted, per the Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting on February 16, 2016. This variance allows a wet land variance to enter the property with a 12' wide road over the ditch. We are asking for a 12' wide drive to continue the entire length of the driveway. The width of the drive way is critical for the same reasons we stated earlier regarding large vehicles accessing the property during construction, as well as emergency vehicles access. • Also, with the wet land set back, we are required by the Water Shed District to have wet land buffer zones identified along the driveway. Buffer areas are adjacent to the driveway for a good portion of the driveway. These zones will be posted with signs. The home owner will be unable to modify or even mow these areas. The 12' wide driveway is to ensure that cars or trucks have adequate room to access the property. • As stated above, the septic system drain field placement is also the primary factor in the road placement. IF the road were moved to the far East side of the lot, to keep out of the 100' wet land set back, the road would force the Septic system drain fields to be moved closer to the wet lands and on top of the existing trail/dirt road, which would not meet the Septic system design specifications. • HOUSE LOCATION- With our current house location, we meet the 100' requirement for set back from the lake. We are currently at 120', which gives the home owner an additional 20' for a future deck and patio. We have also met the set -back requirement of the property line of 10'. • The current design of the home was based off information that we were given, in our initial meeting with City of Chanhassen. We were told that the set -back requirement from the tributary was 50', the home placement does meet that requirement. We modified the plan at that time to reverse the garage placement and keep it further from the wet land set back. • We have be working with the Chanhassen Planning Department to make modification to our land survey related to driveway, septic system and house placement. We are attempting to come up with a reasonable compromise for placement of the house and driveway, with the 100' wet land set back requirement. • We think our house, driveway and Septic System locations are a reasonable compromise related to the 100' wet land set back. We have moved the home as far away from the wet land (creek) as possible and still meet the needs of the home owner. • The current house plans were designed to meet the needs of the home owner, but also to take advantage of views of the lake. In order to do this we need adequate area for windows and patio doors. If we push the home 100' away from the creek, we have approximately 25' of wall space to place windows and a patio door. The bulk of the house would face the property line, facing the neighbor's property, approximately 60'. Comment from the builder- as a home builder I have 110 plans that I access on a regular basis, for my customer. Not one of those plans are design to NOT take advantage of the views out of the back of the house. Can we customize something to fit the small area that meets the 100' set back? Sure, but is it reasonable to ask the home owner to pay for a complete re -design of a house plan to meet very restrictive set -backs that result in a poor design for the home owner and a unacceptable house design for the neighborhood. The wet land set back restrictions have deemed this lot unbuildable, due to access to the property. With the wet land variance given by the Chanhassen Planning Commission at the meeting on February 16, 2016, the home owner can now access the property. Our calculation- with all the wet land set back restrictions, including lake and property set- backs, we calculate the portion of this 2.4 acre lot that is buildable is approximately 5%. That seems very restrictive. That is why we are asking for a variance to the 100' wet land set -back for the house, the driveway, septic system, deck and patio, as located on our proposed Land Survey. Home Owner's Comments: This property has been in our family for over 100 years, three generations, going on four. We have held the property in the family with the dream to someday build a lake home for our family. When the land became part of the Riley Lake Meadows Subdivision in the 80's we were given our Plat Sheet, showing the lot that we could someday build on. We are finally at a point where we can now build our family lake home. We realize that the people we are working with in the Chanhassen planning areas did not write the regulation related to wet land set- backs. We realize that there job is to get compliance to the regulation, as it is written. However, we also know that there is a variance process. It is our understanding the variance process is to be used when the regulation on home owner/tax payer is too restrictive. We believe this is without a doubt, one of those situations. In our case, the set -back restrictions are changing our ability the use the property the way we intended to be use. Our intent to build on the lot was a reasonable assumption, with the Developers Plat Sheet of the lot and a Tax ID, with a classification as a buildable lot. We believe that if we are held to the wet land set back of 100' this would change the classification of the land to an unbuildable lot. If we can't access the lot it is unbuildable. We realize by being granted the Variance to build a driveway over the ditch area, the lot is closer to being a buildable lot. However, we do not believe pressing the Driveway, Septic System and House to the far Eastern border of the lot, to meet the 100' set back from the Creek, is a viable option. We have explained in our response above, that the Septic System cannot be moved from where we have it placed. The Driveway must be placed where we have it, for truck and emergency vehicle access. This includes the direction of the driveway, no curves or turns. We are very concerned with the width of the driveway. It was designed to be narrow to reduce the impact to the wetland setback. It would be very difficult to maneuver if there were turns or curves in it. This leave the house placement, as the remaining critical variance for use to finally be able to build our lake home on our lot. The house was designed for us, based on how we would like to live and use it, for our family. The layout of the floor plan intentionally has the master bedroom on the main level. We intend to grow old in this home, so it will become very important to have the master bed room on the main level. This did create a larger foot print for the house, which makes it more difficult to keep the house away from the 1 00'setback. We currently have three young children and might have more, requiring at least four bed rooms with space for more, if needed. We have been asked to create an alternate Survey, showing the house and garage pushed to the far eastern lot line. We do not feel this is a reasonable option. We are merely asking to build within the boundaries that were established when the lot was platted. The only thing we are requesting a variance for is the 100' set back from the wet lands. If this were a lot that had city sewer, the setback would be 50', not 100'. We don't understand why there is a difference. If it is because of the Septic System, we have moved the system as far away from the wet land, as possible. If the difference in setback requirement is because they assume unsewered lots are bigger, which means they can more likely meet the 100' set back. Our response would be NOT all unsewered lots are big enough to reasonably meet the setback. That is why there is a variance process, to deal with lots that cannot meet the requirements. We think enforcing restriction that deems 95% of the lot unbuildable, should qualify us for a variance. Please grant the Variance for the Driveway, Septic System, Well, House, Deck and Patio, per the placement identified on our proposed Land Survey. Thank you. The number for the 95% unbuildable is calculated from the proposed impervious surface (hard surface) calculation provided on our proposed Survey. That hard surface number was 9.8%. The additional 4.8 % was our estimate of the percent of the House, deck, patio and driveway that falls within the wet land set back, on the lot. Keep in mind that the wet land set back includes all of the area on the entire front of the lot that meets Meadowlark LN, the wetland area just over the entrance drive and the 100' set back area the entire length of the lot, to the lake. It also includes Lake and property line setbacks. This leaves 5%, as buildable, out of 2.4 acres. The home owner has made every effort to meet lake and property line set back, as well as a good effort to minimize the impact to the wet lands and natural habitat. HOUSE PLAN CHANGES- We have been asked to address possible changes to the house plans. First, regarding the garage placement, we do not see a viable option for changing the orientation of the garage, because any way we shift the garage pushes the house or garage within property line set -backs, or pushes the house further into the 100' set back from the wet land. The garage depth cannot change, or we won't be able to park a car in it. We can't get closer to the septic drain field because we need room for the system tanks. As we stated earlier, we can't move the drain fields. Second, we can't move the garage so the back wall of the garage lines up with the back wall of the house. We realize this would allow the house to move closer to the Eastern lot line, and further way from the 100' wet land set back. However, by moving the garage in that manner we would cover the windows to the main floor office and cover the window to the bedroom above. This window is the only egress from that bedroom above. The bedroom would be unusable. • Also, any reductions to the driveway width or the area outside the garage doors will make turning a vehicle around very difficult. We can't expect the home owner or quests to back down a 350' driveway. We need ample space around the garages for cars to turn around. In our proposed Land Survey, we are trying to minimize the area that falls within the 100' wet land set back. This includes the amount of area for turning around in the driveway. • The home we are proposing is also consistent with the caliber of homes in this subdivision. The home owner has shared the house plans with neighbors. The consensus has been supportive of the home design and the location of the home, on the lot. • We feel the proposed driveway and house placement are the best location to minimize the impact to wet lands and undisturbed natural habitat. The driveway we are proposing, makes use of the dirt road that has been on the property of nearly 100 years. We are not changing the direction or placement of the dirt road. There will be no major excavating required. We will simply building up the existing road with a compactable material. • We are currently working with the Water Shed District on their requirements, regarding the driveway placement and entrance to the property over the ditch. Our understanding is that they have a 50' set back requirement. However, they allow averaging of the over- all property to meet the set- back requirement. We believe we are able to meet their requirements. • They also require a buffer between the tributary and our proposed drive way. Which makes these pars of the lot unusable by the home owner. • The ditch at the entrance of the property and the wet land area near the entrance are also identified as wet land, which means they are off limits to the home owner to modify or even mow. Survey- Drive way moved to meet 100' wetland set back We have been asked to comment on the placement of the Driveway, Septic System and House, if we were able to meet the 100' setback from the tributary. An alternate Survey has been prepared, showing the driveway, septic system and house placement. Here is our argument against this option. • If we were to meet the 100' wet land set -back requirement for the driveway, we would be changing the path from the current dirt road, after the designated wetlands at the entrance to the property. It would require major excavating and disturbing an area of the lot that would not need to be disturbed. • This would mean, pushing the driveway, septic system and house to the far Eastern property line. This area is currently not in the home owner's plans to disturb. • The septic system drain fields would now be pushed closer to the tributary wet land and would encroach on the 100' wet land set back area. It would also push them onto the current dirt road area. • This placement will require the same variance for wetland setback as the driveway, in the other proposal, due to the septic drain fields. • Also, the septic drain fields will now be placed partially on the compacted dirt road, which will not meet the septic system design specification, regarded compacted soil. • We have also been asked to identify on the survey where the bank of the tributary is located. IF the 100' set back is measured from the bank of the tributary that would move the 100' set back an additional 15' closer to the lot line. That would leave approximately 25' of depth between the 100' set back and the Eastern property line, to put the home. This is not enough room to place the home and garage. It would also put the Septic drain fields even further into the wetland set back. The approximate 25' of depth would only allow a rectangle box of a house and garage, about the size of a double wide trailer home. The following are properties in the Riley Lake Meadows Development. See the survey enclosed for comparison. • 9441 Great Plains Blvd is located within 35 feet of stream on Lake Riley.(picture attached) • 9001 Riley Lake Blvd is located within 85 feet of stream on Lake Riley (picture attached) Built in 2015. • 9536 Lakeland Ter is located with 43 feet of stream on Lake Riley (picture attached) • 9611 Meadowlark In. House and driveway set back 50 ft from creek. • Riley Lake Meadows Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions require ""community of compatible and complementary single family residential homes of the highest architectural Quality for the benefit of the residents of the community". "preserve beauty of Riley Lake Meadows and to enhance that beauty with distinguished residences of compatible and complementary architectural design" (covenant attached) If we were to be 100 feet from the creek and 10 feet from the property line, we would only have 35 feet of lake facing house which would be totally out of place for the neighborhood and degrade the property value of neighbors. Would also look ridiculous for a 2.5 acre lot with 200 feet of lake shore. INV. 867.79 h / 09671 ST'iO / // // // / I I\ I / // // // // NY.e6�%iST / 0qe�a/ /// /// /// /// 0 o�i- % / &Engi Land Surveying eeing / // // / I / / // / 10775 Poppitz Ln. rJ / �/ o / / / / / ti / Chaska, MIN 8 612-418-68288-6628 ° g 5V2.54/ S2-00�12"E / / I I / L / /00 % / C/ / / f q I� I ROPOSED/ Is S o r-- / .. / / - eX - / m I 1 _4 36'-1 /CULV. O 0.6% I __ 4 m I V 2 APRONS I \ \ \\�\ GARAGE I 6.4 IN LLJ.' ,� 1/ �Fo /i �� �i / 2 . / /ro I ' IyNV/866.6 E -E0 Ito J \\ \ \ � ~---� I\ PROPOSED fi// rQ+// '/ Az7 /i ��// c/� //.c / ./ �e /li •, �1NVTPROTECTION eB o SE cW0) AA2� - / Y 4e�/ i' / i / I GJt* / \ / r / / ry - It' / I �6 REQUIRED = a o m -878-1 SEE [TAIL t . / / ab J 3 / i m y m / \ 'AT ��,. / �/� v / i SS 5 N t DECK----- PATIO \ I �Ae0. / -�-'-- --- --------- / oa LLI = I 1021 �E Of BELOW \ ` - � / TRNG TRAIL / AND PR OSED DRIVE _ - -- -- _ _ ---- '1 T r �zDs Tr 87 -i-- /f--------- \ I °j3. // _s� o / I / �I -\\\R'TOSFD ���i� I - 1 / I�%' / Y RE(j .-- -r- a� `��� I_ \ _ ✓<' / / h� \ / / / _ �i- 60 w X1. 3 LL /ro PWI 10-2P l ��� \ \ \ 874r tr- �L _ J ��•-.e76-�k/ ^ry/ / / �8\ \ \ /�/ �.�............ . _ .........�..:. O I m m 0 6 / i sue.......... - O / INVENTORY 1aoQI0200 \ s� \ - m of S / /\'�` - / �866, POND _ OHW 865.3 / I �\ �.,\�� - �- =1 -�. CON TRUCTION �-- /^L s _-:........ HWL 866.7-jai �I -672� i--l.luirq -- fT/ j "\ _ �Y /...... - - - .: - . -as 0 ICE ELEV. 866.5 i '4`\ z -_ ~ - - - - - - //a•'F :.3e-1 '`....•.---...6••. : v' .✓ - - - ' N"f r AS OF 1/26/16 0 ICE ELEV. 865.31 - - - / /: ��.68'... ^ Go AS OF 1 26 16 _ _ _ / //�.l� / - �•^r. i - - - A68�'-. J A N D n I \�6j.- / / I `•... �,......� __ �, 1. - - -- - - -7 / 9T_� ` �7p\ ... \ \ fA Q w n m .�.... 0-....:..- -••� �� -\\ - WE-T�A N'0-- 10 ! i_ 1- -- \ rJ \` \ w PE mmr I Asa. ��. -a66 . .t �/ / >� - - _ _ 1 - \� . N {I G m w 1 - - / EX. 54'-18'X28.5' RW-ARCH ' p DRAINAGE Y-676'" - / '' \ •• •'fINV 865.28 N \ w - - - f870- - - - -� {ASEIpENT> - - / j8- / / \ . �� \ 1 K YP INV. 865.34 9 \ �' 460.74 \S4e02 Q8"E 1 \ -� EXISTING RETA#NtIG WALL m m m - \ 1 m 1 o oSrNG / /gyp / \ II 1 \\ 1 \\ \ e I I \ 11 o U° o / ' J9611 - - / / 1 ,1 \ \ \ < J� I _ \ /$L SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROPOSED GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, AND WETLAND BUFFERS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Garage Floor at drive = 886.0 Top of Garage Found.= 886.4 Top of House Found. = 886.9 Lowest Floor = 878.2 _� 0 50 Scale in Feet AREAS Lot Area = 2.4 acres See Proposed Impervious Calculations on Sheet 2 WETLANDS Wetlands as shown were delineated by Jacobson Environmental. See the Wetland Delineation Report for additional information. BENCHMARK Top of SPIKE as shown. Elev. 876.54 LEGEND XX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation --� Denotes Surface Drainage 13 Denotes Offset Hub or Spike - - - Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. • Denotes Monument Found p Denotes Monument Set --980-- Denotes Existing Contour g84 Denotes Proposed Contour - Denotes Wetland .........� Denotes Top Bank HOUSE DETAIL 5 \ i ��o85a� 40.13 0 30 33.54 GARAGE 4 I TF 886.4 Scale in Feet m I FFE 886.0 OOa.0 2 r tJ m � If p p ? c �I _ 2.00 PROPOSED 3.21 3.92 m o HOUSE (WO) < TF 886.9 l LF 878.2 i Ie ^ 325 DECK o ri 1.00 25 al PROJECT NO: PATIO S.13 N BELOW e 1604 im 18.00 30.00 �a SHEET of OF 3 El Li] SHEETS I I 1\1\\\\\\\\\ \\UIXINV.867.799N / / / / \ / / / / / /i \e90. ry// /lb I I � I I t4 1 ti e � I( Is W I Y I� Q I J I PWI 10-2P INVENTORY /100�20( OHW 8653 HWL 866.7 ICE ELEV. 865.31 AS OF 1/26/161 1 II �C I 0 50 Scale in Feet ��i iC�IC�l7 I■■■■©■■= I■N■E■■■■I !ArP i►MON■■�' .. :. ■i■■■■i■■■ii■■■is■■■i■■■ ■err■■■■loll /, /aN■OI N■■■1��. = ` ■0M■■CL�■■■■■■■■■■■0■■■■■■■■!_9 �J■C■Giilidl !I■L�Q■ICOMME■i➢►;: r../lei!■■■■1!!!■■■■■■■■■�J2■■C=ISi■16i®®®■i:■L9a®®.®■1 ��lA■1�■`■\NCL■�er�±■■■■e■■■■��+�r�a■Iai2.115■i�`E�■i1�ii■�i■■i!IOii�liLli■L�■■�1■■■■■IwGC�il ■iENE■iI:Z■C�■■■■9■�i�!!■e9�=�JsGf�rJ■■■G■■ia■■+�1■e!■Ze�i■■i�iiaene■■illaC■\19I�It�f �!■■■■Nl��i■�1G` ■S�iiifi■i■■I"iii■■Ciii■■w�J■■��rrrr�°N■■ ® is�ii■■■as7C■5eJrJ■�■■■■C�■1�1■ili!>LAI �■■■■■■■.!■�nl�■�■r■I��ae� s■■a■ee:■■■■■1�■■zzi■■■Icy■■�■a■■■■■■■■■nr■■■■Iv■�■■■■1 ia■■■■�■■�■■!11�■■■■■6r�r��e�i�.firGG■i��e-�■ss■■i■=se■■1s■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■1 n■■:■�r�=■■elr::���1��i3��■i■11•e��■■�e3ir=i■"fi3%5'�■,iiCIL�■■■■■■■■i■■■rl■■■■■■■■■■■■l�il�■1 1■■I■I�■■■■■1!9■L�!!1Slr!!■■■!■'JC■ia■EIl�3�JC■iJJ9il�l!1•■■i♦C■■■■■Y�■■■■E7piE■■■■■E■■■■■■■■■■H 1■i�Gb■■■■■■9CIl��!■■■■■■■■■■■'9i■='�■e_iiii■■GI'�■■i■■■■1�■■■■■■��■■�JC■■■■■■■rs�o.l.��� Ll I�l I GRADING NOTES SEE SHEET 3 FOR WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS 1. The estimated disturbed orea is 0.65 acres and the estimated excavation is 150D CY. 2. The driveway slopes adjacent to the culvert sholl be seeded and stabilized within 24 hours after culvert installation. Stabilization shall be with a Cat. 3 or higher erosion control blanket. 3. Unless noted otherwise, all disturbed areas shall be sodded, or seeded and stabilized with a hydraulic mulch or erosion control blanket. Seed mixture shall be as per the owner. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS LOT AREA = 104,348 sq. ft. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS House = 1959 sq. ft. B Garage (attached) = 1002 sq. ft. Q Front stoop = 177 sq. ft. pD Deck/Rear Patio = 861 sq. ft. Q Drive = 6357 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 10,327 sq. ft. = 9.9% EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Perimeter controls and rock construction entrance must be constructed prior to land disturbing activiites. ® ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE — BR — SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (8- COMPOST OR STRAW) — MS — SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SUCED WETLAND BUFFERS Disturbed wetland buffer areas shall be seeded with MnDOT Seed Mixture 33-261. No fertilizer shall be used in the wetland buffer. In establishing the wetland buffer, the potential transfer of acquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, etc.) must be minimimized to the maximum extent possible. PROPOSED WETLAND ZE BUFFER B WETLAND BUFFER SIGNAGE Creek wetland buffer calculation East wetland buffer calculation: Wetland perimeter = 1199 ft. Wetland perimeter = 166 ft. Buffer Area = 39,296 sq. ft. Buffer Area = 2366 sq. ft. Average Buffer = 39,296/1199 = 32.8 ft. Average Buffer = 2366/166 = 14.3 ft. / iS Land Surveying / & Engineering 36'-1 /CULV. ®0.6% (2APRONS INV/ 866.6 E I 866.4 W i NV T PROTECTION REQUIRED I / / i / POND ICE ELEV. 866.5 AS OF 1/26/16 6� EX 54'-18rX2&5- RCP -ARCH —INV 865.28 N \ INV. 865.34 S \ 11 F� SOILS Existing soils are Hamel looms looms with a hydrologic soil group C. These soils are susceptiple to tracking. A rock construction entrance is required and street sweeping may be necessary. 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 FLOODPLAIN The existing floodplain is shown. No work is proposed in the existing floodplain. o G LEGEND a XXX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation —� Denotes Surface Drainage — — — Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. --980-- Denotes Existing Contour 984 Denotes Proposed Contour Denotes Wetland - — — — - Denotes Construction Limits .......... Denotes Top Bank 30' VEGETATION ALTERATION k STRIP o PROJECT NO: 1604 2 M PROJECT NARRATIVE This project includes construction of a single family home and access drive. Proposed grades are shown on Sheet 2 of the plans. RESPONSIBLE PERSON The person responsible for compliance with the watershed Rule C — Erosion and Sediment Control is: Dan Hanson Wausau Homes 1463 White Oak Drive Chaska, MN 55318 952-994-2184 han son d 0wausauh omes.com WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES a. Natural topography and soil conditions must be protected, including retention onsite of native topsoil to the greatest extent possible. b. Additional measures, such as hydraulic mulching and other practices as specified by the District must be used on slopes of 3:1 (H:V) or steeper to provide adequate stabilization- C. Final site stabilization measures must specify that at least six inches of topsoil or organic matter be spread and incorporated into the underlying soil during final site treatment wherever topsoil has been removed. d. Construction site waste must be properly managed, such as discarded building materials, chemicals, litter and sanitary waste at the construction site. e. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be maintained until completion of construction and vegetation is established sufficiently to ensure stability of the site, as determined by the District. f. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be removed upon final stabilization. g. Sol surfaces compacted during construction and remaining pervious upon completion of construction must be decompacted through sail amendment and/or ripping to a depth of 18 inches while taking care to avoid utilities. tree roots, and other existing vegetation prior to final revegetation or other stabilization. h. All disturbed areas must be stabilized within 7 calendar days after land —disturbing work has temporarily or permanently ceased. i. The permittee must, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stobilization measures everyday work is performed on the site and at least weekly untl land —disturbing activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee must perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. TER WETLAND BUFFER SIGN Land Surveying & Engineering 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MIN 55318 612-418-6828 s lr Q U PROJECT NO: 1604 SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS FRONT ELEVATION These plans/drawings are protected under Wausau Homes inc.'s ��f,��1 exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to 1/4" = 1 �-O" (2.2Y J4) Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of Mere plans/drawin you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive 1/8" = 1'ii" (11X11) copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the const; xtion a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. Q 3 W d W_ U n OD C7 U R fN } Q Z J W a z= t'7 Y h Q' h J _J 3 (W O z v 0 C) N ' W z v Q ,-o = °' U DATE: 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: VDG:APV SHEET: A-2 C - a - W W - - .- - - - - — U - - - - _. _ --. - - —_ -. __ 00 J U � � d - ® - - Y to 02 h J - -: - - w 3 - — _ - - O oN w -- - a -- - - 0 °o RIGHT ELEVATION - r Y m u oUN o 0 > oP C w O U 3 a o 0 _ �O 03 - o � 0 3 LJU 3L o n --- - o - - - ®®®® ®®®®- ®®®® ®®®® ®®®® ®®®® DATE: ®®®® OEM= - ®®®® 3/1/2016 - _ - DRAWN BY: LEFT ELEVATION These plans/drmvings are protected under Wausau Homes Inc.'s V DG: APV exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to 1 /4" = 1'-0" (MiS4) Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/drawing SHEET: you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive 1 /e" = 1'-0" (11x17) copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction w a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. FOUNDATION / LOWER LEVEL PLAN 114" = 1•-0" (7Dx34) 1/8" = 1•-0" (11x1T) Finished Square Footage: -- 9'-0 FOUNDATION WALL HEIGHT 2' Foam Aligns u.I Wall Sheathing All Dimensions Are To Concrete Headers or Beams sized by 5uppliei These plans/drawmgs are protected under Wausau Homes Inc.'s exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/cImmi, you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. w to a r d lY S Q U Zcc n G M J M tL Z J M Y to J Q 'LU v w O Q v ' LU Z v Q �o = U ro Cl) h Z E O OU E O U v E N oUN D 0 a) — o N P EO ) P O 0 o a 3 c c 3 3� a 3 � Cl) 7 ydy G w C C m N C C t U m 1 DATE: 1 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: VDG:APV SHEET: A-4 32-0' 1Z-0• 16'-0' - �"'+�"••w vqN cs,mn+ csnLnz -i4 Iv n�sreRe°Mr � I I q L Js is e•w . Dk 1 WMn, - P06LE bR OIeMe 4 , 15'-0' p A' _ 11'1' 1T-0' Ih o I $ II I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a I I 7 I I I I I I Tb' m m 15T FLOOR PLAN 1l4' = 1'-0"(22x34) 1 l3" = 1'-T(11 x11) Floor 5quare Footage: 1g65 Garage 5quare=ootage: qqq q, 1/6" Wall Heights (u.n.o.) F4-718" Header Height (u.n aJ Dimensions are Framing to Framing Headers sized to 5u00lier These plans/drawings are protected under Wausau Homes Ines exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/dawir 4 you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction t a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. Q WN a r d Q = U Z t. :2 Cl) w U CL > a Z M NZ E LO z W O w O oN lL S Z O U L)D LO UD Y U E n O L Y N U E d o L) ULr 0 o O L � N P Q) P O O _ 3 O O0 O; O ON 3 L O 3 � �o ti DATE: 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: VDG:APV SHEET: A-5 M1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2NO FLOOR PLAN 1 W = 1'-0" (22x34) 1/8" - 1'-0" (11 w17) Floor Square Footage: 1210 3'-1 118" Wall Heights 52-1/5" Header Height Dimensions are Framing to Framing Headers sized bg 5upplier I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I These plans/drawings are protected under Wausau Homes Inc.'s exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/drawir you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. Q LU W W W 00 I. (h U Z J (r) SZ LO W h 3Z 3 rw v O w O Q N ' LU Z v Q -o = O' U x v1 rn u1 2: Y< 0 � L N U o v L OU CO EN P 02 P _ U OyO P 00 g) 3L 10 v n af; DATE: 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: VDG:APV SHEET: A-6 - _ _ I I I I I 1 t' 71 I I I I I I I t'-S I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I These plans/drawings are protected under Wausau Homes Inc.'s exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/dawin you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Ines exclusive copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. Q W to d r S Q U z n :�i M w U W > (L z J c7 Y LO J Q 2 W 31 0 oz 0 C) w vN w S V Q `O S °' U w n oz u C o O Uov E O U N L N — - E N 0, O p O cy' O (V 3 D�a U 3 o a a 3 3 0 0 03 3 L to 10 v W�c a �OQ £ e c a m DATE: 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: VDG:APV SHEET: A-7 D=Incot Wall Lonstruc0on -bb TY91ep Plate W MCFpr ad6 a' o.c -sill seam -B" Pourc4 Wal ®10a-uJ Damp Proofing 4 -r RgW Foam at aaument ENena Nigro uJ Wall Sheering -4• Found Lonuete FWr -broil Pol"Vyw Berme. -ContNuwa IbYb' Concrete Footing -4" Dmin Tile uJ Bleeders a'd" c c covered uJ qoi aggegae SECTION A -A 1/2" - V-0" (22x34) 1/4' - V-T111 XW) Basement Wall Gonst ur.Bon -ram Trealep Plle w' MtYlp Barb B' o. c. -501 Steller -4- Poured Gonuete Flom ® GSoi Q _W Pwrce YWl®10B'a Damp Prw g v -r 94W roam at Bmement F_-term Alyna W V I[ Sheabmg -4. Pxu ed cgnr Floor -broil Poy Vapor Boner -Cenbnua.z IF. a- L arte Footing -4- Orion T1e W Bleeder B'-0" o c. cmeredW 9rc d aggregate Al SEGTION 5-5 1/7 - V-7(22)34) 1/4' - l'-0' 01X61) o I- Wall Construction Wall Construction_ P Di6 Teaed Plat u.1 Ancna BOHs B'oc. v -]xb Treelkd=Iak uJ Andre, BOae 6'e - } q 5115 ter-S'll5eeler 1r1 B P red WNI rrx M a" Poured well ®40' 4 . cured Concete Float ®Geroge 4' PoumA COnuet Furor ®Gsege -CanEnupus tb" x a' Carvrtle Poplln9-Contnuous 16's 0" Ldncret Feoting SECTION G-G 117 - V-T (22X34) 114' - V-0' (11X17) o Expansion Joint 9 UNEXLAVATED v VARIES e. b2ft9nK&on ". -Pcyrtd Cowrie F4gr ® PttN - -CaanutuIFxwC ete Futir, SECTION 0-0 1/2' - l'-T (22x34) 1/4' - 1'-0' (I IX11) ry Bsise:memt li Construction -Db Treatd Plate W Mcnpr Bdls B' oc -5115eam -b• P.. Wal 01OV W Oanp Proaing -T el Faun a Basement 5dend J' P.. Comet FWa -feel PON Vq Barrier -Caamnu IF x b" corvfde Poee^9 yV Ran Tie W Nexi Nac CaverW W groat aggregate SECTION E-E 1/T'= V-O"(22X34) 1/4' - l'-0' (11 X11) Wall Construction -am Wa10105 yr -1R'$hMmck -b m,11 Vela Boma -R-19 Flbergless Inzul -2xb 5We IF oc. -7I16 055 Wdl Sheati -House Wrap -5141" -] Tmaleo Plek W Mdror BMU B' pc. -Sill Sealer -b" Peutd Nall ® 40" -7 it Foam a aaeem iv Eyeror All" W Wdl sheathing -4" P.n,d Cawde F -boll Poi, Vapor teener -Gontlnudus IF. V Comsat I., -4' Dean Tile W BleWere a'd o c C iexxl W grv.cl aggregate SECTION F-F 1/7 - V-T (22X34) 1/4, - 11-T (I lX17) Per Elev. . Per Me,. -yb Tell $o1Bt Gortstrurtbn -Ia SaeetroceFie F. er b err vane. BaFo. -R-19 Flberglma In Iil -2b $ 1- IF O.c. os5 YV.1 Sheeey -atpuac rasa -5itirg -]q Treated Plate w Mr m Sots B' o c. -Sat Seam -B" Pwred dell ®3b• -7 Rill Foss at Baement Exterior Align W Aell Sheetriing -4- Pwred Concrete FWr -bmll Pay vapor Berner -Continuous IF x BConarde Footing -4• Dratn Pk ud Bleed. 6-0' o c. Covered uJ ore, aggrcget SECTION G-G 117 - 1'-O' (22X34) 1/4'-l'-O (11X11) 12 Roof Construction -rUnemw smroie. -ism rex -(a3r px sae.F�w-. u�m -ao=_Paor�x Truss I AM, Construction .n.par vans j -R3Jr9ngiw I� -Ew­�ro—,vmT—T,,.xts u4- I or C'eilrr Lonsiructlon ,2 -Ya'ilx®v't u,/S xe5p 5MeurY Per Elev mQ Wall Construction Z fo -I?Blxaeaa ax we.vpaa.rmr -,.neari Per Elev. -aa.se.s lro<. -v1e'am ertt>ste.np Well Construction ®44 1IIII 4q 1 -im n' rat -tIT Shee re-r n -b ,dl Vapor Bmria f -R-14 Fftr,ws,i lnsulaon - -]orb Sfup lb oc -111V 05B Wdl Sheat" -1bYBe x'aa0 -seiry -24 Treered Ptt w/ M4,or Brits B a c -W 5eieer - -=-a-Pwrtd watt ®Br - U - r Rya mrema Pp_ a aeEMmbr Mare W Wal 5,ee iry Q-4-Pwred Comet FWr fa '.broil Pdy Ve Berner -Continuous ib'v Fooprg -1 one. Tien 5kerers B'fP ec CdvmM W 9ra+et aggregate le eg,,e'e ` SECTION H-H 112- = 1'-0" (22X34) 1/4" - 1'-0" (11X11) floor Construction -1<9S Oat T6651eWw 11 leer M1la'nc R nsamg.s Beiar 3 spy rnem 5a FWsan LClllna Construction e nY Vqa BR-.(m myurta.Nn Lw "w Sp¢ml Ya'sretwreor 1?.azy steewu - Wall Consburmoo r Q iIPFLiq.. ylNn � '; -vu' ere sa..5nm-q -wwvarP -sra�e otl*a6r.0 4 aw Feeyoeaa Y 5pylsn4aFW/Im I?snxwb.(..reaaed) Basement Wall Lonstluclbn as rrt.ea rise � rate eoa a' ... -• sw s..a ..3 e'ro,.eawOroa'w v.nF •paro iF —q . r.,.d caeme Poor yU -a.0 •oyv.. taw SS <wrwsra+e'cew.e Fumy ir cperN W I.'. Mle.rt m TYPICAL WALL SECTION 1/2" = 1'-0" (22x34) 1/4" = 1r-0" (11x1 7) Roof Construction _,erase em.yw ups I��,� -e Conshvrdon prx.a,wyrn..0 (p'c) -e- v-a0a.er(®raP.em �a,e-sama-a+? wst iaemu t. -maam Wall Gonstrvctbn i?9MeeoR (s mWnm) -a eruv-a B.rort..d+m) ♦19 ra.a.R Fulcra (- rear.el -q4 ep,Y le' o c tn�Ye'OW Emrb5lem5q stay ro- Basement Wall Lonstru bon -M Tnad,.eWMi llb oc h - _e-ro ee .oOsO- _ Q _e••we<Cmoex Ma V .ea. e.yJA B.rif -cara.F. la lie dve 9'cenoae fl' F. -' pIi PY W Bee I 4 weiet W Yarel eG�M.e • o GARAGE WALL SECTION 1/2 = 1' 0" (22x34) 1/4=1'-0"(1lx11) These plans/drawings are protected under Wausau Homes Inc.'s exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/drawin you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. Z C7 Y LO LO w 3 O O W °N W Z Z °' U DATE: 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: VDG: APV SHEET: A-8 1 1`Q43e1 i 1^13t36rR Y 41R OGu3396 e14L15rJ: ® sB36� B Tta 51eR1ST I I I I m I a; I o I LL I n 83015T B01 o-t0 83035T B q• I W 1 z J I I � I KITCHEN I I 33025T 5D30-3D V1214215R W14%R W143 i M142M ._... c —________- 5f0 DV40 BATH 1 1/2" = 1'-0" (22x34) 1/4" = 1'-0" 01x17) s KITCHEN 1/2" = 1- '0" (22x34) 1/4" = 1'-0" (11x17) BATH 2 1/2.. = 1'-0" (22x34) 1/4" = 1'-0" (11x11) I�Ilil�ll - IaIII�II� HALF BATH 1/2" = 1'-0" (22x34) 1/4" = 1'-0" (11x17) Yti6i6 1"�36 Y'M36R eD24-3D LAUNDRY 'mD B3oe aria sa2Te ihelf W RW rQTaea YUTi09 LAUNDRY 1/2" = 1'-0" (22x34) 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 W 7) OWNER'S ENTRY 1/2" = 1'-0" (22x34) 1/4" = 1'-0" 01x17) These plans/drawings are protected under Wausau Homes Inc.'s exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/drawin you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. z 1- J C') LO Y LO J < z LU 0 °W O Q tN \ LU z V Q °' U co C2 D 2 U E U U C) v E a 0Uro g o O > O O x N 3 D a @ 3 0o C 3 o a)° 3 c 3 _IZ o 3 L 0 DATE: 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: VDG:APV SHEET: A-9 } IL 2 Q U Z r. :E tb J M lL U W > a Z J M Y LO Z W 3 O Z O oN > w Z �r o Q ts6 W-O" 71V-6• 0 U m � n th h h 0 � u E 0 L Y � U U V EO N v dD N � � E4)P JO O>a O =�h 3 a 64-0 Do 0 3 6a-0a1 c 3 37-0" 17-0" 16'-0' 3 L 0 3 L 10 se-��. ue o�xu ��ov C51M95 L9T1N] Co 10 _ 0 V I x I w DATE: 3/1/2016 DRAWN BY: These plans/d2wings are protected under Wausau Homes Inc.'s VDG: APV exclusive copyright and are provided under a limited license to SHEET: Wausau Homes -Chaska. By accepting a copy of these plans/d"awmg you acknowledge and recognize Wausau Homes, Inc.'s exclusive O copyright herein and agree not to display, distribute, reproduce, modify, or use these plans/drawings other than for the construction a single home by Wausau Homes -Chaska. CITY 01 Preliminary CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for: oavid_vogel DE4CRDIFD AS: Lot 7, Block 1, RILEY LAKE MEADOWS, Carver CouMys MN ADDRFSS: 9641 Meadowaark Ln, Chanhassen, -MN LAKE RILEY t V / M 1t- - .•i � — "jam �. A ' + 1ar i d 61 X' 3' r is 12kabf (! 75 i - �, O • w • - i CEIVED 9 ? 2015 i,nANHASSEN � • � ••P rw04CL �}1(: e , h1EAiDOWLAEiK LANEIT \ . - •.. r. atwtp�*r+1 wr.. M nr *, as e.uk+u +�•w+ a e w alv t.lo weri7oc y, .,. � +osn•: :.+ � Lrep •.... �.. su. rt P+wh I >t: ais+a..1a�/�� 4nw W 4 M 1fY0• Ltiw T' 1 16N IF WET LAND SET BACK VARIANCE- 9641 Meadowlark LN., Chanhassen, MN 55317 Narrative Argument to be granted a variance, 100' setback from the tributary (Creek). Request for variance for the driveway servicing the new home and the house placement on the lot. With the driveway entrance wetland setback variance granted, per the Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting on February 16, 2016. The following request for variance addressing the Conditions applied to our request for wetland variance on the entire proposed length of the driveway, approximately 350',as well as the placement of the new home, at the end of the proposed driveway. Both would fall within the 100' set back from the tributary (wetland) and both would require the same variance set back, per our proposed Land Survey. Proposed Survey- Wet Land Set Back Variance for Road and House • A critical and essential element to our proposed survey has to do with the placement of the septic system drain fields. These are needed for the proposed home (or any home) to be built on this lot. With our current driveway position we are able to keep the drain field away from the proposed road, fitting it between the road and the required property line set back. Two drain fields are required by the state, the one closest to the house is the primary, the other is a back- up location. Used only if the primary field ever fails. Where we have the fields placed on our survey meets all the design specification provide by a licensed septic engineer, hired to design the system. We have provided a copy of his design specification to a representative for the City of Chanhassen, Community Development Department. • Our septic contractor has informed us that the drain fields must be placed on ground that is not compacted. The area we have them placed on the survey is undisturbed ground that has not been changed or compacted, which makes it an acceptable location. • Our proposed septic drain field location is approximately 75' from the tributary. The system was placed to accommodate the house location on our proposed survey. • With our current house location we are requesting the same set back from the tributary as the road location we have proposed. The house is set back from the lake 120', which meets the set- back requirement from the lake, 100' with an additional 20' for a future deck. We have also met the set -back requirement of the property line of 10'. • The design of the home was based off of information that we were given, in our initial meeting with City of Chanhassen. We were told that the set- back requirement from the tributary was 75, the home placement does meet that requirement. • It is our understanding that if this lot had city sewer and water, the set -back would be 75 feet. • The proposed driveway and house placement are the best location to minimize the impact to wet lands and undisturbed natural habitat. The driveway we are proposing makes use of the dirt road that has been on the property of nearly 100 years. We are not changing the direction or placement of the dirt road, there will be no major excavating required. We will simply building up the existing road with a compactable material. • We are currently working with the Water Shed District on their requirement, regarding the driveway placement and entrance to the property over the ditch. Our understanding is that they have a 50' set back requirement. However, they allow averaging of the over- all property to meet the set- back requirement. We believe we are able to meet their requirements. They also require a buffer between the tributary and our proposed drive way. Which makes this part of the lot unusable by the home owner. • The ditch at the entrance of the property and the wet land area near the entrance are also identified as wet land, which means they are off limits to the home owner. RECE11f FEB 19 2016 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Survey- Drive way moved to meet 100' wetland set back We have been asked to comment on the placement of the Driveway and House, if we were able to meet the 100' setback from the tributary. • If we were to meet the 100' set -back requirement for the driveway, we would be changing the path from the current dirt road, after the designated wetlands at the entrance to the property. It would require major excavating and disturbing an area of the lot that would not need to be disturbed. • It would push everything on the lot to the far lot border. This area is currently not in the home owner's plans to disturb. • The septic system drain fields will now be pushed closer to the tributary wet land and will encroach on the 100' set back area. It will also push them onto the current dirt road area. • This placement will require the same variance for wetland setback as the driveway in the other proposal, due to the septic drain fields. • Also, the septic drain fields will now be placed partially on the compacted dirt road, which will not meet the septic system design specification, regarded compacted soil. • We have also been asked to identify on the survey where the bank of the tributary is located. IF the 100' set back is measured from the bank of the tributary that would move the 100' set back an additional 15' closer to the lot line. That would leave approximately 20' of depth between the 100' set back and the lot line, to put the home. This is not enough room to place the home and garage. It would also put the Septic drain fields even further into the wetland set back. The following are properties in the Riley Lake Meadows Development. See the survey enclosed for comparison. • 9441 Great Plains Blvd is located within 35 feet of stream on Lake Riley.(picture attached) • 9001 Riley Lake Blvd is located within 85 feet of stream on Lake Riley (picture attached) Built in 2015. • 9536 Lakeland Ter is located with 43 feet of stream on Lake Riley (picture attached) • Riley Lake Meadows Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions require ""community of compatible and complementary single family residential homes of the highest architectural Quality for the benefit of the residents of the community". "preserve beauty of Riley Lake Meadows and to enhance that beauty with distinguished residences of compatible and complementary architectural design" (covenant attached) If we were to be 100 feet from the creek and 10 feet from the property line, we would only have 35 feet of lake facing house which would be totally out of place for the neighborhood and degrade the property value of neighbors. Would also look ridiculous for a 2.5 acre lot with 200 feet of lake shore. X18=6 Cana Cw4ftoWty1nfarrtehon Carver County Property Information Basemap Themes Welcome Property Information Print -- --_----- Measure I Feet Measurement Result 35.4 Feet CiRGAr Pt.tNnS 91 V , RECEIVED FEB 19 2016 CITY OF CHANHASSEN What prope jty are you looking for? Search on address tmps:ngis.co.cana.rrtusfPwi wCw ZtsMs Carver county Property lnformafion Carver County Property Information Basemao Themes Search on address. Welcome Property Information Prins ----- — Measure Feet Measurement 87.4 Feet are you looking for? ID, or addition name httpsl/g Is.co.wr�er.rm.us/pugicpacel/ 2fla 16 ProWtylntffa t e Map l Hennepin Interactive Maps Property 4Goto Property links Clear results PID: 3011622220 9536 Lakeland Ter Eden Prairie, MN 55347 C2Eet , Owner: Ta)payer: Parcel Area: Torrens/Abstrac Addition: r Lot: m d Block: a n "":"gIs.henneOftL54 roperYniaWde{aultaspx Type an address or R11fY Fm M2030 fEMARATM oP 1S. �1P:70'ifis, @l mcm, Ata1 RC'mCrim THIS Ad7ARATTUI, each this , ' day of May' 1988, by RLroe}it P. Vogol aW Cayle M. Vognl, huahrmd and i(e, herRlnnTter n[errei to r "Sildividen". i WIWISWIlil WRIi05, &941videre are the when of the nail Plq rty dal ibad in Article I of thim lOOl=tion herelmfLr mfeaod to as R,1W lab Rerdoaer and MOMS, sLbdivldere drica to ¢mte thrreun a oormmity of corpetible and Complementary eirgle femLly rveldmhtlsl Luce o` of the �dtytt.'+'•^-n quality for the benefit of the red;-; Riley take min,' and to antance thnt beau rrid-- of aepntible and ca plonentary and idRNAS, S+ ividom deem it naorcary for the preservation of the =tu r'al kea,Ry of Riley lake "eadwa ant for the aeaorances of ,:' K gal ity in anhitechrtel deei,y, to eetablieh ® ip mvee,da, oditione and reetrletlge gmarnb9 the dwelcp.* Of Riley lake Mood., erd WRWA9, mtdividere der it rammary to crento a omeitten to Nrich ehell be, delegated and eeeiryrd the N,ere of ed inietering and anforcing the mvetenrta, mndltiome end rstrletime governing the develc; ent of Riley lake Reetlo"e. tart' 7110 Re, sugdlvidery hereby declare that RU y Iak4 Readoae, r deaCrlbsd in Article I Of this fnclaretim be held, rold, treneferttl, oonvryetl, dawloled Atd ampied in ao,ord h wiM tie foilwing owerenta, oaditlae and rr[riotime henlrofter act forth, Mich mown on,, amdltlme W reetriCtine shell rim with the reel Wuputy an, W pRi LVM ell coon Perthw sing any right, title or intact in Riley lab Hudwe as dee¢lled in Article I of this owlentim, their wberth et' • eumeeeorm Arid reign, and eMll Lon to eomreon and nesigns. Mxh p0 ' their role, repreamRe[Svr, 3O Pape / v �l PMea Oocoeent a%I36 Filed, My 23, 1966 Consists of ]pages Sri T z 7 g Nr uk I prfRrty 51bjR t to MOV DamlaeOUM 2W real {myerty lft i I$ aM shall be cold, *Dial, tm4.Le cawwAd, d qed aid ooayied m ebje to this Dien lo:atmI 1n the City of Chanhassen, mnty of Carver, ad 1 MLnseota, _is" presently o+ned by aubdividae and is roord 1n the office or the w pnac Qlaemf m fur and mmty, all of buich real �y heretofore in ahu for s referred to as Riley Cake lfead�. Sa harato[ora ad huorLat ARP = II Definitions ]he follehLg aool, 6hen rased in this Dnlaratia, yhal l have the Lollawltg meanings: section 1. "O� shall mean and caner tow tsmord oansr. Meth" or or more pareo m or entitles, of a fee .Ipple title to any lot or palling ladt mAbject to this Declaration, but S WI not mn are refer to the mortgages of any rut lot or DMIlig Unit ndess ad mtll ardr mortgages has as ,' title PWlmiant to foreelomma of said mortgage a i the period Within which the fee gear may rah® from suh foneclm has tarmLeted, or Ncnent to deed in lieu of fcreclo . Uea any a,,h lot or UailLg Unit Is sold by the fee war by � for Dm1 to a mmntraet veMam who is entitled to poascsalm, the m2rart vmtlea shell be cencitlned the "Dona" of awh prgmrty. Section 2. "Lrt" shall mean and refer to any plot of lad as Mat forth in Article I of thle D lamtion aml as shorn m any xemmyd plat of Riley Cake Meads., aroept flat Wtlot A, Riley Iola Meedms, Nell not be omeiderad a lot for pun ,00 of chi; definition. Section 1. 'paling Unit" chap men and afar to a residential tnsLunit it and attndad garage aselat Lg of a goy of raome ad hallwaye Ndch are dmsi gad ant intended for use ns 11vLq garter for a single family. " ion a. "SLbdividas" shall moan rod refer to Rfaam P. Vogel, Gayle M. vogel, their fairs, rrprmsmtatives, ancoeseora, and asmirpe. Section 5. "Prmpaty" or "Prcpentlos" Nall sman and refer to all the real pwyarty subject to thin Daoiartlm, es dascribod in Art1eL I of this naclustlm, and all aWitioal real h ersafter made abjsR to thla Declaration. Bampertr _2_ 1'sge —1`? a�sMw Ntf = ffl A''chitwbarri control Section 1, pr<part1�oa.Mll �1P edt,arowbad i4 h th e airy the plan nMd or az M« aade n4a+lme and na211 eM plena .m me, fl�.�[m_ thpeeln amthatim end rumlitad to eM +W--d byin writing, meow �ry of mtetnel design and lomtlminr a.tlm Atdrl Antral an'ni tq-A-ft,a m]ority vote of the falls to appeava or eva2 mid 0aeittea lifter mi such plan and apeclfirati. Within "Ity (]p) days after said plan and spaelfication have lem ertel[tad to itmoad to haO0 been , mid plarc and specification shall to be attl and f in daa erterlor of a and iat aunt 1Lhc1 d days t[®t � or brl� in§. Within two h d d orty (ae. "Onommt of the id alnCpaa, ocetnk-tlm of m Sectim 3. aMgtl =d.Ittaa Nall M cca r Rha A ij three -al mercers vKil frte Mrol fold, at %meta t1m the Nall t cmprlaad of three maebara. orlglnei ,Vogel of [M ,* M. V.9.1. Nall M thaee NalllTho ltal md�yla it ongel. Attar three 1a are sold, (l additional maiEar el f lot eWnan W mid, of nattutal G tmlectnl tram amrter tM five lots aze raid, one, off b oriylnal modern t , Attar (5) + teplaoment venb+r shell m elseted trm Nall resin any owners to the AtchlthC¢al Control amittee.aa°r�st none, lot One of the orlglral aenban Nall m,,a on [ecbual 03*ml CM"ttea mtll all lot& eta �' h the ovmn NNl alact TM sold, after Nr1ch the ,i eW lot ry mjority vote. ads o[ the (11 three petsm miml[tm elatt&d to a omding�zl twl V ®(t)tWo roe' tarns, azd m y le Smtitt ]• h l vita_.« 1 L lllh, teCGrral m0. �itba '[ About at Arid rleraetarLtlo oNy a s�j all not � An harmnloiy � eagettlse. In tMtea oouna of its 1 the edlfioatime in rl intamt o[my tegumt oartain dmign eons oowlemntary to or ompa0 pt-bx�µilaya IlLq halt Oneemity.over toto mpl— an archi loll di¢y and rmpanaib1-1ty�th�e�s to teR, mqi i ometrartar or other panWn And tlde nnar. tal mN net in m eNdtecturally to aan�, fact, cvrmr in RileyOf anintarv�t lake MaadvO,w e, Irla Min, refaeamtativm, [ nrnmaon aM assign mtion of him o-wvMP a Coate, es onerW W �� �' right to Mmgm for fam, 'an result fro.mWl[icetima to q_ Fags,��e, 7 Page, r-*wvtw by The AOdutwtnm Gacaeal t,w 02r4ol �tac matexchj1dWasoo-terai �� � Ic vd harm dl mat zracteristl Of its its juayaaa. W.11 w ri,al. ARrIaE lv famed gm Aawl . L Sectim I. ft Ar Thal p.,,.. AK lot lthln Rily tsn hhadoam atoll b used family rmidenLial inapt for airgla etectad, altarod, Placed or m bilk a�� shall ba a e permitted to ramin on °try lot ocept frgle really resldmCa with an attaded preys deigned to arxcsmotlate a alnlaro of two aut®ebllw and an aauaaory building as deecribd in section 2 of Sh11 Article. Beotlm 2. A�:ncv BrilAl..�, too , building, sha1, barn, or other outt tldyg shall be uam m any lot at any time darthar tespaorarily or pwmmrdly, waeas such �diN, $hy, bon, or aR-Wlldtrg L lees than eight iw th the fifty Lmaider�ceial f earme aid mrform architecturally for persmrel ume shall Met tu once gazabe or a emil grag4cum ldero0 m an a,reaory builds g. Section 1. may, --An". Ea o for installation and mlrrtansnoa of Militias, and dnLr facilitie are W W m the rae" b plat unl� cs vaie, Of es g'mwxniM armlclPal authority. wlthln [tees assam,t areas th atnxxure, pluRire or rother mtarlal Mall be placed or parmlttb N [main Which my dmmga, obtz , or Inbrfera With the Jrarailatim a,d m of such utilities or dlich my the aaaasaa a-rm Or It1kh f1w Of ester tchthrough dtmLrsge dersele SR Water thr.10 drairega dyue L � or retard the flow of maaa snt arm of oedr lot Mall be mirrteyed��axiavly.by tl a utlliy c �{K for Lrprwm owrrd yr, a prblic authority or a ty cmpvury. Saotion a. per adds 1 1 . Wither Lot 5, Block 1 roe l 9, Block 1, Riley LAn Meads my bs further wildlvlded Wltho¢ the apgrpial of the g .irg �lelpal authority. aR1 v prM imj h.R.lvities aM uses S ion 1. jyi r —iPe or off.i,a ectivitlaa shall to earried on rpm any lot or Aallirg mlt, nor Mall a ivlty b a n& ay mrgvoa m mismze w nai E�oafiooJ� b ov my Cocoa ee P" Safltlon I. Wa No apLalq, 11vwtmk CW poultry o0 aam'braf w kept in Riley la m nssoosa, eraspt hcrrO, dogs, cats, ac other houasq,old b� mirtapw [or be y® Mjaai6dUmt pupos . ue not keFt. Section 1. fA[�tle �d_R1, No lot Null be r*fw or Othsr va WWI �di ford oblate. leash, ilw Le dtpoced of out 1— of Rllef Iajo lf.ada,a. All tctWratore or other emlm�.,t r,.� .,......____ sus e I Us kept Within the garage foist, a pert of a tmid®rm. Wtion a. ehrlc gasps, barn Or -U a2 ' trailer, b.m, tarn, of ary tie ss a rmtdmcs sl �� -WI b oath m ary lot taapr¢arlly or pamrrtly. Ssotian 5• Slurp. Ro signs of my ktd Wall bs diWI.m to tho public vlw onany lot or &vlljr, unit .Pt a sign Orei not than six agora rest W sttLlr, qr gr, property for enla or bf the then sass or o=4,ant, or soy el or signs r sd the Sof lots, to advertise the pxcperey army arstnxtim and by sale of lots. soctim 6.yshlcles. W GneY, trurlu, lnaeatrailere, —N Cossd aAos hll., ai.eaft, treRyre of azry kind, trailers, kept, orr stored caterest re self-prgpelltl meper vshiclw Wall be pnMed, ored onthe property aasee Prkad, kept, or stored within an ercI0 garale or-0---Ory 4rlldtg. Um 7. 7asz gr...w„e. NO pole, Posts, twee or °^canoe mybeLstalled that °used 10 feet in height exospt flat an a Lie rsdlO or talNLim ant®ne sal' D pissed 1pm the amf Of a rsside ce, p.ided that suds sn[eaa does rote nb son than 10 feet W.— the roof upon u hi b it Ss locator. Gro rd "Wilts dish s is nss ml• b tsLlisd, provided that son sne.nos do roc Obatnct the *lot Itps Of sdjoint, lot amaze to Iskw Riley. A fl= wl Cs srsl p isio s s�aaa 3 . Ara' w shs1l nave tip right to aoNitlmrys, s,d t�mti Raloro.mn ar hh tter11iR by iho pr W. of this Oselarstlm. •.9. ___.1 Pep.. soctim 2. Fell— by -IV Prhau to ortforpe ww eovvvnt, m Itim m e*strletllp ha ein Ov t4irwd shall 1n m erect be dee ed a vaiver of the tight W do w tharepfter. SeRlm a. e-�i11R• Ime4idetlm of ey ore of these ooveents, .ditions, or reetrimion by julgo n or meet order Wall in no way affect a,, outer orvriim %bith dhalI ...in sectim e. D=ti®• The maeron4, mtditiom ard tastrict/ms of this peclatatim Stall rM WM aM to blydirg Woo the coal property for a tote of harry (20) years from the date this 0aclaratim is Horded, after Midi time throe m+amtts, oorditiom and restrlctims mhall be s,r eetlmily adt"ded for eu® iw periods of ten (10) years rsdeee tarslrtated by the eame mjority vote of Piers nmmeary W am" this Peclaretiat. sectlm 5. Msu M- this Deoleretim eay be eoeded during the first runty -veer period by an inatr,meet mimed by tat lass then eighty percent (80%) of the P.ters, and thMoSefter by an 1HtnmrerR signed by roc lesv tbeo seventy-five (75%) of the Paters. MY ammAent tout be rood t W he affective m W aduequent Paters. each. 6. Veriartoes. The Atthitocbual mtrol Q ttee hmrebY roeorvm the right W grant a teasomble variarm or edjOeheett of rheas mnerente, torditi— end prwlsima in order W weroze precti.1 diffiodtim and pme hatdehipe arising by rsaeoo of the aiplitetim of the prtvisi�om curtained heroin. andr varlartom or adjustments my be granted only in core the gre tiM thereof sha11 not be mterially detrhrortal or injuriom W outer Property or inprwe is of the .ighborhood end shell eat defeat the general intent eM purp2as of thle mclaretion. 9 right of varlame shall tsrul to rRort reeidetoee being owetncted at each erf every lot. IN M[tt165 M0 F, the utderelgnad, bed g the SLbdlvidete, have he.to eet their hetde m the day W tyear first ab e, Kltten. i man&tu P. Vogel -a- dmylm .Vogel :�— Pepe.JL a �Prm Ingvalson, Drew From: Aanenson, Kate Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 7:56 AM To: jmdimino@aol.com Cc: Ingvalson, Drew Subject: RE: Proposed development -- 9641 Meadowlark Lane Thank you for your email. I will add it our staff report Kate Kathryn Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 952-227-1139 "Planning for Today, Providing for Tommorrow" From: jmdimino@aol.com [mailto:jmdimino@aol.coml Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 3:38 PM To: City Council; Aanenson, Kate Subject: Proposed development -- 9641 Meadowlark Lane Hello: We are contacting you to let you know of our approval of David and Amy Vogel's proposed plan for development at 9641 Meadowlark Lane. Regards, Jon R JoAnn Dimino 9751 Meadlowlark Lane Chanhassen MN 55317 Aanenson, Kate From: Lisa <lareillyl2@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:06 PM To: City Council; Aanenson, Kate Subject: Lisa Reilly 9701 Meadowlark Lane, Attn: City Council Members My name is Lisa Reilly and my husband and I have lived at 9701 Meadowlark Lane on Lake Riley for 16 years. Dave and Amy Vogel have sent us the survey and elevation of their new home which looks beautiful. It will be great for our block and we are excited to have a new home. I am an interior designer and there is no question the house will be attractive from both the lake and street side. We believe the city should allow for the variance they are requesting and the layout on that lot is appropriate for the scale of the house. Thank You, Lisa Reilly I I I 11111k 11t\ I \ %. 11I ! ? ! 1 I f ! /r ! / rx m eirtc N�t'��/ aM / f� / ! 1 I I 1 / / / /! / ew. Iwejr 1 1 to / ! 110, Land Suevglrq a Engline wl I \ L = e _!�/ / `' / ! y �• fi// n/ - / ! �W �/. / 61247E-6m 51r1.54/ 57-00/17 Fopasw \ \ `Ir . r •�( I r / / - / t 1 I ( fie•-1 /C.IV 0 0 5% a Y� `i r 1� ! / O` } ee 1 12) APRDHS nay W 4 \ \ \ \ \ �� \ \ \ ' i t/ E o\i / �� / / / ( « ' f V ..1 1 i leEe p e / .r ! ,� / ��i __ .r �1 T PROTECTION a. i a'fl ,� 1\— —eye-1 `SEE (rt0) I �` .'� //1 --- _ / I / �,,, �M1''r +�ItCurtED =�nl�_ M c ``'�_ 7__--_-- A110 -----------44 — 1 1)rbsl-- \ �: / aC I I I '_°-�=7'ke4� - } �- __ -- �.!/ "-/--------I-------------- I-------- -Ilk 1121i I-r � 1 IN 10-1v [WAN -my III / E 4 `COMMUDnoIe ICE L'V. eanJ I ' — •+ - — --�ttl' 'iz: �a�_ ,_� • .:..e. y y: + + —ti: ^ -�E r1y Z. ^tO 4 �Ms [1F ,,••leJls (i Z. \ i As OF I/LI/l t. f..dd� = — --= �- i' ! gyp— �_�. ��i ` �r2p` d oo -..�_.. p...d. ........:.vorw.. i i /�►� —hit 20 It EA. ye' Ill' L><3. ARC), IN W \ � I _ _ 9 l\ - �' ` — ram' oa+trc IETy01116C 60.74 \ 54e02 WE � WXL, F Ps"' _ /� rJ II �1 1 l\ \ 1� ;� f 1 1tj o Q sU SEE SHEET 2FOR PROPOSED GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, ANDWETLANDSUFFERS Q �Q tlU PROPOSED ELEVATCil Carol Flaw a dI - 8% ° sa HOUSE DETAIL el A e0`13 K Tap of Gaepa Fond. - ME-e qp Tap of "oust Found. - sl 0 30 Lowest floor - M?&1 ;*Z ' CkMm 0� Scow in Feet $ i IF M.• w s AREAS 16300 00 26 N Lot Am - i. A aCred gl B �_ gf16- See Prepoaee impc-data Ecrcularlons an Sheet 7 LEGEtD d v.'Ei.AYJS 7DL% Darl Proposed Ell I 9D HOU FORMOPOSM SE () T a' xrla�de w va«, sere "i7wtsd by .bcobw Enri.anfrer+to, yes the lllUl% Denotes tdunq tle.c�inr �� I • d Vte-U •rd Deineviar R®art V odditnnal i•i'arrrmtkm. Dnotes S,erfoae Droi•,oge LF M2 l7 Denotes Dlfwt Hub or Spire ? y DECK 8 I. ICI 8 E`JCHdAriK — — Denotes Droh. and UtAily Eon. lop or SRKE Ice sno.n • Drwtn 'ert ManunFound O Denotes Manument Set 31 Eler, t176.5e --DED-- Donated Existing Contow „r 16a0 Mao - re e- - - -.� Oanotee Proposed Canla.� — — Oeneta Wettard a ... _ ...... Denote Top Bank fF rh r- CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 3, 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 Request for a Shoreland and Wetland setback Case 2016-07 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. Kini T. Meuwissen, D uYy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this J day of OrWf�l 12016. Notary Public J#JmNotarv JENNiFEiR ANN POTTER Public-Mfnn9Sotay CmM+sca� Expkw �Mn 31.2020 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Shoreland and Wetland setback to construct a Proposal: single-family home on property zoned Rural Residential District RR . Applicant: Wausau Homes. Owner: David Vogel. Property 9641 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows). Location: 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 public hearing through the following steps: What Happens W 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 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/2016-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by email at dinavalson(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Questions & 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: 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. NEWT 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, Wei Alterations, Rezcnings, 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 parry is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendabon. 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 Me public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will dose Me public heaong and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Coundl may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezcnings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except mzonings 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 Me City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesp•monlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding Moir proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, this City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City CouncilIf you wish to have something to be induced in the report, please contact the Planning Ste Person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Shoreland and Wetland setback to construct a Proposal: single-family home on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR). Applicant: Wausau Homes. Owner: David Vogel. Property 9641 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows). Location: 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/2016-07. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by Questions & email at dinavalson(rDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1132. 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. NEWT 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 Rev. Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Aftershock, Rezcnings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within S00 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any m erested pally is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on Me 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 Me report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for Me public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing Process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss Me item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission a recommendation. Rezonings. two use and coda amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Coundl except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaaindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this stand" Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any parson wishing to blow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokaspereon/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for Me by Often developers are encouraged to meat 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 Coundl 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 induced in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff Poison 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 PROPOSED MOTION: "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 this 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 in 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." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of a driveway in order to access the property, as well as a variance to allow them to encroach on the required setback from the tributary stream on the property to achieve a driveway alignment that would avoid fiuther wetland impacts. 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- MAHING: Variance — The city's discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. MIN SCANNED Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 2 of 16 Wetland Alteration Permit —The city's discretion in approving or denying a Wetland Alteration Permit 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. 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. The applicant is also requesting a 70-foot shoreland setback variance from a tributary and a wetland alteration permit to construct a driveway. The subject property is currently vacant, but will be developed for a single-family home in the future. The applicant is requesting the proposed variance and driveway alignment in order to avoid additional wetland impacts. 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 Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20481, Placement, design and height of structures Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 3 of 16 Figure 1. Existing Access 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. Figure 2. Wetland Impacts Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 4of16 The applicant is also requesting a variance from the required 100-foot minimum setback from the tributary stream that flows from the south through the property to Lake Riley. This alignment would avoid wetland impacts to Wetland Basin 3 (See Figure 3 below). 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. Figure 3. Wetland Boundaries City Code requires driveways serving unsewered lots to be setback 100 feet from the ordinary high water level of tributary streams. Section 20A84 (b) of City Code states: "Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable andfeasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. " Given the location of the tributary stream, and the dimensions of the lot, providing access would be extremely difficulty without encroaching into the required setback. The proposed project encroaches 70 feet into the required 100-foot tributary stream setback for unsewered lots. 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 Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 5 of 16 (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 not submitted any plans for a residence or potential future location of the structure. Any future structures and plans for such must meet ordinance setback requirements. There appears to be adequate buildable area on the site that will allow the property owner to build a single-family home. 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 Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 6 of 16 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 & Elavi'ian 1.4n_Topo Lida (white) tLninenn 10 R Welland Selhadc Flom Ropaeed piveeray 8j0 Approximate OHWI Top of Bank Proposed DnVeWay a6inun r 30 Ft. (9�^) (Variance Request 70' encroachment into 100' setback) Delineated Wetland Bitu day (red) ` wa 2ss7 sF 121n CLhW Y • ��. � - %•,�- w-� �6z5s sF Proposed Wetland! Impac 957 SF (yelp hatch) Roposed Corrorr (black) a Bewaim (yellwabtxq Chanhoa6ee, Ce COU*.l6na•afe Ad•'. 1612.N " GM'V�Y^w^.mn 0 s 10 10 7 �r.•.�.. o.�', 0 v i.OI �r1VCW 0.�•YA••�i '� Figure 5. Proposed driveway alignment and resulting wetland impacts. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 7of16 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 minimise 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 minimise 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. City code requires that a driveway be a minimum width of 10 feet. The proposed alternative shows a width of 12 feet. Therefore, impacts could reasonably be reduced. Additionally, the proposed alternative shows the driveway intersecting the public road at an oblique angle thereby Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 8 of 16 requiring that the wetland be transected at the same angle. This alignment creates a longer crossing of the wetland and results in additional impacts that could be avoided. This alignment also deviates from the requirements of Section 20-1122 of city code which states that "Within right-of-way driveways should access city streets at 90 degrees." These minimizations should be reviewed and discussed within the Interagency Water Resource Application. SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST In order to achieve the proposed alignment and prevent impacts to Wetland Basin 3, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 100-foot shoreland setback requirement from the tributary stream that flows through the property to Riley Lake. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-481 (a), structures shall be setback from the ordinary high water level of tributary streams a minimum of 100 feet. As part of the proposed driveway alignment, the applicant is requesting an encroachment of 70 feet into the required 100-foot setback to allow for the proposed alignment and avoid further wetland impacts (See Figure 6 below). Proposed wetland mpaa 957 SF (yellow hatch) Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 9of16 Variances Granted within 500 Feet of the Property The Riley Lake Meadows development does not have a very extensive history of receiving variances. Staff reviewed city records to determine if any variances were granted within 500 feet of the subject property and found one approved variance at 240 Eastwood Court. This property was granted an 18.5-foot variance from the 30-foot bluff protection setback to construct a deck. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT With only the driveway construction proposed for the property, there should likely be little to no increase in surface water runoff rates or volumes. It must be noted, however, that the prevention of pollution of surface waters is only one of the reasons for the enactment of shoreland management rules. Minnesota Rules Chapter 6120.3300, Subpart 1. defines the purpose as: "to manage the effects of shoreland and water surface crowding, to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters of the state, to provide ample space on lots for sewage treatment systems, to minimize flood damages, to maintain property values, to maintain historic values of significant historic sites, and to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands and adjacent water areas, shoreland controls must regulate lot sizes, placement of structures, and alterations of shoreland areas." In this case, however, the applicant has clearly demonstrated a sensitivity in their placement and design of the driveway to the unique nature of the property and has made an effort to reduce the impact on surface water resources. 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 Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a 10-foot wide driveway to access the property is a normal use of a property in a residential district, which is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District. Providing adequate driveway access is a standard accessory use for the property. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 10 of 16 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The location of the tributary stream, as well as the location of the three identified wetland basins on the lot, creates practical difficulties in providing access to the lot. In order to avoid wetland impacts to an additional wetland basin on site, and provide reasonable access to the lot and future residence, a shoreland setback variance from the tributary is necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home on a lot of record in a residential zoning district and is trying to provide adequate access. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of both the tributary stream and wetland basins creates a unique circumstance in constructing an adequate driveway to the lot. None of the water resources were created by, nor was their location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (similar home sizes). Finding: The homes located on either side of the home are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, a rural residential district. £ Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 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, Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 1 I of 16 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 12 of 16 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. 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: Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 13 of 16 (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 minimise 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 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 14 of 16 (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. 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 15of16 Z Iu 1' I 1U I,�. 1 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. Although impacts could be further reduced, the applicant has made significant efforts in reducing and avoiding impacts to wetlands on the property. The applicant is also requesting a variance to encroach 70 feet into the minimum setback requirement of 100 feet from the tributary stream that runs through the property. The proposed project is not allowed per City Code and requires a variance from the City; however, the applicant's request to construct a driveway in order to access the property is a reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting the proposed variance in order to avoid additional wetland impacts. It is unlikely that there will be any additional drainage runoff or pollution due to the approval of the proposed driveway; however, there are multiple other reasons for the enactment of the shoreland management rules. In this case, however, the applicant has chosen the proposed driveway alignment in an effort to preserve and avoid impacts to the natural resources on the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation; and that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a variance to encroach 70 feet into the required 100-foot shoreland setback from a tributary stream, 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 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 16 of 16 4. 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. 5. An erosion prevention and sediment control plan consistent with Section 19-154 of city code must be included. 6. The plan must indicate how temporary impacts to the wetland and the buffer area will be permanently stabilized. 7. Culvert shall be aligned with the flow line of the wetland being crossed. Elevations at both culvert openings shall be indicated on the plan. 8. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Shoreland Setback Variance 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. I1111PI,C�Iui�I�Y K' 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation for Wetland Alteration Permit 2. Findings of Fact and Decision for Variance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application. 5. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. g:\plan\2016 planning catts12016-04 9641 meadowlark lane variance & wap\staff repon.doc 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 Mark Randall Steve Burke Dan Hanson Wayne Beuban 8735 Flamingo Drive 6460 Yosemite 9591 Meadowlark Lane 1450 West Farm Road 361 Trappers Pass PUBLIC HEARING: 9641 MEADOWLARK LANE WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND VARIANCE. PLANNING CASE 2016-04: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND SETBACK AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR). APPLICANVOWNER: 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 SCANNED 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. 2 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: Tbat'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 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. 0 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. 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. Yusu£ 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. 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 fff 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 A 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 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. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. Shoreland Setback Variance 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission — February 16, 2016 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. Yusu£ 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 25a' 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 8"' 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 I". 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 1'. 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 19a'. 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 P 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 15 PROPOSED MOTION: "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 this 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 in 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." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of a driveway in order to access the property, as well as a variance to allow them to encroach on the required setback from the tributary stream on the property to achieve a driveway alignment that would avoid fin they wetland impacts. 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- MAHING: Variance — The city's discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. SCANNED Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 16 Wetland Alteration Permit — The city's discretion in approving or denying a Wetland Alteration Permit 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. 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. The applicant is also requesting a 70-foot shoreland setback variance from a tributary and a wetland alteration permit to construct a driveway. The subject property is currently vacant, but will be developed for a single-family home in the future. The applicant is requesting the proposed variance and driveway alignment in order to avoid additional wetland impacts. 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 Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20-481, Placement, design and height of structures Chapter 20, Article 11, Division 3. Variances 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 16 Figure 1. Existing Access 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. Figure 2. Wetland Impacts Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 4 of 16 The applicant is also requesting a variance from the required 100-foot minimum setback from the tributary stream that flows from the south through the property to Lake Riley. This alignment would avoid wetland impacts to Wetland Basin 3 (See Figure 3 below). 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. Figure 3. Weiland Boundaries City Code requires driveways serving unsewered lots to be setback 100 feet from the ordinary high water level of tributary streams. Section 20-484 (b) of City Code states: "Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable andfeasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. " Given the location of the tributary stream, and the dimensions of the lot, providing access would be extremely difficulty without encroaching into the required setback. The proposed project encroaches 70 feet into the required 100-foot tributary stream setback for unsewered lots. 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 Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 5 of 16 (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 not submitted any plans for a residence or potential future location of the structure. Any future structures and plans for such must meet ordinance setback requirements. There appears to be adequate buildable area on the site that will allow the property owner to build a single-family home. Figure 4. Proposed driveway alignment 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 Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 6 of 16 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 rums 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. 5dlig Contour t7evakon W Topo Lidar (white) kkrrnun 10 R WeaaM Selbadc From Ropowd Uirtway ejO prommate OHW/ op of Bank • Irirrun 30 Ft Roposed Driveway (1211 wide) (Variance Request 70') encroachment into 100' setback) Deireyed Watlard Boor dary Iced) ` W3 2567 SF 12In Glved y . Proposed Wetland Impact - l 957 SF IY�low hatch) ,.- (black) (yellatirolack) aurneo en. C. ea.+r. tr.r.oa Jacobson niryonmental PI LC 0 5 10 2D Fq= t ++ s• �rLp.'.•eOwm µ2'� '.R Fat 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 7 of 16 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. City code requires that a driveway be a minimum width of 10 feet. The proposed alternative shows a width of 12 feet. Therefore, impacts could reasonably be reduced. Additionally, the proposed alternative shows the driveway intersecting the public road at an oblique angle thereby Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 8 of 16 requiring that the wetland be transected at the same angle. This alignment creates a longer crossing of the wetland and results in additional impacts that could be avoided. This alignment also deviates from the requirements of Section 20-1122 of city code which states that "Within right-of-way driveways should access city streets at 90 degrees." These minimizations should be reviewed and discussed within the Interagency Water Resource Application. SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST In order to achieve the proposed alignment and prevent impacts to Wetland Basin 3, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 100-foot shoreland setback requirement from the tributary stream that flows through the property to Riley Lake. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-481 (a), structures shall be setback from the ordinary high water level of tributary streams a minimum of 100 feet. As part of the proposed driveway alignment, the applicant is requesting an encroachment of 70 feet into the required 100-foot setback to allow for the proposed alignment and avoid further wetland impacts (See Figure 6 below). Figure 6. Variance Request Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 9 of 16 Variances Granted within 500 Feet of the Property The Riley Lake Meadows development does not have a very extensive history of receiving variances. Staff reviewed city records to determine if any variances were granted within 500 feet of the subject property and found one approved variance at 240 Eastwood Court. This property was granted an 18.5-foot variance from the 30-foot bluff protection setback to construct a deck. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT With only the driveway construction proposed for the property, there should likely be little to no increase in surface water runoff rates or volumes. It must be noted, however, that the prevention of pollution of surface waters is only one of the reasons for the enactment of shoreland management rules. Minnesota Rules Chapter 6120.3300, Subpart 1. defines the purpose as: "to manage the effects of shoreland and water surface crowding, to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters of the state, to provide ample space on lots for sewage treatment systems, to minimize flood damages, to maintain property values, to maintain historic values of significant historic sites, and to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands and adjacent water areas, shoreland controls must regulate lot sizes, placement of structures, and alterations of shoreland areas." In this case, however, the applicant has clearly demonstrated a sensitivity in their placement and design of the driveway to the unique nature of the property and has made an effort to reduce the impact on surface water resources. 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 Variance Findines — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a 10-foot wide driveway to access the property is a normal use of a property in a residential district, which is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District. Providing adequate driveway access is a standard accessory use for the property. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 10 of 16 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The location of the tributary stream, as well as the location of the three identified wetland basins on the lot, creates practical difficulties in providing access to the lot. hi order to avoid wetland impacts to an additional wetland basin on site, and provide reasonable access to the lot and future residence, a shoreland setback variance from the tributary is necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home on a lot of record in a residential zoning district and is trying to provide adequate access. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of both the tributary stream and wetland basins creates a unique circumstance in constructing an adequate driveway to the lot. None of the water resources were created by, nor was their location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (similar home sizes). Finding: The homes located on either side of the home are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, a rural residential district. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 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, Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 11 of 16 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 12 of 16 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. Finding: The proposed wetland impacts have been minimised 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: Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 13 of 16 (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 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 14 of 16 (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. 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 41392. 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 15of16 1 : 1 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. Although impacts could be further reduced, the applicant has made significant efforts in reducing and avoiding impacts to wetlands on the property. The applicant is also requesting a variance to encroach 70 feet into the minimum setback requirement of 100 feet from the tributary stream that runs through the property. The proposed project is not allowed per City Code and requires a variance from the City; however, the applicant's request to construct a driveway in order to access the property is a reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting the proposed variance in order to avoid additional wetland impacts. It is unlikely that there will be any additional drainage runoff or pollution due to the approval of the proposed driveway; however, there are multiple other reasons for the enactment of the shoreland management rules. In this case, however, the applicant has chosen the proposed driveway alignment in an effort to preserve and avoid impacts to the natural resources on the pr'operty. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation; and that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a variance to encroach 70 feet into the required 100-foot shoreland setback from a tributary stream, 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 16, 2016 Page 16 of 16 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. 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. Shoreland Setback Variance 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation for Wetland Alteration Permit. 2. Findings of Fact and Decision for Variance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application. 5. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 6. Letter From Applicant g1plan12016 planning cases\2016-04 9641 meadowlark lane variance & waplsUff repon.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VARIANCE IN RE: Application of Gayle M. & Richard P. Vogel for a 70-foot shoreland setback variance from a tributary to construct a driveway on property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) — Planning Case 2016- 04. On February 16, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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. 4. Variance Findings —Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a 10-foot wide driveway to access the property is a normal use of a property in a residential district, which is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District. Providing adequate driveway access is a standard accessory use for the property. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The location of the tributary stream, as well as the location of the three identified wetland basins on the lot, creates practical difficulties in providing access to the lot. hi order to avoid wetland impacts to an additional wetland basin on site, and provide reasonable access to the lot and future residence, a shoreland setback variance from the tributary is necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home on a lot of record in a residential zoning district and is trying to provide adequate access. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of both the tributary stream and wetland basins creates a unique circumstance in constructing an adequate driveway to the lot. None of the water resources were created by, nor was their location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (similar home sizes). Finding: The homes located on either side of the home are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, a rural residential district. f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2016-04, dated February 16, 2016, prepared by Krista Spreiter, et al, is incorporated herein. 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 in plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a driveway, subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16a' day of February, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN W Chairman is 1 Ar Property Boundary (Orange) i y P Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Jacobson ' onmental. PLLC. Pharw: (81Y}8028818 —__— E-mail: jecobew�anMgman.mm 0 25 50 100 Figure 8 1MasIaM�RIae CMnlassen 14]015 Fee} PmnneM flri�.ewav Mox wmc._ ,....__., ?^apa No 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 Chy/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 US. 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/does!regulatory/`RegulatoryDocs/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 priorto 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: 2015-275 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. Aquatic q Type of Impact Duration of Existing Plant County, Major Aquatic Resource q (fill, excavate, Impact Overall Size of Watershed #, ID (as noted on Resource T Type drain, or Permanent (P) Size of Impact' Aquatic Community and Bank overhead view (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) remove or Temporary Resource a Type(s) in Impact Service Area # vegetation) (T) Area of Impact Area W1 W F P 0.022 N/A SM 30,33,9 _ `If 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 i (220)". 2Impacts 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 it (300 square feet). 'This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 9420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter "N/A". 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin P Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 9420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature ❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre -application consultation with the Corps and LGLJ 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 1 possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: _(/ 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. i 1 `The term "JF impact as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identrfy 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 I Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of an specific requirements of the project as the relate to project location, project footprint, water management, P Y P q P J Y P l P 1 P 6 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 1 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 C). 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 altematives 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: 2015-275 Attachment D Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation Complete this part tf 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 replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Wetland Bank Major Bank Credit Type County Service Number of Credits Amount of Watershed N (if applicable) Area p 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 applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the j mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU. I Project-Spedfic Reptacement/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. WCA Action Eligible for Credit' Corps Mitigation Compensation Acres Technique Credit % Requested Credits Anticipated County Major Watershed N Bank Service Area q I Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526. Refer to the technique listed in St. Poul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 3If 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 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 Figurell 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 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 R pre ntative: avid Vogel Title: Landowner Signature: Date: 1/4/2016 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 11 s Property boundary Proposed Driveway (15 ft w de) (green) �j� Delineated Wetland Boundary CO e Proposed Contour & Elevation •. (black) Vm • Wetland Impact _ I � °. (yellow hatch) Existing Contour & Elevation : Mn_Topo Lidar (white) Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Jacobson Environmental PILLO Phase: (612}W24616 u jecobem,an,�nn,,.mn 0 6 10 20 •$Y;• Figure 6 0 Feet rm w.: pa Ho: Pro osed Driveway Impact Existing Contour & Elevation Mn Topo Lidar (white) Minimum 5 Ft. Wetland Setback From Proposed Driveway 8j0 Proposed Driveway (12 ft wide) (green) Delineated Welland Boundary W-2J67 F (red) • • Property Boundary ppt 6 W-1 16256 8' " •� • a Prcpaead Wetland Impact 957 SF (yellow hatch) r4'8 a �z. Proposed Contour (black) 8 Elevation r (yellow/black) Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Jacobson Environmental PLI C .� Plions: (912}BOb8819 Eanal. pwbwneerv•mm.oan 0 5 10 20 Figure 7 ^""""'"" Q1MW,,,1.tYm c.,w.., iMar1-m1s Feet P osed nrivewav ImDact msss 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 watershed 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 2016 2. Initial Spring Construction April 2016 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 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 — Fizure 7 A minimum width driveway of 12' wide was used in this case. Stepp 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 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government unit MU) Address City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 i PI?nYRfrINF(1BMATrr1N Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application David Vogel 9641 Meadowlark Lane Application Number 10l2=015 2015-08 Attach site locator map. Cype of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No-Uss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan echnical Evaluation Patel Findings and Recome ❑ Approve ❑ Approve with conditions Date ❑ Approved ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISDON 20, 2015 ® Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied BWSRForms 11-25-09 Page 1 of 3 LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): Jacobson Environmental PLI.C. on behalf of David Vogel, has performed a wetland determination and boundary delineation, for the pared located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane, in Chanhassen. This Parcel is located in the NE 'A of Section 25, Tl 16N, R23W and has the following parcel ID: 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 propisty 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 comer and has been identified as a Type 216, wet meadow/shrub swamp, PEM/SSIB wetland. Wetland basin 4 is located on the southwestem 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 am 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 wedand determination and delineation report prepared by Jacobson Environmental PLLC, dated October 2314, 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 (a.shp or For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank AcwuM # Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Withdrawal (sq. R. or nearest 01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement PLm 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 Restrictions 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 B WSR 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 2 of LGU Authorized Simature: Signing and mailing of this completed form 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 request. Name Title Terrance Jeffery, WDC Water Resources Coordinator Si& a Date Phone Number and F mail ✓iiiJ 952.227.I1ti8 "1�`r t-efts ei.chaehassen.ma.os Aadrhonst ]gWvals 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: Check one: M Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send ❑ Appeal of LGU governing body decision. petition and 550� fee (if applicable) to: Send petition and $500 filing fee to: Chanhassen City Council Executive Director do Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resourcss 7700 Market Blvd, PO Box 147 520 Lafayette Road North Chanaassen, MN 55317 St. Paul, MN 55155 4. LIST OF ® 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) Melina Jenny ❑ BWSR Weiland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only): BWSR Forms 11-25-09 DO Fagc 3 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives, ace: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workA Isas/WCA areas.ndf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.uslwetlands/wca/DNR TEP cootacts.Ddf ➢Department of Natural Resources Reeirmal Offi�: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div, Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmord Beach Rd. NE a map Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Grand Rapids, MN see: Div. Ecol. Resources 1200 Wan=Road St. Paul. MN 55106 ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers, see: www.mvD.usare army.miLh=4atorv/default asQ?t)aeeid=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 6.ATTACHMENTS Reg. Euv. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South New Ulm, MN 56073 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 Wedand Delineation Report, dated October 23, 2015. BWSRFo 11-25-09 Page of 3 APPENDIX F Wetland Delineation Report 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 Email: jacobsonenvOmsn.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) 802-6519 Cell As discussed, Jacobson Environmental, PLLC. (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 residential lots, wetlands, woodlands, Lake Riley, and roadways on all sides. This parcel is a combination of a woodland, and t Iree wetlands at 9641 Meadowlark Lane in Chanhassen, Minnesota Figure 5 is a Wetland Delineation Map of the proFlertv. 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 the technical criteria for wetlands, delineate the juriscictional extent of the wetland basins and classify the wetland habitat. woodland Species Noted YWeetMeaclowShallow 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 Slinging Nettle Tall Goldenrod Water Smartweed Common Dandelion Lake Sedge Red Raspberry Lesser Duckweed While Clover Jewetweed Ground Ivy Broadleaf Cattail Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Anaiysis-T & E Surveys 1 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAVI's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation-Envirormental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stockiig-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) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com The growing season for this site is approximately from 4/15 to 10115 where the air temperature averages above 26 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 annual 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 Da,.a 30% less than 2.20 3.09 2A8 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 pencd affected the boundary of any wetlands in this delineation, since the period was normal.. Precipitation data is located in Appendix A. This wetland delineation was performed and reported by Wayne Jacobsor, Minnesota Professional Soil Scientist #30611, Society of Wetland Scientists — Professional Wetland Scientist #1000, University of Minnesota I BWSR Wetland Del-nealor, 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 Manual. Wetland boundaries we-e determined through a routine analysis of the vegetation, soils and hyd•ology which must all show wetland characteristics in order for an area to be delineated as a wetland. Wedands are areas that are saturated or inundated with surface and or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted `or life in hydric sot conditions. Examples of wetlands inc ude seasonally f coded basins, 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 Welland Ratings, Phytoneuron 2014-41 1-42 In the text of this report and on the enclosed data forms, the plant indicator status follows the plant's scientific name unless a status has not been assigned. The hydrophytic plant cnterior, is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species by the 50/20 rule for each stratum (hero, shrub/saplingtreeanc woody vine) were assigned an ooligate (OBL)', facultative wet IFACW), andrer facultative (FAC) wetlano status. t OBL Obligate Wetland, Occurs an estimated 991.a in wetlands. FACW=•Pacuhative Wetland, has an estimated 67wo-99%probability ofoccurence in wellands. FAC—Facultative, is equr.11y likely 10 occur iu wellands and nuu- tvetl:mds. 340,o-6V,probability. FACU=Facultative Upland, occurs in wellands on j occasionally, 1%_23 probability. UPI_=Upland, almost never occurs in wetlands, •,1%probaba iy. NI= No Indicator inmdticienI ittronnation available to determine an indicator stems. Positive ur negative si,;n previoush ind sated a frequency touard higher (..) Or luwer (-) Irequency of occumtwe with an cateearv. Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Fundional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -Environmental Referras 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) 802-5619 Cell Email: jacobsonenvOmsn.com With the 50120 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 vegetative 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 cart. If a soil exhibits the indicators of a hydric soil or is identified as a hydric soil tie hydric soil criterion is met. The break between hydric and non-hydric soils was determined by excavating soil pits along transecis crossing the wetland/upland eco-tone and evaluating the soil colors, texturesand presence or absence of redoximorphic indicators (i.e.. mottles, gley or oxidized rhizospheres) Hydrtc Soil Indicators for the Midwest Region were noted as presented in the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States version 7.0 (USDA NRCS 2010) if present at each sample point. Also, upper soil profiles were compared to the mapped or inclusionary soil serves found in the sample area for soil identification purposes. Cautions used in applying the Field Indicators of Hvdric Soils There are hydric soils with morphologies that are difficult to interpret. These include sails with black, grad, or red parent material, soils with high PK 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 hydric 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 hycrc. 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 :ndtcalors. Redoximorphic lectures are most likely to occur in soils that cycle between anaerobic (reduced) and aerobic (oxidized) conditions. Morphological features of hydric soils indicate that saturation and anaerobic conditions have existed under either contemporary or former hydrologic regimes. Where soil morphology seems inconsistent Kith the landscape, vegetation, or observable hydrology, it may be necessary to obtain the assistance of an experienced soil or wetland scientist to determine 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 vretter scils will be identified by the indicators 5. Many of the hydric soils are Mollisols which are classic prob am hydric soils in many cases Wetland Classification Wetland classifications discussed in the :ext are set forth in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79i31, Cowardin at al. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1971.) Additionally, plant community types as named by Eggers and Reed (1998) are given Topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory maps, the Web Soil 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 & Delineation -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 612 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenvomsn.com The Routine On -site Determination Method was used on this site in th s method, the following Procedures were used - The vegetative communcy was sampled in all present strata to determine whether 50% of the dominant plant species were hydrophylic using the 50120 method 2) Soil pits were dug using a dutch auger to depths of 18"40", noting soil 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 orance numbered pin flags. 4-foot wood lath marked with orange 'wetland boundary" gagging tape or ffacging 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 transert crosses each delineated wetland edge. These transects consist of an upland sample point. and a wetland sample point. Other sample points may be located in areas which have one or more of the wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrologic :haracteristics present, or where questionable conditions exist Sample points are marked with orange pin 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 shallow marsh comprised of 3% broadleaf cattail, 50% 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 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 disappeared in the upland. Basin 3 Basin 3 is a PEM/SS1B ditched Type 2/6 wet meadow/shrub swarrp comprised of 60% sandbar willo-Av 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 satwated Hamel soil n the wetland. Soil saturation was present in the wetland, and hydrology disappeared in the upland. Basin 4 Basin 4 is a PEMF Type 4 deep marsh comprised of 5% swamp smartweed 20% reec canarygrass, 10% 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 canaryg-ass with a topographic break. The soils changed from dry Hamel soil to saturated Hamel soil in the wetlanc. Soil saturation was present in the wetland, and hydrology disappeared in the upland. Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys 4 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Sal Analysis & Delineation -Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacabsonenvironmental.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) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenviddmsn.com The National Welland Inventory Map (NWI) (Figure 2) identifies Basir 4 on the subject site. According to the DNR Public Waters Map (PWI) (Figure 4) of Caner County there are no DNR Pub is Waters on the property. According to the Web Soil Survey (Figure 3) the following hydric snits 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 o` Wetland Type and Boundary form ir, Appendix D along with a USCOE wetland delineation concurrence request. Conclusion This wetland delineation meets the standards and criteria described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Weiland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supolement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Midwest Region. This was a Routine Or Site Determination anc the results re'lect the conditions present at the time of the delineation. If any wetland Impacts are planned for this project, permits would be necessary from the 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. V aJacobs 4'� Professional Soil Scientist #30611 Professional Welland 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-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Punctionai Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase i Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans FIGURES NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Figure 1 Site Location Map Yb A ._ a YYf —arr TwIm ove IO wls I I i F i f 'I r�� lYl r�• 2 1 {{{[f l JJ Srnl Map--Canrer County. Minnesota Fig ne. 3 orals Map Map Unit Legend Carver County, Minnesota iMN018) ._ _P Unit Sy mbo. Ma l__ —_ .1 Map UnN Name ----._____. Acrea PWC" of AN _. HM ._�.—._—._�..��_.. Ilam¢I barn. 010 2 percent ___.._...—_._ 40 slopes 52 1%. K82 LeSle'-IOlkenny bans. 2 to 6 C.2 2 7% paCenl slopes. eroded KC2 Lester -Kilkenny learns.6 to 12 0.3 -11% PwWt abPas. eroded KF2 Lester Alkenny lours. 18 to 25 00 121% Meant 5101)es. eroded MK Mos+ege and Houghton 301S. 0 0,2 24`.b 10 1 percent Slofes NO3 Lester -Kilkenny clay loan¢. 12 15 19 3is 101 a PMcem $10118s. severely Moved vv Water 06 77^.g Totals for Area of Interest 7.8 100 0% •"a" Natuwl Resources _— —..— _ _ Wee SW Survey Conwrva5on Service National Cwoeralne Sal Survey 015 0agc 3 pl 3 Figure 4 DNR Public Waters Inventory [ltap TN Jacobson Environmental, PLLC Approximate Scale 1" = 5,280' Project No. 2015-234 OWN Figure 6 Site Map 1 1,._4+nu�uJr,; �>•:n'arntw:vnt•:.'w.' ••,F••,,yHvawvpum �usalaYCMJc ::c.+.:<. nr aYY:w Wvi%%e::.,F.:. r>:r`1:In:.Ya'"w O+.MVY[cJ yn.tY mYiG:�.gtM:a::_�;a �:.RYYS IAC..OY•MaalIXeyxC. :: Yt rtw.Iw.ri�.. vY:a•.,R_`p.. i'-�V✓: l%:ISY C.eYUI W"�YL�LYYpai�VAM�.a diCb K�%4tli'.:.tn::tl fn:L� r l:...ay :'.S:uY�n naro.ManL W:4 cr Jq Jswyp..rp[y nayltit urJnc.y aa/c.a :eta[ a N.t v11�Y�lMy .Y P rn an.nl3:i:.ie W tu,!'J Ur skV% wR::na: � <WS4 P.a 64Ya: W �aa` N:!".tyL1!], rt:Sa ✓e [ YI'Vs RfM, N In Y.yYr:[ R.I:VN> I[.MN Thurxtiwy. October 22. 2015 CarverCuunty. MN Figure 7 LIDAR Topo Map Tne Ate d Mintppta «q ple NLMpSde [kpaRmem d Nmrty RPprCr. ma.es no..... n W.11 « nananik5 bwessed w ImpIM, MNH Rfpeteb tlk: use pl maps w gepgre�Tic Ewa µvNikH Mrtxi1H reparOcs a tts bract «me ��Hanr d is umsminbn. nem k �ro 9ueranbe p ieµlylogratR btHC' IHR df b tIM Mum MfOri. r:oOGllty, «rUedlity W ti�H Eiu br Ay Wrypc. TM uxr azapa Nr rl!k ^'as rs.' ':Ix wu ✓ p,raeod ayiwap3 rro resp«anally fw bw w mm�p! �r6µ1C1 ss! rpk m anc user Taea[� IA IM (!yl+ {t ra�f eK� JJp 1: V'.wlel plp:-0eS IWIT MM w(A0.(aj q' COptTgll' EarenF ewe vws UW Euarq me mmplatem d Has INaHUQ. Hw*cac tere b CHtn n urn a�Yp em bt rce1 b rely car G«sbe iM«matbn, carps w ama2- nxy 1/you slwW dvaaer m men:pM, r2 enrupepe Y«r 1p Ica us et Ivor. aY Calby IHe �N0. l�tl®616-6N�6J6i pW cnMl et adp.an'ptµte.rm.us. Scale -1 A /b2 Hwr: Elrutbn aaeges w Cwewas r.Pe 9m." lrom VMN dUv W. SAa1,1N 2m7. M; 2. Sm 10i M2DI5 APPENDIX A Precipitation Data Precipitation Documentation Workshect I (sing Gridded Database Page'. or2 Minnesota Climatology Working Group '2' State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota no current conditions I journal I past data I summaries I agriculture I Wher sites I contact us I search lu 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 first prior month: second prior third prior (values are in inches) September month north August July 2015 2015 2015 estimated precipitation total for this location: _ missing missing 7.64 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 2.01 3.12 I 2.76 there is a 300A chance this location will have more than:' 3.57 4.94 5.05 type of month: dry normal wet missing missing wet_ monthly score missing missing 1 ' 3 = 3 multi -month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normaD 15 tole (wet) missing Score using 1981-2010 normal period , t NuV54G-}a first prior month second prior third prior (values are in inches) September month month August July 2015 2015 —`— estimated precipitation total for this location: _201_5 _ there Is a 30% chance this location will have less than: - 2.20 309 2.48 there Is a 30% chance this location will have more than: ' 4.15 5.33 4.e6 type of month: dry normal wet 1 .&a wet monthly score 3 x 2^ http: ,climate.umn.edu.'gridded_data/ptvcip!%%etlandiworksheet.asp'passXutm83-4i801 I ... 10 22,201 i High Dt Nsity radius retrieval 07 1210 Pace 1 Of' I Minnesota Climatology Working Group ;;b Suto Clfrlatoloay Office - DNR Division of Ecotaglcal and Water Resourus UnNorcny or MrtWr,ta home I ounent cDfttions FO;I el I past data I su,maries f agriculture I other sips l contact us I search l KI Nearest Station Precipitation Data Retrieval Minnesota's precipitation data archive is searched for data closest to a selected target location for each monin. 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 slatons are no longer retrieved from this application. To obtain those data, see our newest data retrieval burl (May 204) National Weather Service precipitation data continue to be available from this application. Oblainbig data for legal purposes Guile for column headers m the data table target location: Carver. Lake minnewashta-Shakopee 116N 23W S25 (latitude: 44 82634 lorgitude. 93.53116) dicklosekdlargellocabon . yearn 2015 v.'10 �20�15 v. L—. 720 -- number of missing days allowed per month: is retrieve morghly data i I retrieve daily data results: Target: T116 R23 S25 main year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn Jan 201S 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG Feb 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG Ka 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG Apr 201S 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG -May 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG Jun 201S 10 116N 23w 23 BYRG Jul 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG Aug 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG Sep 201S 10 116N 23W 15 Nws Oct 2015 in Nov 2015 Is Dec 201S in 00000000 pre (inches) cis .24 1 mi. .33 1 mi. .8S 1 mi. 2.14 1 mi. 4.34 1 mi. 3.SO 1 mi. 7.83 1 -ri . 2.82 1 mi. CHAN_61105 3.19 2 mi. 999 mi. 999 mi. 999 ni. Vaere-taL-.%easywins atl Caw.«+:'bats .1-1neis n erhs:'a:eaYa:eYo 4w Wenwe mw Seuen•rasa g.xn]a ve s_Cla^'rAS Ura rums•!pet• Senrw4ap'aew sarn ♦:maa Ace n,.,% S.:., to-•.::� h: VevpY`m wYWM!M Y.l$C xa pa)a cue tan«:yaa: rs itrvT5:b h Eqp p'N" km 0 ranee yptltltl tba.i:i State Climatology office - MnDNR - Ecological and Water Resources http:i/climate.Omn.edWtllDradius/raditis_nctc.asp IOP-2P 015 APPENDIX B Sample Data Sheets p WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Regior. F rgeC'Sae 1 4-( A:_ , r +—s�i4� GtyCounty _�asalfiraftA SamolingDatei IDIGI/S IrveA3filstanVor(s): �, ,� y Stale r MA/ Sampling Point I -[�P Irvestorm (ilis J�cr r >ection, Township. Range:-I� i! y r Lantlfprm (hillslope. terrace, etc.;: ;! r/ Local relief concave, convex. none)~—�� ( lAwin. S ope (90): _� Lat. Long: Dat.lm. SNI k1ap unit Name f•�`-1 NWI Classiicat.on. A-e climatiohydrologlc condition, of the site typical for this time of me year? _ V I If no. explain in remarks) ke vegetation _�, soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are vegetation sdil -AL Are ••nic mal circumstances' _� . or hydrology _r naturally problematic? present? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed. ex p:ain any answers in remarks j Hydrophytic vegetaton present? a sod present? Weil _ Y Is the sampled area within a "Ilan Weiland hydrology present? f yes, optional wetland site ID R,;marks. (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report ) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of nlante Tree Stratum r ' Absolute Dominan Irdicator (Plot size: Dominance Test Worksheet _.3% Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Spades f�_ that are OBL, FACW, or PAC. 47(A) +'��"+ ram' _�� �_ �,�t�y! 7 oml Number of Dominant Spec as Au[>s all S'rata_-!;r Percent of Dom ant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (,i - rAiB) �_=Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size' 1Sry�( ) prevalence Index Worksheet ' Total % Cover of OBL apEClBa r x 1 = g FACW speces C x 2= 0 FAC species C x 3= 0 FACU species C x 4 = 0 UPL species C x 5- 0 3 4 5 0 =Total Cover Herb stratum (Plot size: S'rrral I Coh,mn;otals C •A, 0 'R) 4 (✓,• �_ Fwe Prevalence Index = 61A = _�_ _ /•t -b-_t � FAa 3 _ _Y, FeW Hyd•ophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid test fcr hydrephyti: vegetation, JS. Uominance!est s>5c% _24s, T Jo 2 Faf, -- ' Alf. Igri/s�-y-: —S _-QI-- .��Cdl O �•� * (e s aS F4e-_ _ Prevalerce mdex is s3.0' _JQ_ _hi • /l�..a_NMIn ��y (.aeCaq ll � Mor h ica ada lions' p og pta (Provide g ^%1_ st•pponing •dale in Remarks or cn a r separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetat cr.' Cover (explain) �D�J=Total ':Vootly vineum strat(Poot size. i ) 'IrrJ catws cf Syr.; WO and Wand hrtl;olog: most by preurx, W Ins d stunted of gnhiernal c y ropi 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Remarks (Include photo numbers here or or a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to tAa depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) P Depth Max RRRnx Features ,1nches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc^ Texture Remarks ' I Pe. C = Concentration; D = Depletion, RM Hydric Soil Indictors: _Hi0c p!pe _Slack Histicdon (A2) Black Hislic Sulfide _Stratified. Layers —Stratified Mu Layers (ASj 2 cm tied B lowAt —Thick a Below Dark Surface (At t) _Think Dark Surface al (SI Sandy Mucky Mineral eat) 5 cm Mucky Peat or peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): = Reduced Matrix, inIS = Massed Sand Gams ••Localior PL = Pore Lining.. F3 = 1.latrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Sandy Gleyec Manx (54; _ Coast Prairie Redox (Al6t iLRR K. L, R) _Sandy dReoox Matt (S5) —Dark Surface (S7) :LRR K, L) _ Stripped Matrix finer 5 cm Mucky Peat cr Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral F2) '_Iron -Manganese Masses IF12) (LRR K, L, R; Loamy Grayed Matrix IF21 _Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) _X Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Dtner (explain in remarks; RedDx Dark Surface (F6) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) •lidiofficrs of h r h tic vegetation and weitano _ Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be aresenl unless cisturted or p oblematic Type, Depth (motes) Hydric Hydric soil presen emarks HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pirnew Indicalore (minimum of one •s rei check Surface Water (All all ma• aoelyt Se ondary Ind,cp r —�S4 _LmmirYum o'twsi,-e urea _Aquatic High Wale( (A2) Fauna (B13) Surface Sc tCracks (B81 _True Saturation 3) Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Drainage F aeerns (810) 4JalerMerks(Btj ate(Marks ( Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dr -Ware( (C2j a Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots _Crayfish fish Burrows Burrows (C8i 6j —Sediment Drift DeDosts(B3) Saturation /isible or Aerial Ima dr 9- v •O9) _Presence Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presencec! Reduced Iron tC4) __ Stunted a Stressed Plants :DI) ''ron Deposits (85) Recent iroi Reduction In Tiled Scils _ Geomoro :;Position (D"<) inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) (CB) Thin Muds Surface (C7) FAC-Neutr :I Test (DS) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) —Gauge or Well Data (D9) N/ater-Staired Leaves (B% _ Ot•ier (Explain in Remarks) l_ _...inns; Su face water present? Yes No Water table presents Yes _) Depth (inches). ` Wells id No Saturation present? Yes No X_ Depth lurches) hydro-ogy :includes capillaryfringe) Depth (inches): �— �- - ress it? P _.hL Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial phc(bs, previous inspec6cns ), if avadatle. era s US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Pro(ect.Bde WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM • Midwest Region ef6¢1 �; (Count _ +-- C'h' Y� Ga+v/r.r�� Samplrtg Cate Jo���Js AcphcantiOvener �a�,/ Stale Mlf./ Sari Pon; Irvesurm hills Section, Tovmstip, Range �•_ Leodfo% (hillsbpe, terrace, etc. � _ ��=y���R �i e.�.. tote: relief (concave, convex, nons) Slope (%): Lat � ---�_ Long: Datum Sail Map Unit Name_ /met VVVI Gassification: A-e dimatidhydrologic condltons of the site typical br this time of the yea(( _ /L of no. explain in remarks) A�e vegetation soil , or hydrology ei_ _� Y ogy significantly disturbed% -tea_ Are "nt••mal circumstances" AY vegetation sail , or h drol esent'7� �L p(_ Y ogy_� naturally pr SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, expain any answers in remarks) droPhytic vegetation present? dric soil present?Is LrWHY the sampled area within a wetil elland hydrology present? ? Y_ f yes, optional *attend she ID. emarks: (Explain alternative prccedures here or in a separate report ) _EGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants Absolute Dominan Ird.-cato- Tree Stratum (Plot size: - s,, I % Cover I Species Staus t 2 3 a 5 0 =Total Cover 3aotinGIShrubstratil (Plotsize. ISeyh( t a 5 o =Total Cover H?ro stratum (Plot size. 3xr'e/ •cam► �r/3sra /aita'r_ r _ It'll, ° PJi 6 ti f —2•0 —)If A* S k 5 16 ,Vocdv vine stratum 1 photo _or = Total Cover (Plot size or on a 0 =7otal Cover Number of Domhant Species char are OBL. FACW, or=AC: _(A) Tmal Number of Dominant Spec as Across all Strata-_ . (a) Percent of Domi Species that are 06L. FACW, or FAC: hi iAIS) Total % .over o!. OBL species C x 1 = 0 FACW species Ox 2 = 0 FAC species Ox 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column totals 0 IA) 0 :B) Preva-ence Index = BrA = — Rapid test for by=pli tit vegetation 4 Dominarce real is >50% _Prevalencendex is s3.0' Morphogice adaptabons'(pro•Jide supporting cata is Remarks or on a _separate all Problematic iydropnyuc vegetation - (explain) •Inexetera of I"k; adi anc wnaxl rye,;: r•;s: x press.% u^ ess i:swreed x prptxe.:.et p Vegetal present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Profile Dep (rnchi 'Tyoe:t Hydrl P.Bstric, TyPe Depth (i emaik L HYDRI Vletlana Fr.lary Surf Higr Sat. we Sed Drift A;ga Von inur. Spas Vvat+ Field OF S ace V/eler !a_._r.___....�_ „o �eptn lnohes7: ( hydrology Saturmion present? yes �_ No ` 7ep7h p.iches): to present? Y_ {i•+cWdes capillary fringe;-- Describe recorded data (stream gauge. monitoring urea: aerial piwtos, previous AllpeNions), if avail3ble. emerks' US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Pro;ectrSRe sb�( �s / y City/County /Count A hcantl n Y Y iiltw.lpa rf�: _Sampii g Date. PP Ov:ner /is. �•/ / State Investigator(s). �cy —!NA/ Sampling Point: 3—u� 3eclior, Township Range Lan3" • 16r Ti 4 Af 9t A,2 dform (hillslope, terrace, etc.). (a: (to f..a.. Loca'rehef (cor cave. convex, none), Slope (%): Let: Long: Gnny�ro Sod Map Unit Name Datum: -�- f JWI Classification: Are diroati6hydrologic conditions of the site :yptcai for this time Of the year? Y- ;If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil gy signifi:anliyoisturbed^ �,. _� . or nyprolo Are 'rOmta- circumstances' Are vegetation _ j L6 soil , or hydrology naturally protkmaticp presestances' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If reacted. explain any answers Ir remarks.) il Myorophytic vegetation present? Nycric soil present? — ,y Is the sampled area within a wetlan.�_ Wet -and hydro.ogy present? —� f yes. opticnal aetlarw site ID: (Explain alternative procedures here or ir• a separate report.) -- Use scientific names of ��� � ) Absolute Domman Inoicatcr 1 � Tree Stratum (Plot size: -— °r; Cover t Species Staus 2 3 d 5 -- 0 = 7otal Cover SaolinciShruh stralun (Plotsize: fs•�� 1 1 2 3 ! 0 -Total Cover verb stralun (Plot sae: Sxsy/ I C,' 5 - 3 - d . 1 it Noodv vine stratum (Plot size: Total Cover 0 = Total Cover Remarks (Include photo numbers here or or a separate sheett Number df Dominart Species that are OBL. FACW. or FAC (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across aStrata (81 percent of Dominant Species that are 08L. FACW, or FAC: TOW % Cover cC OBL species 0 x t = FACW species 0 x 2 =j FAC species x 3 = FACLi species 0 x a = p UPL species 0 % 5 = 0 COIL mn Iota C �A) 0 (8i Prevalerce Index = B/A = _ Rapid test fc r hydrophytic vegetation. Y. Dominance lest s ='fo% _ Prevalence ndex is 53.0• Morphooical adaptation,' (provide supporting data In Remarks or on a separate Sheet) Problematic hydropnytic vegetal cr' _(explain) 'Iw cam: s of nyd+. sou anti werand ny Y•clp)n �'c st R presera. urless ocwtied Crlxwi 'aal: vegetation present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Rcgion SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. V_� Depth Matnx Redox� rya _ ;Inches) Color(moist) % Cow (inc isit °,5 Type' Loc" Textare Rensrks i i 'Tyne. C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrir., MS =Masked bard Grains. ^Locatow PL = Pore Lin ng, Lr = Ili Hytlric Soil Indicators: ix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: His _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (Sat Praline Redox Wits) (LRR K, L, R; Hislic ic Epip)pa don (A2) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Coast Surface (87) (LRR K. L) Blade Hislic Sulfide Sulfide (A4) _ S:rioped Matrix (Sit) _Dark 5 cm Mucky ?ea: or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L- R) _Hydrogen Layers (AS, _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) _—'ron-Manganese Masses (F12j (LRR K. L. R) _Stratified cm Muck WD) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix Very Shallow Da nr Surface CfF12) _2 Dep eled Below Dark Surface _ (F3) (Al 11 Redox Dark Surface (F6) Dine, (expiam it Terns") �Tiick Dark Surface (A72) tAuCky Mineral (Si I _ _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) •Ino:cators of hyd;ophyb0 sege:alion enc wellarO _Sandy _ Redox Depressions ;F8) hydrology must to present, uTess disturbed 0, _ 5 cm.. Mucky Peal or Peat (S3) problematic Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (irches). Hydri0 soil present? IL Remarks'. � uvnonr nry I Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pr:-rary Inimical fminirum of Ong is Eggiii,ed check all that t Se-mrdary 1x.=Trs fminimur pl lrp reQuxed; 6udace Water (At) _AQlat.0 Fauna (813) Surface Soii Cracks (86) High Plate• Table (A2) ` Trull AScalic Plants (S141 _ Drainage Patterns (BiC; Saturation (All) yydrogen Sulfide Odor Ci ( ) _ rate• Table (C2:. DrySist _ Water Marrs OxA2ed Rhaospne:as ol Living Rocls _ Crayfish Burrows ica) Su Sediment Deposes (62) Deposits ;C3) Via ble on Aena :magery (C9� Drift Deposits Dresence of Reduced 001(C4; —Saturedoi x Stressed PbNs+7t; rust _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) Recent I -on Redact on In Tiled Solis —Stunted OeonOrphic Posit on (B2i Iron Deposits (85) _ FAC-NeLtral Test (D5j _(Ce) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) —Gauge or Well Data IDS) _ Waver -Stained Leaves (89) (Explain in Remarks) _Other toldObservations: 'Surface water eresent? Yes No Depth (inches) Wetland water table presea? ves No _Depth ;i>bhes): 24 hydrology aabonpresent? sae No (�+c A _Depth`ixnes): �,�„ present? udes caP:llary Inn et Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring ":.;. aerial pnolos, previous inspections), if ava•lable: Remarks: —_I US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Pegion P-oJect'sae I?, WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region AoplicanNOwner Dili City.Counry: G{.a)� seia•d SamplinO ��g Date J $/ / State: My I SamPlirg Point. Investgalor(sF (- Section Township, Range: �ic.76. Ti16[L Landform (hlllslope, ferrate. etc J—r----- —a�s�attw � local relief (concave, convex. none): S We (%) Lai Long: Dat.tm: Soil Map Unit Na re__t Ft YWI Cla"Ficat on. A e climatiMltytlrobglc conditions of the Site typical for this time of the year? �_ fit no. explain in ren a, rk i) f Q Are vegetation 5011 . or h r0 ^' —�' ,�_ ytl le9Y significantly disturbed? Are vegetation soil , or hydrology -ice-- Are "normal circumstances v —�• -- _(V naturalyproblamxi.? pream[n SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) Hydrophylic vegetation present? Nydric sal present? Is the sampled area within a weten. J� Wetland hyd•ology present? _ )r 1 I yes, optional wetland site 10: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a sepwaie report ) Absolute Dominan Indicator I Dominance Test Worksheet free Stratum a Stratum (Plot size. iLr _ ) % Cover I Spec es Stare Number of Domh ant Species A I y/ that are 08L. FACW, or FACT. fj (A) J =Total Cover $aPlira/Shrub sValun (Plot size: _ ) 3 -- 4 5 '� = Trtai Cover barb stratum (Plot sae'. S ryJ Total Cover Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 42 qX -/ t { �CrL—_ Total Cover numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Total Number of Dem�nant Species AaCss all Strata- Percent of Domirant Species that are OBL. FA 1,W, or FAC: lop (AIS: Prevalence Index Worksheet Total %Cover;=. OBL species 0 x t = 0 FACW soec,es 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x4= 3 UPL species 0 X6. 3 Column totals 0 (A) j ,.B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Rapid test for hydropnytic vegetation Dominance ast is >5o% _ Prevalence idex is A.�- MOrptwglcal adootalions' (prov:Ce supporting cats jr Remarks or on a Separate Sheet) Prob ematic iydrophylicvegetahon' _(explain) 'Indicatas of hvdri: soil anc vietavi nio ology .mzst en pesent, u- ess dsturbed rr aoxertgc vegetation present? Midwest Region SOIL .. p.... W. v.n.. /.�/�/ Wetland Hydrology indicators: Fr.mary ;nd,ators (minimum of one b r9ouired- Surface Water check ali that Se-:iordary 1p9ica:ors Ifljn!mur• Of tr. Q Sul"2c"�, i �H Fauna 13) (B SUAsce Boil Crass (BB) le ( nWater TeS!e AZ g• ( ) Aquatic Plants (31/1 `Drairagr Pat (61C) Satiration(A3) —True _True Hydrogen Sulfide Door(Ci) `_ Dry•Sea!ion Water Tabk(C2; Water Marks (31) _ Oxidized Rh4cspheres o^ Lining Roble Cray9sh Burrows ;CC Sediment Deposits(B2) ;C3) —Seturacn Vis;ole or. Aeo-a Imagery:C3) Drift Deposits (B3) _Presence of Reduced Iro- (CC _Stun:etl >r St-eseed Prods (r1) A yaDep: or Crust (Ba) Recent iron Redvd;on in Tilled SU:a �Geonx):hk Poailloc (D2) Ivor. Deposes ;C6) `Thin �FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inunoalion V4ibb on Aerial Imagery (87) Visible Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Ba) —Gauge or Weal Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) I'leld Observations: Surface water present? Yes NO I_ Depth;in&es): Weiland Water Laois Present? Yes '_ No Deoth(iFcnes): hydrology Salutation present? Yes 'A _ _� No Depih (inches): prevent? (Includes capillary (rirga) _ _ Descr:be recorded data (stream gauge, mon Loring well, aide: photos, previous inspections), ii available: Remarks f.7-F US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Fegicn ProjecUSlle WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region ?641 A.: ApplicanUOwner. F�yy f 1 City/County (,yy,,e,a{ytyd Samplinc) Dale jP141/5 �a0/:L 14,aa_i State. Samplinc Point 4-4. j Investigator(sl 3ectioo, Township Range -�%f T/I a p yS / Landform (talislope. terrace, etc) yLoca�reet (Ccavllsv e, convex one _ Ltaa�w Slope (Yol _�I Lac —'� Long Catum:_ Soil Map Unit Name I AM Classification: Are climakUhydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? (If no, explain in remarks; Are vegetation_, soil _l ,orhydro"y_AL sgnificantlydlslurbed? soil Are "nomral orwmpfel ' Are vegetation _� • _ . or hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? Y SUMMARY OF Fluniur_c p1 11= Ya 1. axplain any answers inremanca.) Hytlropnycic vegetation presenfl Hydric soil present? _ 14 Is the sampled area within a wetlan.__�_ Wetland hydrology present? f yes optional wetland site ID' Remarks. (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report) TAbsolu!e Dominan Indicator -ee stratum (Plot size st- r - ) '4. Cover 1 Speces Slaus Z araeaJ.r�rla -�0s�— --- 2_ y_ F— 3 4 5 ,V - Total Cover SaDanp/Shrub sVm atu(Plot size: 13r�i 1 � 1 .PL y F;AG 2 era ar'�Sz1..F r 4 -115r IV l_= Total Cover Herb stratum (Plot size. Srry� 2FAdw 3 7=4 If Icz4 7- lial 5 'k"li / 3 _ �_ FAQ 6 '=Total Cover Woody wne stratum (Plot size 0 =Total Cover Photo numbers here or on a separate Number of Donine nt Species that are DEL, FAUN. or FAC. _�_ i A) Total Number o' Dominant Species Acrosn all Strata:_+_(B) PerCell of Domina It Species that are OEL, FACIN. w FAC Q (NB) Total %, Cover of OBL species 0 r. 1 = 0 _ FACNI species 0 x 2 = 0 _ FAC speoes 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 r. 4 = 0 _ UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 _ Columntotals _ 0 (A) 0 (B) Preva ence Index = 8/A = Rapid test for hydrophyUC oegelaticr Dominance teal is >Wy. Prevalence in Jex is s3 0' Morphogical a iaptations' (provide supporting da a in Remarks or on a _ separate she; t) Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) 'l of hyitK or arxl m aand hydro ouy Host Dc Present. Ull Wif~ or ptotienmac vegetation present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sam In P i I P 9 o Profile DeacrlpUon: (Describe tot depth needed to document the Indies for or confirm the abeenoe of Indicators.) .---`� Depth hlatnx P.edor. Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) qo Type' Loc^ reztJre I Ren;rks j G t I -Type: C = Concentration. D = Depletion. RM = Reduced Mar,, MS = Masked Sard Grans. •-L"1C-m P_ = Pore Lin ng, hr = Ma:•iz Hytldc Soil Indicators: Hbesol (Ai) Indicatore for Problamatic Hydrk Soils. i Epipedon (A2) Sandy Greyed Matrix (S4) —_Sandy Redox (S5) Ccaet Prairie Redox (A-6) (LRR K, L, R. Dadk _Histr_ _Black Ms!ic (A3) SxipPed Matrix (S6) Surface fS 7) (LRR K, L) 5 cm Muuy'ee l or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L. R! _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Levers (AS) a, _Loamy Mudry Mineral IF1) —Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L. R) 2 cm,Mu M;xk (A10) _ Loamy Greyed Mew (F2) Very Shallow Dak Surface (TF12) �_ _2rm Depeled Below Dark Surface CAI I' _ Depleted Matnz(F3) R;ticx Oars SJr!ace (F6) Dire -(explain In remah.$) _Tti_k Dark Surface (Al2) Mucky Mineral (Sl —_Dap:eteo Dark Surface (F7) •ind:c2lors of h Tt3phytic ve ishnioa ) g and e,'eltard _Sandy t cm Musty Peat or Peat (63) _ Radex Oepress�dns ;f8) hydrology cad ogy must ca present, uniess dis•aroad or _5 crozlemabc Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Depth (inches). Hydric soil presort? �L Remarks; WVnonl nnv Welland Hydrology Indicators: Frme'v Indicators (minimum of one fs re0u're? F-- Surface Water (At) clackaco;ySe:ondary _AgJaoc Fauna(Si3) Inn,21310•3 (minirUM o1 lwq reou red! Soil Creeks (B6) L High Water Tab!e(A2) TFLe Aquatic Plants(514) _Surface Dreirags Pallems(S1C) Saturation (AJ) _ iydroge, Sulfide Odor (C1l Wale Tabe (C2,: Water Ware (Bt) Oxdized Rhizospheres o- Lking Forte _Dry•Sor;on Crayfish. 3unews(Ca) Sedir..enl Deposits (B2) (c3) —Saturwni Visible on Aera%Iragery (C9x —Drift Deposits (83) of Reduced ho, (C4; ;r Svessed Plains iith —A gal Mat or Cr1s11B4'r _Presence Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils _Stunted Geomaq:hk Fos^ion (021 -Imn Deposits ible Thin _FAC-Neutral Test (051 Inunoalion Visible On Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparse:y Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Wahl -Stained Leaves iS91 —Gauge or We)I Data (Dg) _Other (Explain in Remarks) Ie tl bsewat ons: Surface water present? Yes No C Depth (inches)- Wetland Vlater table present? as _ No X_ Depth (irbhes) - hydrolo9Y Samrerion present? Yes (rcludes cap.ilay fringe) No _)r Depth finches): ;c 2* - A' pre;:ant7 ..N Descrithe recorded data (stream gauge, mon todng well, aeria' photos. previous inspections), it evadable: enlarks: L , L;S Army Corps of Engineers Midwes: Fegtcn WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Pro)ecUSite_Q(p¢( 14,I.W Lyme J '� C.IyrCounty. �Sampilg CaleAPPlicanl/Owner —�/// State /4A/ Sarnol lg Point �JD J Investigator(s)_Vi / �_ 3ectior, Township, Range. _�, Lantlform thiaslope,terrace, etc) JeZIr/,L Slope (/a): a s Local relief (concave, coivex, none) Let Long: Datum Soil Map Unit Name_ 1WI Classification; �Fr Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the yeah _� pf no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation _�, soil _—�i , or hycrology signif:antly cistur bed? Are vegetation sdil Are'rcrma! circumstances �(_ . Or hydrology natural) _ _.(L y protkmebo xesenO SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If reede4 exp sin any answers in remarks 1 Hyonc "it vegetation presents _y Hytlnc wit present? Is the sampled area within a wonder, N/edano hydrology present? _ f yea, opOcnal wetland site 10: smarks (Explain alternative Procedures here or In a separate rapod.) 'EGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indioetcr Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 % Cover t Species Status 2 0 =Total Cover $apSnp/ hr b •freturt (Plot size: 13•,sl ) 1 3 U Cover Herb sustain=Total (plot size. 3•�J —10 _L ♦ 5 le Total Cover tyoodv vine stratum ;Plot size: a v....J — i 0 =Total Cover numbers here or on a separate Number of DoT i isna Specks that are OBL. FACW, or FAC_ (A) Total Vumber of Domi^ant Species Acic is all S-sata _(B) Percent of Domi tan) Species :hat are OBL. FACW. or =ACr )OD —(p:81 Total % Cover r f OBL species 0 x 1 = g FACW spec es 0 x2= 0 FAC specks C x 3 = 0 FACU species Cz4= C UPL species C x 5 = 0 Column totals C (A> 0 ;B) Prevalerce Index = WA = Rapid test Icr hyorcphytic vegetation tc Dominance lest is >50% —Prevalence Idex is 53.D' Morphogical adaptations-(fo ovde suppoding cata it Remarks or on e _separate sheet) Problematic hydropnytic vegetatl _(explain) 9nokawrs of hydd:: Son and vretaxi tryd•o oat; 71,81 00 present. u, eaa d,siMed or wob emal vegetation present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Reg.on SOIL Sampling Point: �.—W€� Profile Description: (Describe to the death ,...a..r .., .__..___. D&e (Inches) Matrix color(moist) % . ure rnuruetor etlox F Re•i r Color(moisl) % Type' Loc•• or connrrn the absence of Indicatore.) Texture . Rama ks Type. C = Concenlraticn D = Depleuon Rfd = R d Nydric Soll Intlicators: e uced Marx. MS = Masked Sand Grams. ••LOce g n. PL = Pore Lin(ng, ha = Ma:•b( : Hist;sol (AI) — Epipedon (A2) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Intllcatore for Probtemat e Wydrie Soils: _Coast Prairie Redo, (A ;6) ILRR •(, L. Ri _Hiat.c Hislic Sonny Redcx (SS) Matrix (S6) Dark _Dark Surface r:S') (LRR K, L) ' HydrBiarogen Sulfide _Hytlrilgen Sulfide (A4) Slra Loamy Mucky Miners! (FI) 5 cm Mucky Pee: or Seat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Iron -Manganese Masses (Ft2) (LRR K, L, R) Mu Layers (AS) am Musk Loamy Loamy Gleyed Matrix rF2) _—Very Sha[!ow Do k Surface (TF12) _2 lowAll Below Dark Surface (A71:: Ma:fix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Othe-(exp)af, in remah s) Thick Dd _ Sand Mu Surface al ISI Sandy Mucky Mineral i _ Dep;eted Dark Surface (F7) Radox De Depressions ;FB} •Indsalors of h •o a h 1:c a 5 P Y egebtbn ano bed rd 5 cm Mucky Pea; or Peat (53) eat _ hydrology must to present, utiess diawrbed or p: oblehatic Hydric soil present? (inches). �_ Welland Hydrology Indicator: Primary Ingicamrs (minimum of one reo d. chedh $Gdace Water (,All a t t aooty) Secondary Ind ce:c;s (minimum o' Iw r2 Ir , HighWater Table (A2) Aqua:1c Fauna (a 13) True Aquatic Plants(814� Surtece Soll CreGce B6) — _ Saturation (A3) Hydrogen SW`ide odor Crdinag?Palte:ra (8:81 -Sear on Water Table _ WaterMarksDe poll Oxidized Rhzoepheres on Lrvirg Roots _Dry (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C6) Sediment sim (83) (82) Dull Depcsns (83) '— (C3) —Saturatkm Visk!e on r.er ! is: Imag_ry iC91 _Presence I Algal Mal or CrusIrat (B4) of Recuceo Iron (C4) Recent Stunted cr Stressed plants (Di) —Geomorl 1—Inv Depositsible Iron Reduction in Tafe7 Sae (Ce) nic Position (D2) Inuntla:ion Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) —bin Muck Surface (C7) FAC.Na_:ral Teat!DS) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) —Gauge e- welt Data (D9) waver -Stained Leaves (B9) —Otcer (Explain in Remarks) �e serval ors: S.rface water present? Yes X_ Ko R'aler :able present? Yes Detain (inches): �_ Wet and . c Nd Saturation present? Yes No _Depth(inches): _+1 hydrology �_ (includes (includes capillary fringe) �— Depth (inches): + praeentT v/ Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring we I, aerial photos, previous inspections,, if evailable: Konarks: 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region, APPENDIX C Site Photographs APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Approval Forms Project Ni;me and/or (Number: PART ONE: Applicant Information 20/s-'23¢- If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), ar authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third parry) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent's contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Pgvtol V97" Mailing Address: 1OS P.'W~7na:l Phone: E-mail Address: XP Vp Authorized Contact Ida not complete if same as above): 5-AA Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name; l.J,r Via. ugeelo5stn J WDC PSS TaGW�IPAWA Mailing Address- � J Phone: �12bt.Wl A.&-N� Al�ri.kl is . E-mail Address: �O%� J Lw 55. -30 G� PART TWO: Site Location Information County: (-11yw City/Townshlp: Parcel (D and/or Address: Q.5'7+2P4:,70 Legal Description f5ection, Township, Range): Sec . Z5" TI 14NJ R23W LOT/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): If tou know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must procice :he na nes and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be pr;)vided ty wrath-ng a ;:st to your application or by using block 25 of the Applicaticn for Department of the Army permit which caii be obtained at: htto://www mvo usace army m'I/P r t /57/d ula orv/Reeuiator Dots,'ene'orm 4345 2012octoof PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If ttis application is related to a delineatior approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provice the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and comp.eton. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed 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 drawirgs showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource imparts. Minnesota !nteragency Water Resource Application Form Feb,uary 2014 Page 3 of 1i Project Wrine and/or Number: PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary 2o/s-Z 1. If your proposed project involves a cilrect 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 I 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 imparts in the following table. Type of Impact Duration of I IAquatic Resource) Aquatic I t Existing Plant County, Major ' e (fill, excavate, Impact ! Overall Size of Watershed If, Resource T ! ID (as noted on , drain, or ' Permanent (P) Size of Impactz1 Aquatic community and Bank overhead view I (wetland, lake, ! 1 remove ( or Temporary Resource T tributary etc.' I a I Type(s) it x Service Area R �f vegetation) I (Tit lmpaccArea I of Impact Area" It impacts are temporary; enter the duration W the impacts in days next to the'T". For example, a project will, a temporary access rill flat wquld be removed after 220 days would be emered "T (220)". 'Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre crgrearer should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported h linear feet of impact and an area of Impact by indicating first the linear feet cf imoact along the flowfne of the stream followed by the area Impact in parentheses). For example, a project that imps.-ts 53 feet of a stream, that is f. feet wide would be reported as 50 it (300 square feet), 'This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under Mh Rules 9420.0420 So* 8, otherwise ente• "VA". Lse Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin P Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 'Refer 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 ass,c aced with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature [ Check here if you are requesting a jiLeappllcat,on consultation with the Corps and LGtI 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 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: Date: , I L., l 1 ('6 I hereby authorize 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. ' The termm "Imp as use his 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 N.,me and/or Number Attachment A Zoos Z34 Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination fiv submission of the enclosed wetland delineation 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 (LGW provide me with the following (check all that apply)): 9 Wetland Type Confirmation 0 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-ineation ' concurrences are generally val.d for five years urless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps wf:l not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the Property, only the boundaries of the esources within the review area r (mciuding wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). EOPreliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) Is a nm-binding mt-en indicaticn from the Corps that waters, including wet€ands, idertified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For pu•poses of computation of impacts and ccmpensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD v;ll teat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advfsary in nature and may not be ' appealed. ❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional del ermination (AJD) is an off tial Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upan by the affected party for five years. An AJD maybe appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared fn. accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Gurdelines; or Submitting Weiland Delineotions in Minnesota (2013). httP://www mvo usaca armv mil'Missions/Re I t dDelineationl DGuidence a ox M nnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014_ Page 5 of 21 APPENDIX G Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits ,a Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits t from the Minnesota Wetland Bank tf the layout of this form looks incorrect, click on View, Edit Docume 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: 612-991-2648 E-Mail Address': dpvogel@gmaitoom rt, then save to your computer. This space is for BINSR 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 Wetland Impact Size (acres): 0 0220 County of Impact: Carver Replacement Ratio: 2:1 Impact Major Watershed #: 33 Total Replacement Required (acres): 0.0440 Impact Bank Service Area: 9 U.S. Army Corps Permit # (If applicable): "Sec. 25 Twp. 116 Rge. 23 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 Eattail address': tjeffrey@ci.chanhassen.mn.us LGU Representative: Terry Jeffrey Signature: Date: (for NRCS, USACE, etc. if applicable) Agency Name/Location: USACE E4nail address`: melissa.m.janny@usace.army.mil Representative: Melissa Jenny 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. iacobsonenyCIlmsn.com natasha.devoegDstate.mn.us Rev 3/16/2015 rramaction form for Withdrawal of wetland Credlu Page I of 2 C:1YMrswrrnryMtvM1td W251-WOIS2)SVW,9F1 Me.d dOnrewry Mmit�4ppaMi,Gintutl2n_larm_br W a_t,ed uaea ffTransaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits 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 (ire) Number of Credits to be Withdrawn (acre) (acre=ff/43560) Cost of Purchased Credits (coat Per �z number or B Y SM $40510.80 0.0440 S1782.48 SO.00 _ $0.00 oO _ TOTAL 0.0440 _So $17; 2.48 If TOTAL does not calculate, right dick Updae Fisid Tab1e Enter County Fee from www bwsrstate mn IaMetland$4eyandba*nolfee and sales dalaM'eoano Bank Fee schedule odI Table (county of seller's D, bank) 6.5 rG of sale price Transaction Fee (choose either amount) I Fee 1 $ 115.86 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 Welland 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 (rf aoplicable); 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 inforrr•ation 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 BWS R 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 65155 Disclaimer any transaction in the wetland banking system is public information. Rev 3/16/2015 Trans lion Form for withdrawal of Wetland Credits Page 2 of 2 C:1JWSIOw+MrO]a nlsl2015 lnbM5L 2l wpl MI Mtaaw4rk D.., ftrrNWp Grranaa[tun_'m„-la Mo'mdgs.x, Available Wetland Credits - BWSR Page 2 of 2 1115 Carver 33-Minnesota 9 0.0226 Knauer, Elroy (952) 466- (Shakopee) 9882--- C SWC Y U Upland 0.0226 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 1110 -- - B SWC Y 2 sedge 26706 meadow C SWC Y 3 shallow 113 marsh U SWC Y 4 shallow 5.97 open water E SWC Y U Upland 10.98 1392 Carver 33-Minnesota 9 0 602E 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 1444 Carver 19-6outh 7 Fork Crow A SWC Y 1 fresh (wet) 51221 meadow B SWC Y 3 shallow 4.6159 marsh C SWC N U Upland 4.0155 (lump to top of page) A181CIDIEIFIGINIIIuIKILIMINI01PIOIRISITIUIvIwIxIYIZ Data is up to date as of December 21, 2015 Mark, Kjolhaug (Acct Mgr 13.7535 Montgomery) (952) 401.8757 -- mkjolhaugenv.com ext 10 Qump to bottom of page) 11tip://apps.bcvsr.%,Iate.ntn.us/credits/ 12/21 /2015 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit (LGU) Address City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 _ PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application David Vogel 9641 Meadowlark Lane Application Number 10/28/2015 2015-08 Attach site locator map. Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan rechnical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (if any): ❑ 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'/a of Section 25, T116N, R23W and has the following parcel ID: 257420070. This delineation identified three wetland basins on -site. Wetland basin I 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 comer and has been identified as a Type 2/6, wet meadow/shrub swamp, PEM/SS1B 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 23'', 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 usine credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account # Bank Service Credits Approved for 7ounty Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest I .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 Restrictions 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 met! BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 2 of 3 LGU Authorized Signing and mailing of this completed form 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 reauest. Name Title Terrance Jeffery, WDC Water Resources Coordinator Sigaa Date Phone Number and E-mail 1 952.227.1168 Additional'apNpvals 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: Check one: Q9 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 N 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 I1-25-09 Page 3 of 3 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA areas.ndf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.pdf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: 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. 1201 E. Hwy. 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: btp:Hfiles.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.ndf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers, see: www.mvD.usace.armv.mil/regulatorv/default.asD?uaeeid=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 6. 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 4 of 3 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Application Local Government Unit (LGU) Address City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd., PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application David Vogel 9641 Meadowlark Lane Application Number 10/29/2015 2015-08 Type of Application (check all that apply): ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan 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, T116N, R23W and has the following parcel ID: 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/SSIB 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, PEW 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. BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 2. APPLICATION REVIEW AND DECISION Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 3 provides notice that an application was made to the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. A copy of the application is attached. Comments can be submitted to: Name and Title of LGU Contact Person Terrance Jeffery, WDC Water Resources Coordinator Comments must be received by (minimum 15 business -day comment period): 11/19/2015 Address (if different than LGU) Date, time, and location of decision: 11/20/2015 4:30PM Chanhassen City Offices Phone Number and E-mail Address Decision -maker for this application: 952.227.1168 ® Staff tjeffery&Lchanhassen.mmus ❑ Governing Board or Council Signature: 3. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Chip Hentges, Aaron Finke Date: 1011ahs- DQ 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 7-1-10 Page 2 of 3 4. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.rnn.us/contact/WCA areas.odf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.ndf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Reeion: NE Region: Central Reeion Southern Reeion: 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, NE 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South Bemidji, MN 56601 Grand Rapids, MN 1200 Warner Road New Ulm, MN 56073 55744 St. Paul MN 55106 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: htto://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr re igions.ydf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.mvi).usace.army.mil/re ug latory/default.asp'.�paeeid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP-R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 ➢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 5. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the application, list any other attachments: ® Joint Water Resources Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary, dated October 23, 2015. ® Wetland Delineation Report Packet, dated October 23, 2015. BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 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 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) 802-6619 Cell As discussed, Jacobson Environmental, PLLC. (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 residential 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. All figures referenced by this report are presented at the end of the text. The purpose of this study was to investigate the project area, identify areas meeting the technical criteria for wetlands, delineate the jurisdictional 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 While Clover Jewelweed Ground Ivy Broadleaf Cattail Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -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 (612) 802-6619 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 annual 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 10/6115 precipitation worksheet data was as follows: Worksheet (Wks) 30% less than 30% more than Sept Aug July 3.19* 2.82* 7.64 2.20 3.09 2.48 4.15 5.33 4.86 * = NWS Data 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 October 6, 2015 and it is unlikely the precipitation totals in this period affected the boundary of any wetlands in this delineation, since the period was normal. 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 Manual. Wetland boundaries were determined through a routine analysis of the vegetation, soils and hydrology which must all show wetland characteristics in order for an area to be delineated as a wetland. Wetlands are areas that are saturated or inundated with surface and or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in hydric soil conditions. Examples of wetlands include seasonally flooded 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 follows the plant's scientific name unless a status has not been assigned. The hydrophytic plant criterion is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species by the 50/20 rule for each stratum (herb, shrub/sapling, tree, and woody vine) were assigned an obligate (OBL)', facultative wet (FACW), andror facultative (FAC) wetland status. OBL=Obligate Wetland, occurs an eslimated 99% in wetlands. FAC W=Facultative Wetland, has an estimated 67%-99% probability of occurrence in wetlands. FAC=Facultative, is equally likely to occur in wetlands and non - wetlands, 340/-66%probability. FACU-Facultative Upland, occurs in wetlands only occasionally, 1910-23% probability. UPL=Upland, almost never occurs in wetlands, <1%probability. N1= No Indicator, insufficient information available to determine an indicator status. Positive or negative sign previously indicated a frequency toward higher (+) or lower (-) frequency of occurrence with an category. Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -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 (612) 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 vegetative 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 part. 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 Hydric Soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States version 7.0 (USDA NRCS 2010) if present at each sample point. Also, upper soil profiles were compared to the mapped or inclusionary soil series 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, gray, or red parent material; soils with high pH; soils high or low in content of organic matter, recently developed hydric soils, and soils high in iron inputs In some cases we do not currently have indicators to assist in the identification of hydric 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 hydric. 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 (oxidized) conditions. Morphological features of hydric soils indicate that saturation and anaerobic conditions have existed under either contemporary or former hydrologic regimes. Where soil morphology seems inconsistent with the landscape, vegetation, or observable hydrology, it may be necessary to obtain the assistance of an experienced soil or wetland scientist to determine 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 soils will be identified by the indicators 5. Many of the hydric soils are Mollisols which are classic problem hydric soils in many cases Wetland Classification Wetland classifications discussed in the text are set forth in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31, Cowardin et al. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1971.) Additionally, plant community types as named by Eggers and Reed (1998) are given. Topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory maps, the Web Soil 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 3 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -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 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com The Routine On -site Determination Method was used on this site In this method, the following Procedures were used: 1) The vegetative community 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 sail profiles and any hydric soil characteristics. 3) Signs of wetland hydrology 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 transecl crosses each delineated wetland edge. These transacts consist of an upland sample point, and a wetland sample point. Other sample points 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 pin 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 shallow marsh comprised of 3% broadleaf cattail, 50% 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 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 disappeared in the upland. Basin 3 Basin 3 is a PEM/SS1 B ditched Type 2/6 wet meadow/shrub swamp comprised of 600% sandbar willow as shrubs, 40% reed canarygrass, 20% jewelweed, 20% stinging nettle, and 10% great ragweed along with a few other species. The 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 disappeared in the upland. Basin 4 Basin 4 is a PEMF Type 4 deep marsh comprised of 5% swarrp smartweed 20% reed canarygrass, 10% 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 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 disappeared in the upland. Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys 4 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -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 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com The National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (Figure 2) identifies Basin 4 on the subject site. According to the DNR Public Waters Map (PWI) (Figure 4) of Carver County there are no DNR Public 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 client and regulatory agencies to request a wetland boundary and type determination. We have enclosed an official WCA Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary form in Appendix D along with a USCOE wetland delineation concurrence request. Conclusion This wetland delineation meets the standards and criteria described in 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. This was a Routine On Site Determination and 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 the LGU (City of Chanhassen) and other agencies. 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. e� �9. 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 1v123/ Z919' Date Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys 5 Phase 1 Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -Environmental 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 W •v c o /! 93-31_�00' W WGi84 93 30 000 Nr aknO A�', o UaM Or l tr m i• 7� i� 1 ,I j �`S' o e I o } Bearpa lh T'I f a a/ yman BNd „1. z •J.� Lake � rritH,r ,.,. s Coan�1'o / � o :09" �a90•al1C r V i � 1 11 it - a CounMwy Sd' °ay ry. Z C `^ � •Jf r � - o Jim wo Lo.fe I i Sem 212 1 V' 1,VKR Co OR I r q 5corr ro i q d •creafedwN WN0 c •�` - ' , oontY.'M 101 J U2007 Na600'I �,gog2ph'c- p2005 F¢Ic AtlS-iRe�h8f200$-r d L i13 1• 93a33.000' W 93H32.000 W 93°31.000' W WG584 93e30.000' W NATIONAL ° +pES TN'MN GEOGRAPHIC 1 UY=° °witm10/Z2/15 Soil Map —Carver County, Minnesota (Figure 3 Soils Map) __" msu �yeip asva a r'taVSmt I:Ii90(prki0dmllpueai(aj'x ll791eet N 0 15 30 60 90 0 SD 100 200 300 map "'*In: web Naramr Coma madnatm N¢86 Edge ii :urN 7me i%wG394 lhlxl Nitural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperalive Soil Survey $M 10/2=115 Page 1 of 3 a^s Wll nsesx Sod Map —Carver County. Mimesota Map Unit Legend Carver County. Minnesota (MN019) Map UnitSymbol — _- Map Unit Name Acres In A01 percent of AOI Fiaum 3 Snils Man • ••-• Warner roam. u to c percent 4.0 52.1% slopes KR2 Lester -Kilkenny barns. 2 to 6 0.2 2.7% percent slopes, eroded KC2 Lester -Kilkenny loarns. 6 to 12 0.3 3.4% percent slopes, eroded KE2 Lester -Kilkenny loans, 18 to 25 09 12 1 % percent slopes. eroded MK Muskego and Houghton soils. 0 0.2 2 4% to 1 percent slopes ND3 Lester -Kilkenny day loam, 12 1.5 19.6% to 18 percent slopes. severely eroded W Water 06 7.7% Totals for Am of Interest 7.8 100 0% r u r% Natural Resources ""s Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 1022/2015 National Cooperative Sal Survey Page 3 of 3 Figure The Stn4 at Mi MssaC arrd the Mbnesote allows: to M [ of of maps Resources makes no represenmfbns ha wen nail expresofi or Irnnet o, when respect I the use is maps he a Is no, guarantee Cate oWded MrewlM r(gardleth of se fas tot he the rreana hRs hanSrl tilt. There Is ro f thisd sor for any wh os to the use, as to the , dabs y, wnercg sultapllry or reliability of this Cate hr any prrlxue. The user accepts the Cafe The State of Minnesota assumes no re5porslbaO for loss or Carnage incurred as a result of any user reliance on this data. All maps arW otter material provided herein are protected by copyright. Extreme Wm was used during the compilation of this pmouet. Howeser Cue to Changes In ownership and the need to rely on ouWde Information, anor5 or "I'lon5 may Milt If you should dlsmver an "Might, Ise encourage you to let us Iaww by calling the DNR at 1-888-646-6367 or by e-mail at hfo.dnr@Rate.mn.us. Now: Mevatlon Images and contours were generuad from LIDAR derived elevIrtm surfaces acgulreC 2007-2012 LIDAR o aovs onas oa; ra„ Scale 1 4752 i Created on 10/22/2015 Property Card Parcel ID Number 257420070 Figure 6 Site Mal Taxpayer Information `�� �j�y,^`� t, '�'^'' Taxpayer Name GAYLE - • :r Ity M & RI HARD P VOGEL TRUSTEES OF TRUST ry"'11y'F y + Mailing Address 11C 5 PIONEER TRL � f> M.x,�;��•,� .� i lip i �u CHANFV SSEN, MN 55317-8660 l: ; Property Address `y Address 9641 MEADOWLARK LN City CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 s' Meadowlark L,, Parcel Information Uses Res V Land GIS Acres 224 _ �ietAcres 2.4 Deeded Acres 2.5 — Plat RILEY LAKE MEADOWS Lot 007 —� Block 001 — Tax Description — Building Information Builcing Style Above Grade — Finished So Ft Bedrooms Year Year Built Garage N Bathrooms Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0112 WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF N I N N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2014 Values 2015'✓alues (Payable 2015) (Payable 2016) Last Sale Land $520,700.00 $555,200.00 Date of Sale Building $0.00 $0.00 Sale Value Total $520,700.00 $555,200.00 :I.,e.,r I �. purposas wNy -n, daw - ,I. nd mrrmal at,., prod prod powUed twrnln: �w formless Caner CARVER Wmpanleswhr COUNTY llh Ina data a o s m, xolaole lw legal. erglr:eer,>y, ,u veytng �+ other mn*arµ .mo Carver County Una, trot guarantee 1ha ¢Copra, of the r'r ib s daf s luml5ted on an as s base edC Civet County makes no repmsenlalUru or warenfies, eNher e,p essed or totoj d, lorthe n tto laaoiblity orfinross of lno r any purpose. �s d94anner k5 pmvidatl pwsuanl to Mlnnesola Statutes §a6fi 03 end 0 user al Iha dal. We(M)as Ndl Carer County shay not be liade for any damages. ant by usng Iho, Bala ll anyway axlxxsly wanes all rJaims, eM agrees to tleleM, mtlmlrtly. erM hdtl y, ft ellltidk, .11J.,'am.. e111µoyeei etc a. a y ant all cal ms b�OI jhl by "bnI, y.1q uYs � H,'Urn181Nn prJypad fw Reran da NOeteno s IX XIMM,. nd Ilan dstla,m �cess 9Y ac eplanr¢ of Ines dew. M user sprees not to vansmn Ihs hats a pro,a,a anxs5 in, Ur arty yn a, t M arwyey pat ryygsa me user irv'.jAa' Thursday, October 22I 2015 Carver County, MN Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Climatology Working Group IiPI 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 other sites I contact us I search inPrecipitation 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 first prior month: second prior ! third prior month: month (values are in inches) September August July 2015 i 2015 2015 estimated precipitation total for this location: missing missing 7.64 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 2.01 3.12 2.76 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 3.57 4.94 5.05 type of month: dry normal wet missing missing wet monthly score missing missing 1 ' 3 = 3 multi -month score: F6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) missing Score using 1981-2010 normal period t : ?qwS4lL.4*'A first prier month: second prior third prior (values are in inches) September month month August July 2015 j- tri 2015 2015 7.64 estimated precipitation total for this location: 2S2 t there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: * 2.20 3.09 2.48 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 415 5.33 4.86 type of month: dry normal wet n• t 4(ey wet monthly score 3 Y. 2- 2 i= Z 1* 3= 3 http://climate.umn.edu gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=458011... 10/22/2015 High DENsity radius retrieval 071210 Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group q� 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 other sites I contact us I search 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 stations are no longer retrieved from this application. To obtain those data, see our newest data retrieval tool (May 2014). National Weather 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 longitude. 93.53116) I dickF_to select target location . years: 2015 v to 2015 VJ number of missing days allowed per month: l3I retrieve monthly data retrkwe daily tlata --._ results: Target: T116 R23 52S mon year CC tttN rrW 55 nnnn 00000000 pre (inches) di5 Jan 2015 10 116N 23w 23 BYRG .24 1 mi. Feb 201S 10 116N 23w 23 BYRG .33 1 mi. Mar 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG .85 1 mi. Apr 2015 10 116N 23w 23 BYRG 2.14 1 mi. May 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG 4.34 1 mi. Jun 2015 10 116N 23w 23 BYRG 3.50 1 mi. Jul 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG 7.83 1 mi. Aug 2015 10 116N 23w 23 BYRG 2.82 1 mi. Sep 2015 10 116N 23W 1S NWS CHAN_NW5 3.19 2 mi. Oct 2015 in 999 mi. Nov 2015 in 999 mi. Dec 2015 m 999 mi. Wrr.+e .:soicaetl Ni,aing vales are shown as'm' pays pi wnicli precip a¢inlulayy on" gage are 9gwn as'-. TTT RR 3513Ne'Oooic laud ai PLSi Or'legarband- d tM ob,ai data Seddw vacs g,cate: W ere SECTIC'TIC' locations plus 100 'NWS IV Me National altaalr SarwCG Codperatew saUM )umber Nr le Mal Me'PLS' wet always to wrrM for peo , tat on data wNe Me NWS ID wid always de con,of W to lanlPenaua data It no PLS 110 is s red me re NNW, o norrerer apples to at Mown data State Climatology Office - MnDNR - Ecological and Water Resources http://cIiniate.umn.edu/IiiDradius/radius—new.asp 10122/2015 APPENDIX B Sample Data Sheets WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Regior Project/Site_&!L �(,Ie � L�� Q City/County. ._�C4j"n%dgrr3I.y=_Sampling Date: JD�(pfif Aoplicantlovaner n State: A,/A/ Sampling Point (—UP Investigator(s): _ f�ty Section, Township, Range: RZ� Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): : f / Q Local relief (concave, convex,, none): S ope (%): I Let: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name ftilh f VWI Classification: _ Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? _ IL (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation M_, soil jL , or hydrology _'&_ significantly disturbed? Are "nc �mal circumstances' Are vegetation _P, sdil , or RV hydrology_ naturally problematic? present? � Sllilil nC rutnur_ tc - -- of neuueu, expain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophl vegetation present? _Y Hydric soil present? _ Y Is the sampled area within a wetlam�_ Welland hydrology present? —�L f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3.1 ) 1 _1K1c.r r.d 4 J ,Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 1 2 3 4 5 Herb stratum (Rot size SPrv, I 9 Absolute Dominan Irdicator % Cover t Species Staus =Total Cover 0 =Total Cover �LZ —Y PAC —?� Y— FAZA.2 y FAr. j —FI&V 1P _ hf — FAI, 10 Total Cover Woody vine stratum (Plot size 1 2 0 =Total Cover numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species :hat are OBL, FACW, or FAC:(A) Total Number of Dominant Species Acress all Strata: i�_ (B) Percent of Domirant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (07l_ (A/B) Total % Cover of OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column totals 0 (A) 0 (B) Prevalence IndeK = B/A = Rapic lest fcr hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test is >50% _Prevalence index is s3.0' Morphogira adaptations' (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a _separate shaet) Problematic hydrophytic vegetabon• (explain) 'Intl cators of hydr F. soil and weaand hydroogy must be present, unless disturoed or problemat c vegetation present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region L� Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc" Texture Remarks 'T/pe: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Send Grains. "Location PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (At) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon (A2) —Sandy Redox (85) —Dark Surface (S7) ;LRR K, L) —Black Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat cr Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Iron -Manganese Masses (F72) (LRR K, L, R) _ Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Very Snallow Dark Surface (TF72) _2 em Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (explain in remarks)Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) _ _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Redox Depressions (FB) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless distirbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric soil present( V --F— Depth (inches): Remarks: uvnn.-a r. Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _Primary Indicators fminimum of one is required' rhgrk all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (At) Fauna (B13) Sc I Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic _Surface Aquatic Plants (B14) Drainage F 3tterns (B10) Saturation (A3) _True _ Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Seaso-', Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) _Hydrogen _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (82) _Crayfish (C3) 4isible on Aerial Imagery rCg) Drift Deposits(B3) _Saturation of Reduced Iron CAI) Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) Algal Mat or Crust (84) _Presence Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) _Geomorphic (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) —Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) —Gauge or Well Data (139) Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) —Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No c Depth (inches): Wetle 1d Water table present? Yes _ No _Depth (inches): hydrology Saturation present? Yes No Depth (Inches): �21 present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers (Midwest Region O WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region ProjecUSite I�O4-( ��ir��d�ire� City/County: C ,y114fy,^ Sampling Date- Jp�(p�/s' ApplicanUOwner _ ,� / State: /yA/ Sampling Point: I -.(,err Irvestigalor(s): (,��� 3ection, Township, Range. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc. j: �(Loca'relief (concave, convex,, none) Tit i Z l Slope(%): I_ Let:- Long: Datum Soil Map Unit Name_ J-}L V'NI Classification: A-e climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? ilf no, explain in remarks) A'e vegetation _W . Soil _� , or hydrology-4_ significantly disturbed? Are "no anal circumstances" Are vegetation PL, soil _� , or hydrology IV naturally problematic? present? SIIMMARV e)c olrunm^o -- - - to neeaeu, exp am any answers in remarks.) LY(Hydric d rophytic vegetation present? ?Y_ soil present? vo Is the sampled area within a wetlan,tland hydrology present? _Y f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative prccedures here or in a separate report.) __- _ - nanica ui piaiiw. Absolute Dominan Irdicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: %Cover t Species Staus Number of Domriant Species t-�s•�— :hat are OBL. FACW, or FAC:_ (A) 2 3 Total Number of Dominant Species Acid as all Strata: 4- (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species o that are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A/B) 0 =Total Cover Saoline/Shrub stratum (Plot size: Prevalence Index Worksheet I Total % Cover oL 0 GEL species C x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 4 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 5 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 0 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: Sr�� ) Column totals 0 (A) 0 (B) ^— 1-0 *,a-.4" w,q ,,4Cjj Prevalence Inde:<=B/A= -5, _ 3 OSL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 .ae�ph;/ru yin Zo_ oBL, test for hydrophylic vegetation _Rapid Dominance test is >50% 0 -) idex is s3.0• ? B —Prevalence Idorphogical adaptations, (provide 4 supporting coca in Remarks or on a separate sheet) IO _ Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: �D / ) t -indicators of hydnc soil and wet and ryd�oogy must be present, ur ass disturbed or problemal c y rop yt o _ 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Samnlinn DMnb � _i �..�� I...a . _...-. Profile Description: (Describe tot depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Ma rix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc" Texture Remarks 42-21 'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. "Location: PL =Pore Lining, Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils:M _Histisol (Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon (A2) —Sandy Redox (SS) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Black Histic (A3) —Stripped Matrix (86) _ 5 cm Mucky Pea. or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Othe- (expla)n in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A71) Dark Surface (176) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral IS1) _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) _Redox _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Redox Depressions (F8) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is recuired- check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) Fauna (B13) Surface Soil Cracks (86) High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Aquatic Plants (Bi4) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) It Saturation (A3) _True Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ct) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Rocts _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment_ Deposits (82) (C3} Saturatioi Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) Presence of Reduced Iron (04) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis _j: Geomorphic Position (02) Iron Deposits (B5) � (CO FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B _8) Gauge or Well Data (139) Water -Stained Leaves (89) _ _Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No Depth (inches): �' Wetland Water :able present? Yes c� No Depth Inches p ( ) �_ hydrology Saturation present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): to present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site Q(o4.( City/County: lwrlAtA.n Sam In Date LPL4-Z�.! Applicant/Owner:/ i�A State: _ LyA/ Sampling Point: Investigator(;): �KY Section, Township. Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _J6. Lbf a Local relief (concave, convex,, none t�n��to Sloe P ( ) �_ Lat Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Ebb"a r VWI 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_AL significantly disturbed? Are "normal circumstances" Are vegetation _ 4 soil - , or hydrology naturally problematic? present? � RI IMMARV r%C CIKIMIKIRC - - to n ccueo, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present? Is the sampled area within a wetlan /4 Wetland hydrology present? �1 f yes, optional wetlanc site ID: R=marks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Absolute Dominan indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1 -�-�—_ % Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW, or FAC 3 _(A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata -�(B) 4 5 Percent of Dominant Species that are DEL, FACW, or FAC: (Do (A!B) 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 13ey�ai ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 3 4 d 0 =Total Cover Herb stratum (Plot size: E� ) Column totals 0 .A) 0 (B) I"fir:•�(� 4j _ � Prevalence Index = B/A = 2Pili — 30 —Y 3 - �•--� �_� t _ 24 � Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test fcr hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance lest is >50% ° _Prevalence index is s3.01 6 Morphogical adaptations* (provide 9 supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot Size: D ) 'Ind 1 Caton; of hi soil and wetland hyoroli must be present, ur less disturbed or problemat c y rophytc 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Samnnnn Pnfnf• *2 —f •O __ ... . _..... Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indlcators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc" Texture Remarks 'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (A1) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _Coast Prairie Redox (A161 (LRR K, t R) Histic Epipedon (A2) —Sandy Redox (S5) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Black Histic (A3) —Stripped Matrix (S6) —5 cm Mucky Pea; 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 Dark Surface (TF12) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Othe- (explain in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) _ Redox Depressions (F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric soli present? Depth (inches): Remarks: uvnoni nnv vv , Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check ali that apply) Secondary Incicators (minimum of two reduired) Surface Water (At) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Plants (BI4) _Surface Patterns (B70) Saturation (A3) _True Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ci) _Drainage Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) Oxidized Rhizospheres of Living Roots _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) (0) _Saturatioi Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) (CB) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) —Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _Other (Explain in Remarks) Fie nervations: Surface water present? Yes No Depth (inches): Welland Water table present? Yes No jc, Depth(inehes): 724 hydrology Saturation present? Yes No _Depth (inches): Z4, present? (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial pnotos, previous i%pectlons), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Feglon WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site &4.1 ,+�- _y-4� _Le,,Q CRy/County: �,�. � f� Sampling Date: _ JP�(p//s A3plInvestanUOwner — g �y�/ �( / State: /yA/ Samplir Point Investigator(s): why Section, Township, Range: SaJ r.1/6AL zsjo mt Landfo(hillslope, terrace, etc.): �q Local relief (concave, convex, none ): S cps (%): I_ Let: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name_ + VWI Classification: _ pFJiA /F'S. / B Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? _ /L (If no, explain in remarks) ! Are vegetation �L, $oil _M , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "ncrmal circumstances' Are vegetation soil _il , or hydrology )\/ naturally problematic? oresent9 AUMMAKT OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present?_ Hydric soil present? is the sampled area within a wellan,ILI_ Wetland hydrology present? _� f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) v GVC r A r run — use smennnn names nt ntnme - Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: >r ) t % Cover t Spec es Staus Number of Dominant Species 1�c�,r jqa,.:.� yin _�� _i�G that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) _� Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: A (g) Percent of Dominant Species 3 5 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: BOG (A)BI =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stralurc (Plot size: 1,f ) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover c- 2 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 4 FAC species 0 x 3= D FACU species 0 x 4 = 3 Jb_= Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5 = 3 Herb stratum (Plot size: jE n ) Column totals 0 (A) 0 (B) • - FA!�,W Prevalence Index = EVA = - _Y 4. A-LAOat•- -%e; c . �� Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Rapid lest for hydrophytic vegetation jL Dominance test is >50% _� __ 5 f' Prevalence ndex is s3.0' i E. Morphogical adaptations* (provide � supporting data in Remarks or on a _ separate sheet) Problematic iydrophytic vegetation* 10 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: ',�e iJ -Indicators _ 1 of hydric soil ana welllmd hydraoay moor be present, ur leas tliaNrhetl or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? _Y— Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheen US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Samnlinn Pninfh 2_/ .l_ Profile Descripdon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator Depth MEN Redox Features _.._ 1 wa:- r or confirm the absence of indicators.) (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc" Texture Re^�r s P—le Or 10 — wd 2 a 'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Bard Grains. "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis: Histisol (All _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Dark Surface (S'r) (LRR K, L) Blade Histic (A3) _ Stripped Matrix ($6) _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Stratified Layers (AS) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Very Shallow Do k Surface (TF12) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (explain in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydi 3phytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) _ Redox Depressions ;FB) hydrology must to present, unless disturbed or _5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric soil preserl?_ Depth (inches): Remarks: nrDROLOG I Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required- check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (All _Aquatic Fauna (813) 3oll Cracks (B6) High Water Table(A2) _True Aquatic Plants(B 14) _Surface Drairsge Patterns(810) Saturation(A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Water Table(C2) Water Marks (81) Oxidized Rhizospheres of Living Roots Burrows (C6) —Crayfish Sediment Deposits (82) _ (C3) _ Saturatk n Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) Drift Deposits (B3) _ Presence of Reduced Iroi (C4) _ Stunted x Stressed Plants (C1) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Bolts � Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (85) (C6) —Thin Test (DS) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Muck Surface (C7) -Neutral-PAC-Neuhal Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Be) —Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No _Depth (inches): Wetland Water table present? Yes .�_ No Depth(inohes): hydrology Saturation present? Yes �_ _ No Depth (inches):_ prei:ent? 14 (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region p WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/Site Jt ( A4-,i ..(6.yc [�,City/County: (,r.M,ryytrx*,r Sampling Date: J014//f Applicant/Owner DO" / State: /6W Sampling Point 4-Lip Investigator(s): ���.. 3ection, Township, Range: Sm• ;;- -j�j/ Z3/J Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): kmar wa Local relief (concave, convex, none): _ Gsnw Slope (%): 1_ Let: Long: Datum: _ Soil Map Unit Name Ayloi I VWI Classification: _ Are climaliethydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? _� (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation �soil or hydrology Are"norcnal circumstances" L, _�L y ogy_� significantly disturbed? Are vegetation L, soil N , or hydrology 1V naturally\/ problematic? oresenty SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? K_ Hydric soil present? _likill" Is the sampled area within a wetlan,__�L Wetland hydrology present? f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) vi` r n r lwly — V se SGIBnIlTic names OT Diants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: Yll tr%% Cover t Species Stauuss 2 4:0 ^ Y FAC, 3 4 5 V =Total Cove Sapling/Shrub straturc (Plot size: t3.�r1 ) 3�''ric -�—— 'ti•Ir�S 4 5 = Total Covei Herb stratum (Plot size Srry,J i 3 4'�- 6 6 �. / _�3 7 B 9 10 = Total Cover Woody vine stratum (Plot size, �e /r J _ ) 1 2 0 =Total Cover Photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) FA FA4 FAL —FA,L Test Worksheet Number of Doming nt Species that are OBL, FAUN, or FAC: '_ (A) Total Number or Dominant Species Across all Strata: i�_ (B) Percent of Doming it Species that are OBL, FACIN, or FAC:_ (A/B) Total % Cover of OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACN/ species 0 x 2 = 0 _ FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 _ FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 _ UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 _ Column totals 0 (A) 0 (6) Preva ence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation —Dominance test is >50% _Prevalence in iex is 53.0' Morphogicat adaptations' (provide supporting da:a in Remarks or on a —separate shee t) Problematic hydrophytic vegetation' (explain) Indicators of hydric ;oil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic vegetation present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: �J_ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc" Texture Remarks Ili 'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sard Grains. "Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (94) _Coast Prairie Redox (A'6) (LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon (A2) —Sandy Redox (SS) —Dark Surface (S 7) (LRR K, L) Blade Histic (A3) —Stripped Matrix ISIS) _ 5 cm Mucky Peet or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L. R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) —Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Stratified Layers (AS) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _2 cm Muck (At 0) _Depleted Matrix (F3) _Other (explain in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1) Redcx Dark Surface (F6) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) 5 cm Mucky Peal or Peat (S3) _ —Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions ;FB) 'Indicators of hydr�phytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must to present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil presort? �L Remarks: HY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required check all that apply) Se:ondary Indicators (minimum of two reouiredl Surface Water (All _Aquatic Fauna (B13) Soil Cracks (BB) High Water Table (A2) _Surface Aquatic Plants (B14) Drainage Patterns (BI0) Saturation (A3) _True _ _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) -Sam on Water Table (C2) Water Marks (Bt) _Dry Oxidized Rhizospheres or, Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (CB) Sediment Deposits (B2) _ (C3) n Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) _Saturalic _ Presence of Reduced Iron, (C4) Stunted x Stressed Plants (C1) Algal Mal or Crust (B4) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorl:hic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) _ (C8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) —Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (139) —Other (Explain In Remarks) _ e tl bservat ons: Surface water present? Yes No )_Depth (inches): Welland Water table present? Yes No _Depth (Inches): hydrology Saturation present? Yes No __Depth (inches): 2,s, present? (includes capillary fringe) T--^' Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Fegion Project/SiteWETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region %4L _ /�r�I11��C�rNwd City/County: (,/,M,jSampligDate:_ JD��p4/,f— Applicant/Owner: State. Ld6C- :�'1/halZ/ � Ml./ Sampli ig Point LandfInvestirm hiss (��y ✓ iectior, Township, Range. _�,. � 7±//h��ZtLJ Slope (rm (hillslope, terrace, etc.): L�� Local relief (concave, convex, none Slope (%) Let: �y�w + ) �_ Long: Datum Soil Map Unit Name E6 d*.1 VWI Classification: _�MF! Are climatothydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation W , soil or hydrology _,8L significantly disturbed? Are "normal circumstances' Are vegetation _P4 , soil or hydrology__ naturally protlematic? present?� SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, exp ain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? -_.)'__ Hydric soil present? _y Is the sampled area within a wetlan•�_ Wetland hydrology present? Y, f yes, opticnal wetland site ID: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) \I., T•T.— I RUIV IIPIIICJ VI p1drlt5. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: �r ) % Cover t Species Slaus Number of Domi rant Species 1 that are DEL, FACW, or FAC (A) 2 3 _ Total Number of Domirant Species Auc ss all Strata: % (g) 4 Percent of Domi rant Species :hat are DEL, FA--W, or FAQ Jdp (A/g) 0 ;Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: tSr) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover c f: 2 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 3 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 4 PAC species 0 x 3= 0 5 FACU species C x 4= 0 0 = Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 3r�� ) Column totals 0 fA) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = —7 3 /_ �.atLTnM r Ca '4o� 4&zwv#e �p, y B/SL Hydrophylic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrephytic vegetation 5 Dominance lest is >50% 5 —Prevalence idex is <_3.0' 8 Morphogical adaptations' (provide a supporting cata in Remarks or on 2 separate shr el) 10 _ Problematic hydropnytic vegetation' C—�_=Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: ', e�r„rJ _) 1 9nolrators o1 nydri4, soil and wedantl hytlro o% must be prpres�ent�ur ess disturbed or prolUemai c HyOfepnytiC 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Remarks. (Inc4u(Je photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Ramnlinn Dana L__..ar Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc"' or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Texture Remarks 'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. "Location: PLO = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (Al) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) _Coast Prairie Redox tWR (LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Sandy Redox x (S _ Dark Surface (S-) (LRR K, L) _Stripped Matrix finer _5 cm Mucky Pegt or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic Sulfide Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) _Stratified Layers (AS) Loamy DepletedGleyed Matri Matrix (F2) _ Very Shallow Da'k Surface (TF12) _2 pl Muck low �doxD Matrix ace _Other (explain in remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _Redox Dark Surface (F6) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _Redox Depressions 1F8) hydrology must to present, unless disturbed or _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) problematic Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: Hydrie soil present? Depth (inches): ems s: uvnon, ncv Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is requiredcheck all that apply) Secondary Ind Cators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (Al) _Aquatic Fauna (813) Surface :3011 Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) _True Aquatic Plants (6141 _Drainage Patterns (810) Saturation (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Sea: on Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) Oxidized Oxidized on Living Roots _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) (C3) _ Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _Saturation Stunted cr Stressed Plants (Dl) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils _ GeomorF hic Position (02) Iron Deposits (B5) (CB) _ FAC•NeL:ral Test 05) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) —Thin Muds Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) —Gauge or Well Data (D9) —Water-Stained Leaves (139) _Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes C No Depth inches p (inches): �_ Wet and Water table resent? Yes — P � No Depth (inches): .pt hydrology Saturation presentYes __,L__ No Depth (inches): } present? _ f (includes capillary fringe) _y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region APPENDIX C Site Photographs Project Name and/or Number: PART ONE: Applicant Information 2pw-Z34- 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: Q6,0tA Ve�e.l li Mailing Address: jpf- Pia8.,e7 �=l Phone: E-mail Address: .Gov" Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Sm, Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: W'*7r1G. c cvb5vtt ) W DGJ PSS Mailing Address: SS2 i ��� W, *� %J)p Phone: (p) 2 "$OZ _ / • ) PYlikl c-aur lam. �•�f �J' J'T� E-mail Address: fq J i j�rGobsaraHvgu,sy, C,oµq PART TWO: Site Location Information County: e,✓ City/Township: Parcel ID and/or Address: Z574-2D070 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): See_ ZSJ Tl i 4N f R236✓ 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. +Ae„ r.6 If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide 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: htta //www mvo usace army mil/Portals/57/dots/re ulatory/RegulatoriDocs/eng'orm 4345 20L2oct.00f PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If tiis application is related to a delineatior approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provioe 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 prciect 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. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary 2plS-Z3�- 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. Aquatic Resource ID as noted on ( overhead view) Aquatic (wetland, lake, Resource Type tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T) Size of Impact z Overall Size of Aquatic Resource' Existing Plant Community I ppact Are a° County, Major Watershed If, and Bank Service Area# of Impact Area rlf 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)". 2Inpacts 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 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 impa.ts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 'This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter "N/A". 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin P 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 with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature Check here if you are requesting a Pre•aoolication 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 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: I hereby authorize Date: to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, el supplemental information in support of this application. s 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 4 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation 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): ® Wetland Type Confirmation 14 Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless 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 resources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). lid Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non -binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of Impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. ❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). http://Www.mvi).usace army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance asox Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary 2o/5--Z* 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 locatlon(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. Aquatic Aquatic Resource Resource Type (as noted on (wetland, lake, overhead overhead view) tributary etc.) Type of impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact P Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)' Size of Impact' Overall Size of Aquatic Resource' Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area County, Major Watershed M, and Bank Service Area A of Impact Area It impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the `T". For example, a project witl i a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered "T (220)". 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as sues 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 impa =ts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). This Is generally only applicable B you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter "N/A". Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3`a Ed. as modified in MN Rules 9420.0405 Subp. 2. 'Refer 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 with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature [ Check here if you are requesting a pre -application consultation with the Corps and LGt1 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 that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I furthrar attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: � "V � Date: I hereby authorize to act on my behalf as my agent in the ptocessing of this application and to furnish, upon request, / I supplemental information in support of this application. �rfv �.rYlcvt, '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 4 of 11 i —� Property boundary Proposed Driveway (15 ft wide) (green) �O 00 Delineated Wetland Boundary 1) (red) W • Proposed Contour & Elevation (black) • •. b!AIIs Proposed Wetland Impact , 1248 SF (yellow hatch) Existing Contour & Elevation Mn_Topo Lidar (white) Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Jacobson Environmental, PLLC- Phone: ' Email: pcobsonenv@nv;n.cam 0 5 10 20 Figure 6 p°i°�°1."m'mwi.,xUne cmn� 1°2a-zuxl5 O Feet Proosed DrivewayImpact MNopoxome w,mam m oss. NO Y�.\>: 25.74 ZOO-w AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016, 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A. CALL TO ORDER B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS C. NEW BUSINESS D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 9641 Meadowlark Lane Wetland Alteration Permit and Variance — Planning Ca! 2016-04: Request 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. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 19, 2016. LAK914 a uU.T.`TC13`►i7� Fs I�I�YII:rt0rQZZ 1 G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. City Council Action Update 2. Future Planning Commission Agenda Items H. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION I. ADJOURNMENT J. OPEN NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda It; however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. PROPOSED MOTION: "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 this 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 in 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." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Wetland Alteration Permit for the construction of a driveway in order to access the property, as well as a variance to allow them to encroach on the required setback from the tributary stream on the property to achieve a driveway alignment that would avoid further wetland impacts. 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: ACREAGE: 2.5 Acres DENSITY: NA Residential Large Lot LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION- MAIQNG: Variance — The city's discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. m Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 2 of 16 Wetland Alteration Permit — The city's discretion in approving or denying a Wetland Alteration Permit 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. 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. The applicant is also requesting a 70-foot shoreland setback variance from a tributary and a wetland alteration permit to construct a driveway. The subject property is currently vacant, but will be developed for a single-family home in the future. The applicant is requesting the proposed variance and driveway alignment in order to avoid additional wetland impacts. 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 Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Section 20-481, Placement, design and height of structures Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 3 of 16 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. Figure 2. Wetland Impacts Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP —Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 4 of 16 The applicant is also requesting a variance from the required 100-foot minimum setback from the tributary stream that flows from the south through the property to Lake Riley. This alignment would avoid wetland impacts to Wetland Basin 3 (See Figure 3 below). 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. Figure 3. Wetland Boundaries City Code requires driveways serving unsewered lots to be setback 100 feet from the ordinary high water level of tributary streams. Section 20-484 (b) of City Code states: "Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. " Given the location of the tributary stream, and the dimensions of the lot, providing access would be extremely difficulty without encroaching into the required setback. The proposed project encroaches 70 feet into the required 100-foot tributary stream setback for unsewered lots. 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 Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 5 of 16 (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 not submitted any plans for a residence or potential future location of the structure. Any future structures and plans for such must meet ordinance setback requirements. There appears to be adequate buildable area on the site that will allow the property owner to build a single-family home. 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 Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 6 of 16 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. E1dia% baotri Elavafan W-TaootiarMO.) 1im�un 10 R NWd SaWadc fiam Pwpamd Qi`away 8j0 rommate OHW/ Top of Bank Unany kFrmun 30 R t�� (Variance Request.- 70' encroachment into 100' setback) D�iiealod W4rad Bmndwy W3 2567 SF U ta. Comt Pq"8=WWy A Ma1.-d.a SrSF b,dwhdda Prapowd cmamr (badcl6 e«awn bl awaiiiiwit.c� COU*.WWWWU o s ,o zo r ......a..� °` Figure 5. Proposed driveway alignment and resulting wetland impacts. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 7 of 16 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 minimise 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 minimise 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 minimise 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. City code requires that a driveway be a minimum width of 10 feet. The proposed alternative shows a width of 12 feet. Therefore, impacts could reasonably be reduced. Additionally, the proposed alternative shows the driveway intersecting the public road at an oblique angle thereby Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 8 of 16 requiring that the wetland be transected at the same angle. This alignment creates a longer crossing of the wetland and results in additional impacts that could be avoided. This alignment also deviates from the requirements of Section 20-1122 of city code which states that "Within right-of-way driveways should access city streets at 90 degrees." These minimizations should be reviewed and discussed within the Interagency Water Resource Application. SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST In order to achieve the proposed alignment and prevent impacts to Wetland Basin 3, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 100-foot shoreland setback requirement from the tributary stream that flows through the property to Riley Lake. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Code, Section 20481 (a), structures shall be setback from the ordinary high water level of tributary streams a minimum of 100 feet. As part of the proposed driveway alignment, the applicant is requesting an encroachment of 70 feet into the required 100-foot setback to allow for the proposed alignment and avoid further wetland impacts (See Figure 6 below). Figure 6. Variance Request Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 9of16 Variances Granted within 500 Feet of the Property The Riley Lake Meadows development does not have a very extensive history of receiving variances. Staff reviewed city records to determine if any variances were granted within 500 feet of the subject property and found one approved variance at 240 Eastwood Court. This property was granted an 18.5-foot variance from the 30-foot bluff protection setback to construct a deck. With only the driveway construction proposed for the property, there should likely be little to no increase in surface water runoff rates or volumes. It must be noted, however, that the prevention of pollution of surface waters is only one of the reasons for the enactment of shoreland management rules. Minnesota Rules Chapter 6120.3300, Subpart 1. defines the purpose as: "to manage the effects of shoreland and water surface crowding, to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters of the state, to provide ample space on lots for sewage treatment systems, to minimise flood damages, to maintain property values, to maintain historic values of significant historic sites, and to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands and adjacent water areas, shoreland controls must regulate lot sizes, placement of structures, and alterations of shoreland areas." In this case, however, the applicant has clearly demonstrated a sensitivity in their placement and design of the driveway to the unique nature of the property and has made an effort to reduce the impact on surface water resources. 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 Variance Findines — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a 10-foot wide driveway to access the property is a normal use of a property in a residential district, which is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article Xl. "RR" Rural Residential District. Providing adequate driveway access is a standard accessory use for the property. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 10 of 16 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The location of the tributary stream, as well as the location of the three identified wetland basins on the lot, creates practical difficulties in providing access to the lot. In order to avoid wetland impacts to an additional wetland basin on site, and provide reasonable access to the lot and future residence, a shoreland setback variance from the tributary is necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home on a lot of record in a residential zoning district and is trying to provide adequate access. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of both the tributary stream and wetland basins creates a unique circumstance in constructing an adequate driveway to the lot. None of the water resources were created by, nor was their location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (similar home sizes). Finding: The homes located on either side of the home are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, a rural residential district. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 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, Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 11 of 16 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. £ 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 12 of 16 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 minimise 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: Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 13 of 16 (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 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 14 of 16 (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. 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 15of16 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. Although impacts could be further reduced, the applicant has made significant efforts in reducing and avoiding impacts to wetlands on the property. The applicant is also requesting a variance to encroach 70 feet into the minimum setback requirement of 100 feet from the tributary stream that runs through the property. The proposed project is not allowed per City Code and requires a variance from the City, however, the applicant's request to construct a driveway in order to access the property is a reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting the proposed variance in order to avoid additional wetland impacts. It is unlikely that there will be any additional drainage runoff or pollution due to the approval of the proposed driveway; however, there are multiple other reasons for the enactment of the shoreland management rules. In this case, however, the applicant has chosen the proposed driveway alignment in an effort to preserve and avoid impacts to the natural resources on the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation; and that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a variance to encroach 70 feet into the required 100-foot shoreland setback from a tributary stream, 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 including narrowing the driveway to 10 feet 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. The driveway shall be aligned to cross the wetland perpendicular to the long axis of the wetland, i.e. in the shortest available route. 4. 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. Planning Commission 9641 Meadowlark Lane Variance and WAP — Planning Case 2016-04 February 2, 2016 Page 16 of 16 5. An erosion prevention and sediment control plan consistent with Section 19-154 of city code must be included. 6. The plan must indicate how temporary impacts to the wetland and the buffer area will be permanently stabilized. 7. Culvert shall be aligned with the flow line of the wetland being crossed. Elevations at both culvert openings shall be indicated on the plan. 8. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Shoreland Setback Variance 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. ATTACIEWENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation for Wetland Alteration Permit. 2. Findings of Fact and Decision for Variance. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application. 5. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. g.1p1m\2016 planning cases\2016-04 9641 meadowlark lane variance & wap\Mff report.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 2, 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 Wedand 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 minimise 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 minimise 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. 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 minimised 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 minimise the impact on vegetation. Finding: Efforts have been made by the applicant to minimise 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 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. 4 (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 20411. Finding: The applicant must comply with the City's Wetland Protection Ordinance. 5. The planning report #2016-04, dated February 2, 2016, prepared by Krista Spreiter, et al, is incorporated herein. 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 2' day of February, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN M Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VARIANCE Application of Gayle M. & Richard P. Vogel for a 70-foot shoreland setback variance from a tributary to construct a driveway on property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) — Planning Case 2016- 04. On February 2, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a 10-foot wide driveway to access the property is a normal use of a property in a residential district, which is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District. Providing adequate driveway access is a standard accessory use for the property. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The location of the tributary stream, as well as the location of the three identified wetland basins on the lot, creates practical difficulties in providing access to the lot. In order to avoid wetland impacts to an additional wetland basin on site, and provide reasonable access to the lot and future residence, a shoreland setback variance from the tributary is necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home on a lot of record in a residential zoning district and is trying to provide adequate access. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of both the tributary stream and wetland basins creates a unique circumstance in constructing an adequate driveway to the lot. None of the water resources were created by, nor was their location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (similar home sizes). Finding: The homes located on either side of the home are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, a rural residential district. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2016-04, dated February 2, 2016, prepared by Krista Spreiter, et al, is incorporated herein. 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 in plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a driveway, subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2°d day of February, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �1 Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard V�/�{ F C�SLN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 CITY APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW submiaal Date: ' l to - 'PC'Date: a/a, /I 10 .b ICc Date: of aj-1 /(o io-Day Review Date: - 3) 4 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal infonnafbn that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers ..... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ❑ Single -Family Residence................................$325 ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ In conjunction with Single-Famiy Residence.. $325 [IAll Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 ❑ All Others......................................................... $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Administrative..................................................$100 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: (_ thousand square feet) 'Include number of existing employees: 'Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts.........................................$500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (— units) ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300 ❑ Create over 3 lots .......................$600 + $15 per lot lots) ❑ Metes & Bounds (2 tots)..................................$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 (Addisonal recording fees may apply) [Variance (VAR) .................................................... $200 ❑� Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) ❑� Single -Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ All Others ....................................................... $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 (VOTE: When multiple applications arc processed cenwrrerrthy, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. [D'NOtification Sign (city to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200 0 Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre-applicauon meeting) .................................................. $3 per address (_AQ_ addresses) 't ig ❑� Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)...............................................•••...•................. $W per document El Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation ❑'Variance ❑v Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements( easements) TOTAL FEE: 50.4 Section 2: Rr-quired Information 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. Parcel #: 257420070 Legal Description: Total Acreage: 2.40 Wetlands Present? 9641 Meadowlark Lane NE 1/4 of Section 25, T116N, R23W ® 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 APPUCANTI CIHER THAN PRC PERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, ac applicant, represent to have ottainex aulhorizalian from the praperty cnAnee to file this applcatian. I aigreie to to bot. nd ty eanditianss of apprrnril, sc tjecl only to It a right to abjecl at ih(e heianings an It ei application or c u rind the appeial pemioc . 111111 is application Lion Has not teen -,signet b) 1t a proper ) awrie n, I t avee Ellached separate dcaumenlalion of full legal aarlacily to Ile Ices applicatlion. This application st aL Ic to prooesisoc in my name arc I am the parry Ahom It e C iry shoo Ic contact reigarc ing any Instiller pertaining to th is applkrfticn. I will keep m)sen informed of the deaclines for su tmiseiicn of materiail arc the progress of It 1s application. I fu rtt an uncen kern NO adc ifional fees may to of argec fan cansu hinq feeri, faiasibilily Ou c ies, clo. with an estimate prion 10 an) Militarization to prociecc Hilt the siu(). I oEsr ity lhat Ihcs informalior arc erhibile su bmittec are In a and ccereiat. Name: C onlacl: Ac c mess: Ph are: C it),ISlaie,Qi p: Cell: Email: Fex: Signatc ne: Date: PRORERTY OWNER: In esigning tt is applicetian, I, ass prapeirl} awncu, H eive ft II legal cepaciry to, anc hcveb) c a, authorize it fling of lhki appliaatian. I unc enslanc that coricitions of appooval ants bincing and agree to be barn b) hose coricitions, sub feat only to the nigh 1 to otjecl at to hearings or c L ring to appeal peuloc Ei. I H ill keep m)sielf informec cd tt e c eac liners for submission of malerial and Ih ei piogressse cf tt is apcllicetion. I fi r her L nc erstand tat ac c itianal fees may to ct ascicsc for (an;iclUrxl feels, fes.,iit ililp slc c ies, eta. wbh an eaimale prior to an) ac tt arizaliari to praaeesc wit the stud). I certify that the information arc exhit its ec t mitred are Ines and aorrect. Name: ®avic'vogel Conlacl: David VcWl Accremr. 109 Pioneer Trail Phone: I612) 991-28&9 Ci1y,ISlate,Vip: CtanhEsEien, MN 55317 Cell: 161,1: 991-264£I Bmail: dpv agel@gnlail.oam Fax: Signalurr. Date: \ 14 i \t c TH iv orplicalion Inc sl be campieied in fu 11 anc me at be accompanicsc t y all irfcumatian anc plans nequinEic by applimitia City Cnc inanei provisions. Befare tlbrcl Ihi-i aflplioatiori, refer to 1He apprapriale Applicalicm Checklist and corder,Ailt Ite Plarinincl DEipartmerl to c elermine It ci specrile ax irancts End apFlliaables pwceedural requireimenls anc feels. A cetenminalion of campletenesss of It i aFlpliaation st Ell bee maces ,Aitt iri 19 b c siriEssse c erys cd applicatian Su t mittEsl. A N ritten nclices cd application (afieienoisc -,shall to mailec +o Ih ei Eippliceint wilhin 15 be sinesis da)s of appiieelkin. PROJECT ENGINEER 111applioablei) Name: C onlac l: A c dressy. Phone: CilyASlale0p: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should reoeive copies of staff reports? `Other C arlacl Information: 2 Prortery Cwner Via: 2] Email ❑ Nvilesc Paper Copy NEIRIe: Applkent Via: 2 Email ❑ Nailed Paper Cap) Acdreissc ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Nailed Paper Cap) CitylSIvie,Rip: ❑ Olheer Via: ❑Email ❑Nailed Paper Cap) Email: INSTRUCINC NS TIO APPLICANT: Complete Es11 neaswery form felciv, ten scicsat SAVE FC RM to sane a copy to )our c evicle. PRINT FORM anc c eliver to city along with requinec c eau menis and payment. SUBMIT RORN to sent v digi+al cap) to to city for processing Iresqulrlc). save NORM PRIM RCIIiI SUBMf1 NORM We reed ribs variancar 10 build a driveway for tha hoL se that we plan 10 build ir, the sprirg of 2016. TY.Ia ardim dilchl has becir designated as wcaland, and we need to go within 50 faat of the stream la avoid constructing part of the dimewaH over additional wetland on lhci north side of the ditch. This variation will not only avoid 1 ak ing out addif onal wetlard, but also minimize the number of largci tre as ricieded to be reancmd thal are also lacated in that arena and beWnd. The rersl of the new drivewaM will mos1131 follow the d"n road that our family has uscd for oveu a 1 Oa )ears I get to the lake wilt) minimal rernoval of ar y additional trcres. 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 provide 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: htto://www.mvp.usace army mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatorv/RegulatoryDocs/`engform 4345 2012oct odf 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: 201S-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. Aquatic Type of impact Duration of x Eisting Plant County, Major Aquatic Resource Resource Typedrain, (fill, excavate, Impact Overall size of Community Watershed #, ID (as noted on wetland, lake, or Permanent (P) Size of Impact Aquatic and Bank overhead view) tributary etc.) remove or Temporary Resources e T yps In' Service Area # vegetation) (T)' Impact Area of Impact Areas W1 W F P 0.022 N/A SM 10,33,9 'If 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)". 2Impacts 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). 'This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter "N/A". 4Use Wetlond Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin P 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 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: h 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. ' 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 I 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 Project Name and/or Number: 2015-275 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 replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Wetland Bank Account H Count Major y Watershed p Bank Service Area # Credit Type (if applicable) Number of Credits 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 applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are 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. WCA Action Eligible B for Credit' Corps Mitigation compensation Technique" Acres Credit % Requested Credits 3 Anticipated County Major Watershed tl Bank Service Area p •�•�• •� • _ •oi�m vim>uvymr uulnuer in MIN NUIe 54LU.Ub Zb. 'Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 3If 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 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: 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 Signature: Title: Landowner Date: 1/4/2016 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 11 Delineated Wetland Boundary (red) it^l F 11LE�"`fl i Property boundary Proposedl (15 ft wide) (green) ' Proposed Conto�r & l2" Proposed Wetland Impact 1248 SF L (yellow hatch) , Existing Contour & Elevation - Mn_Topo Lidar (white) r Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Pn :(612>802r 79 -a E+nell: jocobsatenv�msn.mm 0 5 10 20 eoptl Nam¢: v Figure b' 1M¢WowlK Lade CluMScsea p']U-i015 Feet _ Proposed Dnvewav Imoarr _Aaw a 06 Property Boundary Existing g C�r�on Mn_Topo Lidar (white) Proposed Wetland Impact 957 SF (yellow hatch) Minimum 5 Ft. Wetland Setback From Proposed Driveway Proposed Driveway (12 ft wide) (green) Proposed Contour (black) & Elevation (yellow/black) Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Jacobson F-nvqronmentgl PI I Ph . (612W26619 Enrl:pa0sonen�men.mm 0 5 10 20 Figure 7 M lane Feet Pro osed Drivewa Im act ram`, "°"" wrpmi 1oss�i "° 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 or 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 watershed 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 2016 2. Initial Spring Construction April 2016 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 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Govemment Unit (LGU) Address City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, PO Box 147 Chanhassel MN 55317 t. PRn.YF.rT TVVnRMATrnN Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application David Vogel 9641 Meadowlark Lane Application Number 10/28/2015 2015-08 DQ Attach site locator map. Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recomr ❑ Approve ❑ Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: November 20.2015 -1 ❑ 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 !4 of Section 25, T116N, R23W and has the following parcel ID: 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 comer and has been identified as a Type 2/6, wet meadow/shrub swamp, PEM/SS1B 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 21-.id, 20I5, 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 For R lacement Plans using credits from the State Weiland Bank: Bank Account # Bank Sery ce Area County Credits Approved for Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest Ol 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 LOU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions 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 Fors 11-25-09 Page 2 of 3 Signing and mailing of this completed form 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 request. Name Title Terrance Jeffery, WDC Water Resources Coordinator Signatut Date Phone Number and 952,227.1168 f--- Ir1t.�1S ti efferv(a�ci.eh�nh Additional'ap*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 re%ised under appeal, the applicant may he 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: one: I'l Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send ❑ Appeal of LGU governing body decision. petition and $50_00 fee (if applicable) to: Send petition and $500 filing fee to: Chanhassen City Council Executive Director c/o Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 7700 Market Blvd, PO Box 147 520 Lafayette Road North Chanaassen, MN 55317 St. Paul, MN 55155 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Chip Heutges, Aaron Finke ® BWSR TEP member. Ben Meyer ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ® DNR TEP member (notice only): ® DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member): ® WD or WMO (if applicable): Claire Bleser, Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District ® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): David Vogel ® Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): Wayne Jacobson, Jacobson Environmental, PLLC ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only) Melissa Jenny ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only): BWSR Forms 11-25-09 1 age 3 of 3 5. MAILING INFORMATION DFor a list of BWSR TEP representatives, see: www.bW$r.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/wOrkareas/WCA areas ndf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives, see: www.bwsr.state.mn.mg 'wetlands/wca/DNR TFT contacts odf DDenartment ofNan,rn1 Vo..:--- I Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Fora map Reg. Eay. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Grand Rapids, MN see: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul. MN 55106 ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers, see: www m3M usacearmy mi�latory/default agp'.iaiteid=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 6. ATTACHMENTS Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South New Ulm, MN 56073 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. BWSRFocros 11-25-09 of 3 Page APPENDIX F Wetland Delineation Report 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) 802-6619 Cell 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 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 residential lots, wetlands, woodlands. Lake Riley, and roadways on all sides. This parcel is a combination of a woodland, and tnree wetlands at 9641 Meadowlark Lane in Chanhassen, Minnesota Figure 5 is a Welland 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, identfy areas meeting the 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 Smooth Brome Herbs Kentucky Bluegrass Reed Canarygrass Common Plantain Tusssock Sedge Tall Go Slinging Nettle Commonn Dandelion an Water Smartweed Red Raspberry Lake Sedge While Clover Lesser Duckweed Ground Ivy Jewelweed Broadleaf Cattail Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys 1 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -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 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com The growing season for this site is approximately from 4115 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 Minresota DNR and the annual 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.+6115 precipitation worksheet data was as follows: Worksheet (Wks) 30% less than 30% more than Sept Aug July 3.19' 2.82' 7,64 2.20 3.09 2.48 4.15 5.33 4.86 = NWS Da:a 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 October 6, 2015 and it is unlikely the precipitation totals in this pencd affected the boundary of any wetlands in this delineation, since the period was normal. 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 Manual. Wettand boundaries were determined through a routine analysis of the vegetation, soils and hydrology which must all show wetland characteristics in order for an area to be delineated as a wetland. Wetlands are areas that are saturated or inundated with surface and or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted 'or life in hydric soi conditions. Examples of wetlands inc ude seasonally ficoded basins, 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 Weiland Ratings, Phytoneuron 2014-41: 1-42, In the text of this report and on the enclosed data forms, the plant indicator status follows the plant's 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, and woody vine) were assigned an ooligate (OBL)', facultative wet (FACW), andlor facultarive (FAC) wellane status. OBL-Obligate Wetland, occurs an estimated 99% in wetlands. FACW=Facultative Wetland, has an estimated 6714-991/9 probability of occurrence in wetlands. FAC=Facultative, is equally likely to occur in wetlands and non - wetlands, 34°0-66%probability. FACU=Facultative Upland, occurs in wetlands only occasion.tlly, 1%-23% Probability. UPL=Upland, almost never occurs in wetlands. <1% probabiViv. NI= No Indicator. insufficient information available to determine an indicator status. Positive or negative sign previously in&cated a frequency toward higher (-) or lower (-) frequency of occurrence with an category. Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -Environmental Referrais Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmentiii.com Environmental Consultants - Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. ------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------------------------- 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN SS430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenvOmsn.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 vegetative 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 part. 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 Hydric Soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States version 7.0 (USDA NRCS 2010) if present at each sample point. Also, upper soil profiles were compared to the mapped or inclusionary soil series found in the sample area for soil identification purposes. Cautions used in amivino the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils There are hydric soils with morphologies that are difficult to interpret. These include sails with black, gray, or red parent material; soils with high pH; soils high or low in content of organic matter; recently developed hydric soils, and soils high in iron inputs. In some cases we do not currently have indicators to assist in the identification of hydric 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 hydric. The indicatorswere 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 indicators. Redoximorphic features are most likely to occur in soils that cycle between anaerobic (reduced) and aerobic (oxidized) conditions. Morphological features of hydric soils indicate that saturation and anaerobic conditions have existed under either contemporary or former 1-ydrologic regimes. Where soil morphology seems inconsistent with the landscape, vegetation, or observaole hydrology, it may be necessary to obtain the assistance of an experienced soil or wetland scientist to determine 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 soils will be identified by the indicators 5. Many of the hydric soils are Mollisols which are classic prob em hydric soils in many cases Wetland Classification Wetland classifications discussed in the :ext are set forth in Wetlands and Daepwaler Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79i31, Cowardin at al. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 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 3 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Sal ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -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 612 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenvOmsn"com The Routine On -site Determination Method was used on this site in this method, the following Procedures were used: 1) The vegetative communiy was sampled in all present strata to determine whether 50% of the dominant plant species were hydrophytic using the 50120 method 2) Soil pits were dug using a dutch auger to depths of 18"40", noting soil 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 transact crosses each delineated wetland edge. These transacts consist of ar upland sample point, and a wetland sample point. Other sample points 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 pin 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 shallow marsh comprised of 3%, broadleaf cattail, 50% 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 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 disappeared in the upland. Basin 3 Basin 3 is a PEM/SS1 B ditched Type 2/6 wet meadow/shrub swarrp comprised of 60% sandbar willow as shrubs, 40% reed canarygrass, 20% jewelweed, 20% stinging nettle, and 10% great ragweed along with a few other species. The wetland boundary was typically a transition from common buckthorn to reed canarygress 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 disappeared in the upland Basin 4 Basin 4 is a PEMF Type 4 deep marsh comprised of 5% swamp smartweed 20% reec canarygrass, 10% 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 anarygrass 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 disappeared in the upland. Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -functional Analysis-T & E Surveys 4 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation -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 (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 o` Wetland Type and Boundary form ir. Appendix D along with a USCOE wetland delineation concurrence request. Conclusion This wetland delineation meets the standards and criteria desrribee in 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. Tris 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 the 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 -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis-T & E Surveys 5 Phase I Environmental Assessmeits-EAW,s-Soil ID -Soil Analysis & Delineation. Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control & Fish Stocking -Tree Surveys -Natural Resource Management Plans FIGURES 93°33.000' W Figure 1 Site Location Map _ 93° 32,000' W 93°31.000' W WG584 93 30.000' N �•\� -a; ".'-� - VO Dr. W? ° 6p-.. ° ;._._rats�ukt_ _ :l'-: .t% r � c o::� Lake>.Suxrta _ rrr��� rs E / M Jeri h V w Ebel: Iv. 0 a N\ \' i rj- Pl Nr � rye. l � r{ f j Lukc a' if vi • i 61 J � ( � O .� P ♦a \ % rat% R n JnG j({ f r r$+aa Semi _ 212 lk (11EdAe%lrt'T`. LLYL+Ij CO—yy--. _ �r q, A / .�i 1 y i'�.2SCUTT fA 1•�/ _'.�y...�_ ���..� @2007 rllt6 l;, raphic; �u�200iTe�elB:tl .Eti2 93'33.000' W 93.32 000, W 93°31.000' W — — NATIONAL u is WGS04 93.30.000• W wov( GEOGRAPHIC oyl• 10/22/15 Figure 2 DNR National Wetland Inventory nW)CYW nOM 2M-201e ec� xsv� urn Eb w W.4 k Open Wnen (Fbpppe FrNg FF Fuck perycm EE�� Fn(YY Side $bMTJN (ImCITiIIMIf ' SFrvE'Sprvb FeMt ■ UntdiwlNNM BOrtan fBafMs 6 CMnnM) UrcmcollUFtM $nmm (9anMi 6 SanOWr.) Abva[k Mc Emeryem vepetn.T Fvrlitec aW IkbM Open WMer lflt yep Are.) ib[Y Bmtom ,.' Fp[ty<Mrc SlroambN (In:ermR[enl) Rrvb Spub F.1 V�nfbFCelel Bmam (Fealna 11 �iunrµ) Umm�yellMteC sm- fBInYF F 4MM ? t------ ................ _ _.... http:/imndtir.maps.arcgis.conilappsiOnePane%basicviewerlindex.htmj?appid=7112a264fed449deb8521268cO698O46 10/22/2015 Sod Map —Carver County. Minnesota Map Unit Legend I ---- _ — — — Carver County, Minnesota (MN014) T ---------------- Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in Aot u HIM Hamel loam. 0 to 2 percent 4.0 slopes K82 Lester -Kilkenny loams. 2 to 6 02 Percent slopes. eroded KC2 Lester -Kilkenny loans. 6 to 12 0.3 Percent slopes. eroded KE2 Lester -Kilkenny loans. 18 to 25 09 percent slopes. eroded MK MusKego and Houghton sods. 0 02 to i percent slopes ND3 Lester -Kilkenny clay loamy, 12 1 5 to 13percent slopes, severely eroded W Water 06 Totals for Area of interest 7.8 Natural Resources — - — -- Web Soil Survey -- Conservation Service National Cooperative Sod Survey Percent of A01 Fig.ire 3 Soils Map 52 1 % 2 7-9 3.4% 12 1 % 2 4% 19 8% 7 796 100.0% srge 3 of 3 Figure 4 DNR Public Waters Inventory Map 1N Jacobson Environmental, I'LLC Approximate Scale 1" = 5,280' Project No. 2015-234 Figure 7 LIDAR Topo Map The State Of MiMGob and die alimee0ta Da ftrnent of NaOnfi ReSdM'!S makes no Rpesmtat., Or wanarlm espesad a ImpleC. Mtn respect m the use al maps or geographic data provkktl herewlNs regarr0 th d IG as an a the na+arn d Ns Imn uNfitn. it ra is no guarantee or for arri, tatpn m dk user as m the eaurasy, $iirrmcy, sutatibN, m relfedliN d th15 data mr amy purpose. The user accepts Its mare "bs G,' Tha Sete d lax resod assumes no rnp InaWll31 far Ipsa nr Mmage Mtvrted as a copo d sty user rel�ence an th!; d.^.ry. e.0 maps'-nG Wlee iroknal ➢rO:deu MwNn e�! pWee.trd M capyrgm. Exlrtme pare was used during the compdtinn d this Wodud. Navpuer, duo to OWWS in Uwskaslap and the need m rely on odsde infvmetbn, errors a omissgns may "Of. If y should OGa»e. an o.trsighC v'a ent"age yW to let us know by cal" the DNR at 1-t6e4%-6361 a by e-mail at Info.dnMjslate.mn.us. Npk: Deyatmnimages am Gm "wens gerwatM(rdn LIDAR MrNcd ekvabon wdau' arnuhe,l 2d7.Ml2 L ObN nOR 10` :•.p Scale:1:4,152 R. Qeated on 10; 2212015 APPENDIX A Precipitation Data Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Page ! ol'2 Minnesota Climatology Working Group 4;b 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 I contact us ( search 0 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 first prior month: second prior third prior (values are in inches) September month north ugust July 2015 2015 2015 estimated precipitation total for this location: missing missing 7.64 there is a 300/6 chance this location will have less than: 201 3.12 1 2.76 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 357 494 5.05 type of month: dry normal wet missing missing wet monthly score missing_ messing 1 ` 3 = 3 multi -month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normah 15 to 18 (wet) missing Score using 1981-2010 normal period (values are in inches) estimated precipitation total for this location: there rs a 30°/ chanra fh;. i.. Z-.._ less than: there is a 30% chance this location wil. more than: We of month: dry normal wet monthly score t = htWS�,,fiq first prier month second prior third prior September month month August July 2015 _ 2015 2015 3•ty+ _ 2.82+ 7.64 2.20 I 3.09 1 2.48 4.15 1 5.33 1 4.86 »u t I Qry wet =1a 2 lad 1"3=3 http:%/climate. umn.edti gridded_data/precip!ssel land/tvorkshe.:t.asp?passXWin 83-458011... 1tv22 21)15 Hlgh DENsity radius retrict al 0 112 10 Paed I of 1 Minnesota Climatology Working Group qn-) State climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resourc<s university of Mmne•..ota home I cuTem conditions 110101811 past data I summaries I agriculture I other sites I contact us I search I Kj 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 statiohs are no longer retrieved from this application. To obtain those data, see our newest data retrieval tool (May 2C14) National Weather 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 years' F2015 V to 2015v number of missing days allowed per month :a retrieve monthly data) j retrieve daily tlala results: Target: T116 R23 525 mon ]an year 2015 cc 10 tttN 116N rrw 23W ss 23 nnnn ooGOOODO pre (inches) o rs is Feb 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG BYRG 1 Mar 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG .33 85 1 mi. Apr 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG 2.14 1 mi. May 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG 4.34 1 mi. Jun 2015 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG 3.50 1 mi. Jul 201S 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG 7.83 1 mi. Aug 201S 10 116N 23W 23 BYRG 2.82 1 ri. Sep 2015 10 116N 23w 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 3.19 1 2 mi *i oct 2015 in999 mi. Nov Dec 2015 2015 in 999 mi. m 999 mi. cone'. n to Nnaey"W `I are nw. ,as'n Data%'1v.RU,aeUp:cwmlMeOln titl ape are 6nW1.- 1-1 'AR is'nRa'pvOrla fO wverP:aj'7/?eaorbotro'MN: =C OC Iola Sl ,v&Y&9'Ba:O: ]E &0 S?_,,,C'r btylO'f5 o..a 1m'N'h51Jrft N..o:w v4aN seVo QIc"Awo Y2:.W n MI0t Id PIS.fit: yva/:to_:•1\l I7 VL pW9"1 CaN WtiC ll! 1tV$ Ip' My yµayi 0! fplraCl kX :Y IF(111yatWP OaG I r m s 1 Ilia SIIrQ'l0 !y ;rB NYo G :a1rGi prl83 ro a2 a1W �1Ie-1a State Climatology Office - MnDNR - Ecological and Water Resources http:OcIimate.umn.edu/HI Dradit,s/radius_nete.asp 1U/^_2.�015 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region. P o ecvSde City/County: (�H jy fy`A Sampiing Dale: JD/(p //s AoclicanUOwner. "ZZ-J �L of / Stale: A-W Samplirg Point I -Up Irvestirm (hills Derr Section, Township, Range: Lantlform (hiIISICpe, terrace, etc.; none) �-t: / I sly Local relief (concave, convex. none) S ope (%): Lat �— Long: Datum: Sail Map Unit Name VWI Classi5cet:or,: Are climatic'hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? _ /� (if no. explain in remarks) Are vegetation IQ soil _�L , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are vegetation sail Are "nc,mal circumstances" �L �(_ , or hydrobgy �y naturally problematic? 1/ Hydrophylic vegetaton present? i needed. explain any answers in remarks_) lsod present? Welland _ Y Is the sampled area within a wetlan _�_ Wetland hydrology present?_ f yes, optional wetland site ID. narks: (Explain ahercative procedures here or in a separate report.) F-19101 I'm -1 Absolute Dominan Irdicator Tree� sStratum (Plot size: > r ) % Cover t Species Staus 4"" i = Total Cover 3aolinc/Shrub straturt (Plot size: 1SfkM4,L I 3 4 — 0 =Total Cover Herb stratum (Plot size. 6 rt�J 2 3 4 5 o" s 10 _ '.Noodv vine stratum (Plot size: �e �Total Covet 1 0 =Total Cover photo or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species :het are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �_ (A) Trial Number of Dominant Spec es Acrc ss all Strata: (B) Percent of Domi"ant Speces that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: _(A/B) Total % Cover of 081. species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species C x 2 = 0 FAC species C x 3 = 0 FACU species C x 4 = 0 LIPL species C x 5 = 0 Column totals C (A) 0 ,B) Prevalerce Index = B/A = Rapid test, fcr hydrephytic vegetation Dominance lest s >50"rc _ Prevalerce index is 53.0' Morphogica adaptations' (provide supporting data in Remarks or cn a _ separate sheet) Problematic hydrophytic vegetal -on' (explain) 'Intl catws or Ito soy arxi rveeand hpiolog: must be present, arks d s XOW at pmbiemat c vegetation present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL the depth needed to document the Indicatoror confirm the i Color (most) % I Color (moist) `4 Type' Lot— C = Concentration, D = Depletion RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = _ Histisol (At) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) —Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Stratified Layers (AS) 2 crn Muck (A10) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Depth (inches) Surface Water (At) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (Bi) Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposxs(83) Algal Mat or Crust (134) 'ron Deposits (85) inundation Visiole on Aerial Imagery (87) Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (88) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Sandy Gleyec Matrix (S4; —Sandy Redox (S5) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) Loamy Greyed Matrix IF2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Sampling Point: J once of indicator Remarks Sand Grains "Location PL = Pore Lining, fvi = Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) ;LRR K, L) 5 cm Mucky Peat c r Peat (S3) (LRR X. L. R) —iron-Manganese Masses iF12) (LRR K, L, R _Very Snallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dtner (explain in remarks; 'I1d 0stors of hydrophytic vegetation and wellano hydrology must be present. unless cisturted or p obiematic Hydric soil present - _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _True Aquatic Plants (B14) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ct1 Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots _ (C3) _Presence of Reduced Iron IC4) Recent Iron Reduction in Til:ed Scils _ (CB) _Thin Muck Surface IV) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Surface S: I Cracks (861 Drainage F stterns (810) Dr)-Seaso Water Table(C2) _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Saturation Jisibie or Aerial Imagery (09) Stunted or Stressed Plants :D I) `Geomorph:; Position (D2) FAC-Neutr -I Test (D5) ISu-face water present? Yes No Depth (inches)Wetla id Water table present? Yes No Depth (inches) �7 hydro ogy Saturation presentf Yes No �_ Depth (inches)- prose it? ► 1 linclutles capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial phctos, previous inspecticns), if availatle: US Army Corps of Engineers f4dwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM • Midwest Region Project/Site T410 .City/County. /CountY G'++k+r�. Sampling Cate JD , Applicant/Owner. �n�.� ,IAerQJ State&AISarnpir.1Poini-.-i+J�7-• Irvestigator(s): �iT Section, Township, Range. �� Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.;: _ _ �-=�� J� Local relief (concave, convex, nos?) S'ope (%): Lat: _ Long: Soil Map Unit Name (}L Datum Y'-M Oassification: A•e climatierhydrologlc conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? y_ If no, explain in remarks)L A-e vegetation soil , or hydrology �_ • .� Y 9Y N significantly disturbed? A's vegetation soil , or hydrology T Are "normal circumstances" _� _ [j(_� naturally problematic? present?� SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, exp am any answers in ren.:arks ) Hydrophytic vegetat!on present? Hydric soil present? Y, Is the sampled area within a wetlan,_ Wetland hydrology present? y_ f yes, optional Wetland site ID. (Explain alternative prcoedures here or in a separate report ) vtUETATION - Use scientific names of plants. s� Tree Stratum (Plot size:-t-Wa.�—) Absolute Dominan Ird:cato.- %Cover tSpecies Staus Dominance Test Worksheet 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 :hat are OBL, FACW, or FAC:-(A) 3 Total Number of Dominant a Spec as Acress all Strata_, _(B) Percent of Domirent Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: J._ tA/B; 0 =Total Cover 3aplinglShrub stratum (Plot size. t Sru-� 1 ) Prevalence Index Workaheet 9 Total % Cover p.'. 3 OBL species C x 1 = 0 a FACW spaces C x 2 = 0 5 - PAC species C x 3 = 0 FACII species 0 x 4 = 0 Herb stratum (Plot size. Sr,•e� 0 = Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Column totals 0 (A) 3 B) ' 41"Ad 114 ,0 _ ,,4C•j Prevalence Index -- BlA = 3 +w--�s.�6t£�,�1 d r •Y _ ?. _ 091 _Y Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 —,ice _�OBL_ � OBL Rapid test for hy:rcphytic vegetation S test is>50% 7 _ Prevalence ndex is s3.0' g fdorphogice. adaptations* (provide q supporting cats it Remarks or on s t0 _separate sheet) =Total Cover Problemafic nydropnytic vegetation* (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30'j _ — 1 •Indiutcrs of Itydrlc soil enc ista lit hyd-o 3gt p,Js: of Present. u, ess Uturoed or problw:tst c y rop ytic - n =Total Cover vegetation present? e'narks (Include ph------ 0te numbers here or on a separate sheen US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the denth naad.a n. a...._ _..._ :_-1,----- __ Depth (Inches) b1_etJr'-x, Color (moist) % ,,o,,, ,,,o ,,,,,,,,a,ur Redox Feaf, raa Co or (moist) % Type' Loc" it oonnrm me adsence of indicators.) Texture Remarks i 'Tvoe: C = Cnnrsntrafir.n IN = ne.ava..., o,. _ e_.. _ i ---r•-••- . ",., Soil Indicators: - .=�.wu ,v,nmx, ma = NlaliKed bare drains. ^Locatwn: P_ - Pore Lining, IV = Matrix Indicators for Problamatic dric Solis: Hyandy _Histisol Blank Epipeipedon (A2) _ SGreyed Matrix (S4) _Coast Prairie Redox (A76) (LRR K, L. Fit_ Slack (A3)ulfide _ Sandy Redox (SS) Stripped Matrix (86) _Dark Surface (Si) (LRR K, L) n S _Hytlrogen S _ _ Loamy Mucky Mineral IF1) 5 cm Mucky Pea: or Peat (83) (LRR K, L, R? —_Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) _ Stratified Layers (AS) Loamy Greyed Matrix fF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _2 cm Muck Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Othe, (explain in remarks) cd Bellow ow(AIDark Surface (Ali; Redox Dark Surface (F6) Tank nick TDark Surface (At2) _ Depletec Dar i Surface (F71 -Indicators of h •dro h - c vegetation srd wetland _Sandy ucByyMineraleatj 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) _RecoxDepressions ;FS) hydrology musttm e Y BY present, unless dis:urbetl c- problematic (:riches). Hydric soil present? _, Welland Hydrology Indicators: _Entrary Indicators (MIMM m of one is required check Water all that applySv,f) Secondary Ind�catc•s (minimum of t_np re uiretl: Higr W Hign Water Table (A2) le ( Aquatic Fauna (B13) Aquatic Plants (B141 Surface Soil Cracks (BB) —'Drainage Patterns (BiC) _True LZ Saturation _ Sulfide Odor (C1) —Drainage Dry -Season Water Tabe (C2) Water Marks(81) Ox,tl;zed Rhizospheres on Living Rocts _ Crayfist Burrcws (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits ;C3) _ Saturatioi Vis-ble on Aenel-magen, 119) or rust _Presence Algal Mat or Crust (B4) of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted cr Stressed Plants (Dt) Von Deposits Recent I•on Reduction in Tilled Sails Geomorphic Position (D2) ible inundation Vsibk on Aerial Imagery (B7) fC6) Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Nevtral Test IDS) _—Thin Sparsely Vegetated Surface (88) Ga.ge or Well Data (D9) s (89) Water -Stained Leaves (69) _Otter (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? "es No V Depth (inches): �-'- Weiland Wetland Water table present? "es �_ NO Saturation present? ves Depth (inches): �_ hydrology No ;includes capillary fringe) _ Ompth (inches): to present? —L_ Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Feoion WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Pro)eci/Srtel(p ( �_ .,_ r t 9 Jo/6/!S a r CitylCounSt �.fye/yar _ Sam tip Date. ApplicanNOwner. � � y State: ML/ Sampling Point: '3 �-Urfl Inves;igator(s). �g� 3ectior, Township Range: e: S.t • �', TI I r Lartlform (hillslope, terrace, etc.: �d--�- )_. �+: (/sue? Loca'rehef (concave, convex, none): Slope (°h): Lat: Long: Datum: Sal Map Unit Name �r q'WI Classification: Are climatic(hydrologic conditions of the site :ypical for this time of the year? y_ (If no, explain in rema") Are vegetation ,M_. soil _jj , or hydrology w/ signili:anhy Disturbed? Are "retina: circumstances" Are vegetation _P • sdil k/ , or hydrologv " naturau„ nmlhla .fi�l oUMMARY OF FINDINGS I Hytlrophytic vegetarian (If reeded, explain any answers it remarks present? .) � Hydric soil present? Is the sampled area within a wetlan�_ Wel and hydrology present? f yes, oplicnal wetlanc site ID Ramarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use sripnfific nnmce s Tree Stratum (Plot size: -,— ) 1 3 4 5 aofino/Shrub stratum (Plot size 1 2 3 4 5 Absolute Dominan Indicatcr %Cover tSpecies Staus 0 =TotalCovei 0 =Total Cover lerb stratum (Plot size . S'v�J i i=r — 30 —i 5 3 a 9 - 10 _� '�.Noodv vine stratum (Plot size. �e i,,,,,J j : Total Cover photo US Amy Corps of Engineers here or or a separate 0 - Total Cover Uommance Test Worksheet Number of Dominant Species [hat are 08L. FACW, or FAC .! (A) Total Number of Dominant —�•— Species Across a,,Strata _(8) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: IDD _(ArB) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover et OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species C x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species C. x 5 = 0 CdlLmntotas C (A) 0 (a) Prevalerce Index = B/A = _Rapid test fur hydrophytic vegetation % Dominance test ,s >50% —Prevalence •ndex is 53.0• Morphoolcal adaptations' (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a _separate sheet) Problematic hydrophytic vegetal cr- _(exp[ain) •1r4 eators or nydn.; soil and wel:and hy]rdog, must bu present, ur less d sturoed or probiemal c vegetation present? Midwest Region SOIL Sam it Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Fea�ures (Inches) Color (moist) % Color (racist) 4o Type' Loc^ Texture - Ren;rks 'Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Llatnr; MS = Masked Sard Grains. '-Loca6cn: PL = Pore Lin. ry, Y = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histieol (Al) IndlCetora for Problematic Hydric Soils: Hislic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Greyed Matrix (S4) __Sandy Redox (SS) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K,;-, R; Dark Sur'ace (S?) (LRR K, L) Black Hislic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ _ 5 cm Mucky Pea: or Peal (S3) (LRR K, L. R) Stratified Layers (A5) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F7) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F'2) (LRR K, L, R) _2 cm Muck (At 0) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) —Redox _ Very Shallow De rk Surface (TF12) Othe-(explain it remarks) Depeted Below Dark Surface (Al1) Dark Surface (F6) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) '..lucky Mineral (S1) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'ledcelors of hycrophytic vegetation, ano •.veltard —Sandy 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) _Redox Depressions (FB) hydrology must be present, un ess disturbed or _ problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches). Hydric soil present?yL F.emarks: EivnRnt nt:V Wetland Hydrology Indicatora: Primary Indicators (minirum of one is reowed Check all that aco v) $er;ordary Indicatcrs lminimur-. of t+, rc e�%sedd', Surface Water (At) Agjatic Fauna (B13) Soil Cracks (86) H,,,h Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (Bl4) _Surface Patterns (B1C; _ Saturation (A3) Sulfide Otlo; (Cl) _Drainage -Season Water Table (C2; _Hydrogen Water Marks (et) Oxidized Rho:ospheres of Living Focts _Dry Burrows X11) SDeposits (82) ;C3) _Crayfish Saturatioi Vs ble on Aeria imager, (Cg! Drift0 Dent Deposits (83) _ presence of Reduced Iron (04; —_ Stunted or Stressed Plants ;fit 1 Algal Mat or Crust (84) Recent I -on Reduq:cn In Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position 102) Iron Deposits (85) ;CB) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) —Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (139) —_Other (Explain in Remarks) field Observations: Surface water Present? Yes No Depth(inches): Wetland Water table present? tees No Z Depth (i-^ches): 2_Z4 hydrology Saturation present? "es No _ _- Depth (iicnes): s IA, present? (i-c!udes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring we:.;, aerial photos, previous inspections), if ava;able: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Pegion WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region PojecVSiteT"I i_ / / City/County: AoplicanVOwner uft1h4+A- Sampling Date Jo 6 /S_ fy/n�-J State: MA/ Samplirg Point: _��— Investigator(s): Willi Section, Township, Range. Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.;: -f &'_ZE 6�L irk.) Local relief (concave, convex, none):` —me Long: Datum: S-3il Map Unit Name_, A -a climatiGhydrolo9lc conditions Of the site lyplcal for this hme of the ear? vWI Classi=icat on: AIE vegetation soil y I If no, explain in remarks) T J�_ ,or hydrology significantlydlsturbed? Are vegetation soil Are "ncrmal CirCumstanCES' _LjL • , or hydrology_ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Dresen:ny Hydrhytic vegetation present? (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) op Hydric son present? Is the sampled area within a wetlaro�_ Wetland hydrology present? �— f yes. Optional wetland site ID: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report) v= c I A I Iury -- use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3�' Dominance Test Worksheet ) %Cover ISpec as Staus `�� , Number of Domi; ant Species � �— —� — J that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �_ (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 3 (g) 5 Percent of Domiranl Species that are OBL, FA•7W, or FAC: �Op (A(g: f�� =Total Cover — _ :Sagind/Shrub sfraturt (Plot size: I Sh.L� !. Prevalence Index Worksheet ` +` ��_� •.�_ � J Total % Cover -`. 3 __ OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 3 •ierb stratum Total Cover (Plot size: S'�J UPL species 0 x 5 = 7 Column lotals 0 ., 2 y FA4W Prevalence Index = B/A = ��ftha - �n _3� _ , Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation g Dominance :est is >50% ? Prevalence ndex is 53.0' 6 Morphogical adaptations' (provide _ supporting data it Remarks or on a separate sheet) =Total Cover Probematic nydrophylic vegetation' LVovane stratum (Plot size: ?_ . (explain)odv t 'Indicators of h0m soil anc vvetaid hydrology mjst bE 2 Present, 1^4366 swrbed or omblerlallc y rop yl c 0 =Total Cover vegetation marks (IncWde photo numbers here or on a separate sheeq present? __)L US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL 2 Ssrttpling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to d Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % ocument the Indicator �dox Fea+ores Color (mc(sti % Type' Loc" or confirm the absence of in Text:re Renta;ks /0— 2 ,-Type C = Concentration D = nwnim,n,. ------------- ore - o...,.. I — - -__,,, ,,,,,on: PL = Pore Linn M : HVtlrlc Seil lndlcafn.e• - 9. = Ma:: ix i _ Histsol (Al) _ Hist.c Eppedon (A2) —Slack Hislic (A3) _ hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (AS) _ 2 chi Muck (A10) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1 ) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _5 cm Mucky Peal or Peat (S3) Depth (inches). —Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy %lucky Mineral (F1) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Radox Depressions ;F8) _Coast Prairie Redox (A'C) (LRR K, _. R) _ Dark Surface IS -) (LRR K, L) _ 5 cm Mucky ?ea: or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow De k Surface (TF12) _Other (explain in remarks) 'Ind'Utors of hydi 3phytic vegetation and weltaro hydrology must to present. unless dis:nrbed or proclematic Hydrie soll presert? _ VJetland Hydrology Indicators: Fnmarv;2=21ors (minimum of one is re ured' check all that a Surface Water $@`ArtlarV Inmsatos (mi01r1:L'r" H,gn Water le ( (A2) .Tr :ebc Fauna '—True Plants la is I _Surface Soil Cracks (BS) Patterns (81e) ation (Table Saturation Meeks Water tdar'ts (Bt) ( Hydrogen Sulfide or (Cl)Drairag( _Hydrogen SulfWe Odor (C —_ Dry-Sea::on Water Table (C2; Sediment Deposits (82) Oxidized Rhizospheres o-• Living Foote Crayfish Burrows ;CB) ,C3) Drift Deposits (83) — Presence of Reduced Iro-- (C4) Saturetit n Visible or. Aena Imagery (C9) Stunted it Stressed Plants 1) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Iron Deposits Recent Iron RedvGicn in TilledScis fir_ Geomorphk Positfor (D2) Inundation Visible ble on Aerial Imagery (137) :C6) `Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC•Neutral Test (D5) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (86) —Gauge or Weal Data (D9) VJa1er-Stained Leaves (89) —Other (Explain in Remarks) ie servationa: Surface water present? Yes Water table present? Yes No I_Decth (inches): ._ Wetiand � Saturation present? Yes �C_ ( ) Depth irches No �— De pintirches): hydrology __ (includes capillary fringe) prer:ent?—•�— Descrbe recorded date (stream gauge, Mon.toring well, aerlal photos, previous inspections), if available: ema s I US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest F.egicn WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region Project/SiteProject/Sile -&41 &_ i_ 14 / City/County ApplicanVOwner: rd2i ak4faft. Sampling Cate J"PL4 y- -�'/- State: Samplinc Point ¢ pup mvestigator(s). Section, Township. Range: ir Landlorm (hdlslope. terrace. etc) - =' yr—T�/(r/a {r.alslea Local relief (concave, convex. none): CeM..x. � Slope 1%) _3 Lai.—�—` Long. Datum _ Soil Map Unit Name NA,y„ , v1Ml Classification: Are ClimaliGhydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? _Y (11 no, explain in remarksi Are vegetation hydrology soior drol —� Y ogy significantly disturbed? Are vegetation _�, soil Are "non circumstances' _�L , or hydrology N naturally problematic? nrnrnrc r yr nrvulrvGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) =soil present?_ � Is the sampled area within a wetlaro_.�ent? -b_ r yesoptional wetland site 11) Remarks. (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report \rC/ Clr w T]^LI .. T-ee Stratum Absolute Donninan Indicator (Plot size. Dominance Test Worksheet Aar, ) 5 i io Cover (Species Staus Number of Donin[?t Species z—�` i _yam Y_ _F,4r that are OBL, FAC',V. or�FAC. (A) 3 Total Number o' Dominant 4 Species Across all Strata. { g) —+_ Percent of Domine it Species 5 that are OBL, FACIN. or FAC �_=Total Ccver Sapling/Shrub stratum {Plot size: jsr I i Prevalence 1 Q>n YJn Inde:t Worksheet ` FAe Total % Cover o1 FAr ,i OBL species _ 0 r. 1 = 0_ 4 ti•+S �_ �_ FACVN/ species 0 x 2 = p 5 _ FAC Species 0 x 3= 0 FACU species _ 0 Y. 4 = p UPL species _ 0 x.5= 0 Column H_=Total Cover Herb stratum (Plot size 3•r,y� ) totals _ 0 F�W Preva ence Index = B/A = 3 ClEaR _�� �_ EAcu N 4 —1� IJ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: r""-"�� '"��' ° Z Rapid test for iydrophytic vegetatioc 5 8 14,1"— �L Fik�,- _Dominance test is >50% ? _ Prevalence in:lex is <_3 0' 8 Morphogical a daptations- tprovide g supporting this a in Remarks or on a 10 _ separate she=. t) =Total Cover Problematic hedrophytic vegetation' Woodv vine stratum (Plot size. ?_ � ) (explain) — 1 �� '� 'indicators or hydnc :al and wetland hydroa4y must be 2 Present u?less distu ted or problamaec y rop yhc 0 =Total Coder vegetation Remarks: (Include present? photo numbers here or on a seoaratr =h>oa US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: Pro�� �D file Descript)on: (Describe to the deom n>ad>,r r,, a,._..___.., ,_.,,.. ..—L- - Depth M rix - e maewr P.edox Features or confirm me Abaence of indicators.) - (Inches) COIor (moist) % Color (moist) So Type' Loc" Text:ire Re lU a - a 't 'T}•pe. 1 C = Concentration, D =Depletion, RhA HydrfcIndicators; = Reduced Matra, MS =Masked Sard Grsns. "Location: PL =Pore Lin fig, hr = Ma: ix _Histisol (At) Sandy Geyed Matra (S4) __Sandy Indicators for Problematic Hydrie Soils: Ccast Pre; !a Redox (A-6) (LRR K, L, Rt _Histic Ep:pedon (A2) hstic (A3) Redox (S5) —Dark Surface fist) (LRR K, L) —5 , L) _Black _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Mucky Mineral (Fl) cm Mucky eeai or Peat —6 C (LRR K, L. R; , L. Stratified Layers (A5) _Loamy _Loamy Gleyetl Matrix (F2) Manganese Masses (S3) (LRR R) — Very Shallow Ds-* Surface (TF12) Mu _2 cm tad B low Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11? Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redcx Dark Surface Other (explain in remarks) _Tank Dark Surface al t 2)(Si Sandy Musty Mineral I Depleted Dace Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions •Indicators of hycraphytic.egetation and v*Itarc _ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) eat ;F6) hydrology must c e present, uvess disturbed or Restrictive Layer (if observed): rrooiematic Type:: GaP.(inches). Hydric soil presert? ._IV Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Fdmary Indicators (minimum of one is required Surface Water ch i• a" that a o v e r, ar IMcelors (minis. xn w tw2required j-.._ Hgh Water Table (A2j 'e ( Aquatic Fauna 913 ) � Surface foil Cracks (B6) I_ Saturation _Tee Aquatic Plants (814) l Drairagr Patterns (61C) Water Manes s ( hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 11 Dry -Season Wate• Table C2) ! DepoBI)sits (82) Sediment Dts Ox dizetl Rhizospheres or Living Foos _ Creyfush 3arrows (C6) Drift Deposits (83) iC3) Presence of Recuced Iro-� (C4; Saturn n Visible or Aerai In•agery (Cg) Stunted A gal Mat Of Crust (B4) rist Deposits _ _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils )r Stessed Plants iCij Geomorphic Position ID21 -Iron Visible Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Sparsely _ (C6) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7i —Gauge FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Vegetated Concave Surface (86) (8 or Weal Data (Dg) Water -Stained Leaves !Bg) Other (Explain in Remarks) field Observations; _ Surface water present? Yes Water table present? Yes No _Ir` Depth (inches) L Wetland Saturation present? Yes (rcludes capiilary fringe) No --.X_ Depth (irches) NO Depth (inches) -� hydrology Present? Describe recorded data (stream gauge, Mon toring well, aeria; photos, previous inspenions), if available: emarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region FrojecUSite Q(p4tf �_ ..r_ r City/County. APPlicanUOwner: Sampl ig cate JpL�.s 1/ Stale Investigator(s) : ��.*. .� 1'9k/ Sampliig Point Landform (hillsloPe z pe. terrace, etc.) iectior, Township, Range: _�, 2S 71 r Slope (/c): Let Local relief (concave, convex, none)— ��� sue_ Soil Map Unit Name Long: Datum �'"t VWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic condrtions Of the site typical for this time of the year? _ /y ;If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil Are vegetation — `) sdil —�L • or hycrology� signifimntly cisturbed? Are'rcrmal circumstances' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS _� , or hydrology _r naturally protlematic? present?_y_ Hyd(If needetl, exp sin any .j rophytic vegetation present? answers in re.iwks --� Hydric soil present? _Y Is the sampled area within a wetlan•�_ Weiland hydrology present? J/ ._L_ f yes, optic nal wetland site ID: _ iemarks: (FxPlain alternative procedures he�e or in a separate report.) VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum Absolute Dominan indieatcr (Plot size: Dominance Test Worksheet .J j je _ _ . ) % Cover t Species Staus i �=�K— Number of DOT i cant Species 2 that are OBL. FA-"W. or FAC 3 (A) 3 Total Number of Domirart 4 Species Acrc is all Saata ?J (B! i Percent of Domi cant Species :hat are OBL, FAJW, or =AC: fnn 0 Total Cover Sao:lno/Shrub stratum (Plot size: ) —Grp,:gl 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Covert t 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 ,t FACWspec.es 0 x2= 0 5 FAC species C x 3= 0 FACU species C x 4 = 0 Herb stratum 0 ' Total Cover UPL species C x 5 = Column :ota!s C (A) 0 ;B) � poi, Prevalence lndec = B/A = 3 %..�.F�d+404 4 �' e _y Hydrophytic Vegetation fndlcators. 5 _ Rapid test Icr hycrcphytic vegetation 6 ic Dominance test is >50% —Prevalence idex is s3.0- fi - fvlorphogicaI adaptations' (pro-, de 1. supporting cata it Remarks or on € 10 _ separate sb.,et) opal Cover Problematic hydropnytic vegetation, Moody vine stratum (Plot size: o �� J i _(explain) 1 - 'Indicators of h)'dri: =I Ind weaaid hyd-o apt rust be < : preurt, u• ass d,sturoea w prob,"al c y rop yt r. 0 =TotaiCover vegetation — era xs Inc ude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) present? US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest REg:on SOIL putin: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm Matri Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist! ry T,,-.- C= Concentration, D = Depletion, RNi = Reduced Matrix, MS = P6asked nand Grains. ;;7, In.rin...... _ Histisol (Ai) _ Histc Epipedon (A2) —Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Depeted Below Dark Surface (Al I i _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sit 5 On Mucky Pea! or Peat (S3) Depth (inches): SLdade Water (All High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (81) Sedimert Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (133) Algai Mat or Crust (e4) Iron Deposits (85) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (se) Water -Stained Leaves (139) _ Sancy Glayed Matrix (Sa) —Sandy Redox (S5) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions ;FB) Sampling Point: PL = Pore Lining, M = Ma: -ix Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L. R) Dark Surface i*S 7) (LRR K, L) 5 crrt Mucky Pee: or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Do •k Surface (TF12) Dine, (explain in remarks) -Indicators of hycrophytic vegetation anC :vellaro hydrology must to present, uliess disturbed or Problematic Hydric soil present? _y Aquatic Fauna (813) - - -- - —1 vull urface:;oil Cracks (86) True Aquatic Plards (8141 —Drainage Patterrs (8:0) _Hydrogen. Sulfide Odor (Ct) __ Dry -Seat on Water Tab!e (C2) Oxidized Rhiospheres on Livirg Roois Crayfish Burrows (C6) _(c3) _ Saturation Vsible on Aena: lma 9-ry n.9) Presence of Reduced Iron ( Ca ) (anted cr Stressed Plants (DI) Recent Iran Reduction in Tiled Sole —Geomorc hie Position (02) _(Ce) FAC-Ne.:ral +eat (DS) _-hin Muck Surface (C7) — Gauge o- Well Data (09) Other (Explain in Remarks) b,rrace water present? Yes _Y No Depth (inches): �_ Water :able present? Yes Wet and Saturationpresent7 Yea --)c No Depth inches), +1 hydrology K_ No Depth (inches): t� present? !inc?aces capillary fringe) Describe recorded data (stream gauge. monitoring we I, aerial photos, previous inspections(, if available: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Regier. APPENDIX C Site Photographs APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Approval Forms Project N;4me and/or Number: PART ONE• A licant I f 2wS-Z3f- I'll n ormation If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), arr authorzed 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: urv;A Vdr4 Mailing Address: tOs P: 7r*: t Phone: E-mail Address: O'( tlo,Ja-I do'vw.; 1 . Govh Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): 5AA Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: > W DC� t%SS) Mailing Address: 5-82 t 4, ' Phone: dd)Z— 19 —I(ty ka.l.t-1 iQ,�o Tf� 3ri.klY" E-mail Address: - .�GotOia.r¢✓iV�Gs•t3y1, � PART TWO: Site Location Information County: („Aryw City/Township: Parcel ID and/or Address: 25'74-.2pOT0 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Sec . ZS'J TI f(rNJ 223l,1 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. +4e 6 If }ou know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must pro%ice :he na ties and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attach ng a i ist to your application or by using block 25 of the Applicaticn for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: htto://www.mvo usace army mil/Portals/57/docs're latory/ReaulatoryDocs/ ene orm 4345 20 L2oct.00f PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If tlis application is related to a delineatior approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provice the Corps of Engineers project lumber. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and comp:eton. The prcject description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed acti0ty 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 drawirgs showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form Feb•uary 2014 --- Page 3 of .t i Project N,:me and/or Number. PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary 20/s-Z3¢ 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 overnead view I 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 imparts in the following table. i A vatic Aquatic Resourcel q Type of impact' {fill, excavate, Duration of i-- Impact �— I I Existing Plant County, Major ID (as noted on . Resource Type (wetland, lake, drain, or p Overall Size of; Permanent (P)ISize of Impact" Aquatic Community Watershed ff, overhead view) tributaryetcll remove or Temporary 1 p y' Resource' Type(s) ir. I and Bank vegetation) (T)' Impact Area r Service Areaa� of Impact Area-. If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the "T". For example, a project with a temporary access Ill teat would be removed after 220 days would be en:ered'T (220)". 2Irvacts 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 imoact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area Impact in parentheses). For example, a project that imparts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 it (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de mmimis exemption under MA Rules 8420.0420 Suop. 8, otherwise ente- •'tl/A". 4Lse N/etiond Pionts and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3r° 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 as<_oc,ated w•,th each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature Check here if you are requesting a pre-aoolicat-on consultation with the Corps and LGt1 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 that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. i Signature: I Date: I hereby authorize 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. ' 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 4 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Za�s-Z3f- Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination jI By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Faul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): l� Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation concurrence. Concurrence with a celineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the tGJ concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. De'ineation concurrences are generally valid for five years urless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps wlll not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the esources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). [� Preliminary jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) Is a non -binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetands, idertified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For pu.•poses of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will twat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature are may not be appealed. ❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an off cial Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied ipon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with ;he 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the u'uidelines;or S-bmitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesoto (2013). h www.mvo usace.army.mil/Misgon ra ulatorv/DelineationJ:)Gmd nce a oe M_nnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 0+ 11 APPENDIX G Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits 5a from the Minnesota Wetland Bank 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`: dpvogel@gmail.com n/, then save to your computer. 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: - -- (for NRCS, USACE, etc. if applicable) Agency Name/Location: USACE Representative: Melissa Jenny Date: E-mail address': melissa.m.jenny@usace.army.mil Signature: Date: -t;onflrmation 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. jacobs0nenv msn com natasha.devoeftstate.mmus Rev 3/16/2015 Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Page 1 of 2 C:\UUR\Owner\ppf,,,rR 12d15-n %2015-275 yge19"1 M..ft"A01Ne. , ft.ft4ppefWuGlRmattlon_krfn_lor Wd of—C,M Md. Transaction Form for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits 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: to Credit Subgroup Federally Authorized plant Community Type Cost per Credit Number of Credits to be Withdrawn (acre) Cost of Purchased Credits Letter Credits (Y or N) (acre) (acre=ff /43560) (cost percredit , number or B Y SM $40510.80 0.0440 credits S1782.48 so.o0 S0.00 S0.00 TOTAL 1 0.0440 $1782.48 If TOTAL does not calculate, right click, Update Field Table Enter County Fee from www.besr.state mn usAvetlardslwetlaMbankino/fee and sales dataKetlano Bank Fee Schedule odl Table (county of seller's 6.50io of sale price --- ------.bank) ----- 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 wil I 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 withdrawn 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:\use.:\omenoo�m„e�u\xoss hmoUocs-rsv�.h zsii rx.am.yn onvew.v>ennaWe.emucv.�sanhen_rom,_ro. wit nt_neaas.ax, Available Wetland Credits - B WSR Page 2 of 2 L 1115 Carver 33-Minnesota 9 0.0226 Knauer, Elroy (952) 466- (Shakopee) 9882 C SWC Y U Upland 0.0226 1349 Carver 33-Minnesota 9 (Shakopee) 5.175 Jon,Aune, ennarAccount Manager ( 2) 249-3011 -- A SWC N 3 Floodplain 5.175 1375 Carver 19-South 7 Fork Crow 20.7506 Richards, Jeff (612) 759- 1110 B SWC Y 2 sedge 2.6706 meadow C SWC Y 3 shallow 113 marsh D SWC Y 4 shallowopen 5.97 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 19-South Mark , Kjolhaug (Acct Mgr 1444 Carver Fork Crow 7 13.7535 Montgomery) (952) 401-8757 -- 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 Gump to top of page) AIBICIoIEIFIGIHIIIJIKILIMINIOIPIOIaISITIUIvIwlxlvlz Data Is up to date as of December 21, 2015 Gump to bottom of page) littp://apps.bwsr.state.mii.us/credits/ 1 ?/J 1 /701 i 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 2015. 'T Notary biic 19KIM T. MEUWISSEN NdW Ptbllo-Minnt to My oww n E4 81 20Z0 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 the agenda. 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 ksoreiter(fti.chanhassen.mmus 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. NEWT 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.mmus/nottWe to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Manned Unit Developments, Site Had Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations. Rezonings, Comprehensive Ran Amendments and Code Amendments mould, a public heading before the Planning Commission. city ordinances require all property Winn 5D0 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 oveNew, of the report and a recommendation. The Item will De opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission Will dose 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 commerdal/mduslrlal. • 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 Me 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 Manning Commission holds the public hearing, the Ott, Council does not. Mnutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Coundl. 0 you wish to have something to be Induced in the report, lease contact the Planning Stag person named an 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 the spends. Location: CityHall 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 VoqeI 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 ksoreiter 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 Ran Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Ran Amendments and Code Amendments require a public heading before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 5DD feet of the subject site to be notified of me application In writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application Mat Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff wall give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The hem will be opened for the punk to speak about the proposal as a pad of the heating Process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss the Item add make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, aPonn or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, lend use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commencialfndustdal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant weaves this standard. Some applications due to mar 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 arid 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 win the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any Interested Ixmon(s). • Because me Manning Commission holds the public heeding, the City Council does not. Minutes ere taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Indutletl in the report to the City Council. If you wash to have something to be Included in the repo", lease contact me Manning Staff person named on the notification. ANN M W ILLIAMSON 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 W ILLIAM 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 ,t Ed CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JANUARY 19, 2016 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DISCUSSION OF UPDATED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Terry Jeffery presented the update on the Surface Water Management Plan and schedule for the review and approval process. Chairman Aller thanked Mr. Jeffery for his work on this issue. PUBLIC HEARING: 6421 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE 2016-03: REOUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO PERMIT SITE GRADING TO WIDEN THE MAIN ENTRANCE/EXIT DRIVEWAY AT MINNETONKA MIDDLE SCHOOL WEST. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (01) AND LOCATED AT 6421 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: MINNETONKA SCHOOLS. ISD #276. Terry Jeffery presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Weick asked for clarification of the path through the parking lot. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to permit grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards to allow a parking lot alteration, widen the main entrance/exit driveway and stormwater improvements subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. The applicant's engineer shall adjust the slope of the expanded drive lane to convey runoff to the northeast gutter line. 2. The plans must be revised to label the catch basins to match the CB/MH Schedule on Page C5. t Planning Commission Summary —January 19, 2016 3. Slopes shall be labeled on all proposed pipes. 4. The note for the draintile shall be revised so that no sock is used on the draintile. 5. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan (including additional detail plates) for this project per City Code § 19-154. 6. A $5,000 escrow to guarantee restoration and erosion control measures will be required with the permit. 7. Staff will require that the applicant provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. 8. An as -built grading plan is required at the completion of site grading to ensure compliance with the approved grading plan. 9. MnDOT comments shall be incorporated into the plans. 10. The parking spaces and aisles must be adjusted to meet the Chanhassen City Code requirements. 11. The parking lot design shall be revised to provide a travel path for north -south pedestrians. 12. The applicant shall submit documentation to the city for how the queues will lay out with use of the gates. 13. The plan must follow all applicable State and Federal guidelines. 14. The applicant shall install a total of two islands in the reconfigured parking area and a minimum of four deciduous trees. 15. The interior width of the landscape islands or peninsulas shall be 10 feet. 16. The applicant shall install perimeter landscaping to correspond to existing parking lot site conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson noted there were no planning items on the January 11t' City Council meeting and discussed future Planning Commission agenda items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 2016 as presented. r Planning Commission Summary — January 19, 2016 Undestad moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim A CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2016 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DISCUSSION OF UPDATED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Jeffery: Sure Planning Commissioners, thanks. Appreciate the opportunity. I apologize. I had every intention of tonight being the night that we're finally we're going to put the local water management plan to rest. Sent it out for comment and then 60 days from now approve it. However state statute changed this last summer and the most significant change affecting our local water management plan is that the local water management plan must be adopted after December 31, 2016 and before December 31, 2018 so can't really go forward with it right now but in addition to that there have been a few other changes. Well more significantly the good thing about the timing of this is that now rather than having the merry-go-round where Minnehaha Creek finishes their plan. Then we have to respond to it. Then Riley -Purgatory finishes their plan, then we have to respond to it and that just keeps going around and never seems to end. Now they'll all be on this very similar 10 year plan so they will update at the same time and we'll just follow suit with it. So right now in order to stay with that timing Minnehaha Creek is in the process of updating their plan. They're not changing any of the rules at this time. They're just looking at their capital improvement plans and then the way that they're going to cost share with cities. It actually should be beneficial to all of the cities involved. Riley - Purgatory is doing what they are calling a refreshment of their plan. Again they, because their capital program was rather prescriptive what they're finding is that every time they had to deviate a little bit from a plan because of an engineer's recommendation they had to go back and update their plan just to, Lake Susan Spent Lime that we're putting in right now. That facility in their plan was a iron enhanced sand filter. Because that's not what's going in they had to amend their plan so they're just more changing their language so that it's a little more lenient. There's a little more discrepancy. Carver County WMO is the one body that is changing their rules. Unlike the other watershed districts the WMO is permitted under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System as an MS4 authority. When the PCA reviewed their rules they found them to be lacking. They didn't come to the 1 inch standards really is what it boiled down to so they're in the process of updating their riles. Lower Minnesota River Watershed District just finished their plan update. At this time they have no rules but in the conversation that I've y f Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 19, 2016 had with both the district engineer and the district administrator over the last 2 weeks they have both indicated to me that they might start to exercise some Wile authority but on a minor or a very scaled version. They'd be looking at bluff areas or areas that discharge to Seminary Fen. For most of the watershed district doesn't have any bearing but for us that's entirely all of what we have in the lower but all of these organizations plan on doing whatever it is that they're changing in the 2017 year so we should all be on the same schedule moving forward from there. The other change that has come about is the plan content or the clarity content of our plan. So like the plan before we had to have an executive summary. Self explanatory. We need to include water resource agreements so right now for instance we have an agreement with Carver County WMO to jointly do educational programming. They have full time staff that does water resources education. We just partner with them usually in a financial way but we will help the staff hours ... where we can. We also have an agreement with the Carver County SWCD to do erosion inspections on some of our larger sites but the other agreements that will be included will be the memorandums of understanding that we will eventually enter into and you will be a part of the drafting or at least reviewing that draft as we update our local controls or our code to meet their plan requirements. So really what the memorandum of understanding is going to do is it's going to say well yes, we're going to go ahead and we're going to take regulatory authority for these items. Stormwater management for instance, erosion control, flood plain. Those are the things that have the largest effect on our land use plan. It's what makes the most sense in here but then there are other aspects that the watershed districts like Minnehaha Creek or Riley -Purgatory have in place such as water body crossings which is really just the DNR gave a general permit to the watershed districts to enforce those rules on behalf of the DNR so it really doesn't make sense for us to update our rules so that we take that authority because then we'd have to enter into a subsequent agreement with the DNR so those we'd probably just leave to the watershed districts to administer. What we have completed to date and is required in both plans are the existing and proposed physical environmental land use so what you see in the image to the right is just, it's the Lake Lucy, we call it the H&H model. The hydraulics and hydrologic model for Lake Lucy. We need to show every sub -watershed how much water, the volume of water, the rate of water and the flow path of water coming out of it so we can manage for that now and in the future. We use that to identify potential flooding or capacity issues that we might have. Kate will be talking with you later about the Comprehensive Plan and that's where most of the land use information is going to come from as that is updated. Then this will be then used for the next part which is to identify existing potential issues throughout the city. We have a lot of them already. The storm events of June 2 years ago showed us a lot of them. Flooding events are a lot of the issues but we also have the H&H model. We have worked with Riley -Purgatory to update the use sustainability assessments for Lake Lucy, Lake Ann, Lake Riley, Lake Susan. We're currently working on Lotus and Rice Marsh Lake and all of those, what those allow us to do is to rather than say well we need to find some water quality treatment somewhere in this watershed. It allows us to target areas that we know are significantly greater in their contribution to the pollutant load as opposed to, in essence allows us to get a more efficient use of that money rather than just saying let's put in a feature because we need to put in a feature. Why not instead we take it and put it over here and use that. But in addition to the issues we also will need to take public comment on that so I'll be working with the Environmental Commission to put together a rJ Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 19, 2016 survey and to hold neighborhood meetings as needed. And then lastly the local limitation plan. How are we going to address those issues and that's everything from the actual structural best management practices that we'll do to the local controls that we'll be updating. So a lot of that is, what's notably absent that we had to do always before this and actually that is the bulk of the plan that we already had done is goals and policies. We don't need it. They don't need to be put into these plans anymore. Your goals are to comply with the watershed districts authority and NPDES permits, etcetera so we had a large part of this plan done but rather than, and then we'll be working on the local controls as we move forward and so we can put the entire plan together in one. Prior to this I was actually going to say that we'll put the plan out for review and then we'll work on the local controls after but since we now have this new change in schedule we'll work on the local controls throughout the summer here so that we can put the entire plan out for review and comment at the end of the year. Here's again a chart of what's going on. Don't worry about this. I've got a condensed version of what's really going to be germane to this body but like I said I am going to be using the Environmental Commission to do a lot of our public outreach so we can get the stakeholder businesses and residents to identify what they see as issues. The end date for all of this is January of 2017 so January 22, 2017 is when I want to have approved the plan. Adopted the plan. So Planning Commission. This is when I, see you're in the top column. The top row. I want to be back before you on the 9`s. Some of this will be, well all of this will be new to Kate too. I want to be back before you on the 19`h of April and at that time I would like to talk about the flood plain, erosion control and the storm water ordinances and flood plain and erosion control should be very little change. There'll be some. Mostly including definitions that are already there. Just make sure that we clean up language so it's consistent with the watershed districts. The storm water ordinance will be an entire re -write. It will be completely new from what we have now. If that goes well, depending upon your recommendation and the public hearing then we go to council on May 9d' with that. I left buffer management for the June meeting because that's the one that I still don't have an idea how to best address it. In addition to having 3 separate buffer rules from the 4 management organizations, we also as a city have 4 separate sets of rules depending upon when an area was platted. So I want to some how simplify that because that's just, it's too onerous for everybody. Anybody to undertake. For this body to understand. For a developer to understand. For the homeowner to understand and for staff to manage so I want to come to you in June with a recommendation of what we'll do with that buffer ordinance. Council in July. That would mean October 4'h would be when I would like to come back to ask for approval to distribute the plan for review to Met Council, to the watershed organizations, to the surrounding cities. October 23'd the City Council will act on your recommendation. 60 day comment period would end about the middle of December. Will come back, address any comments that we receive and then January 17d' be back before this body in 2017 to approve the plan adoption. Going before council on the 23d. That's all I wanted to do at this time. I just wanted to get you thinking about it again. I know that a little over 12 months ago I was talking to you about yeah, we're going to be going. We're going to be done with this by now. We're not. Starting all over really in essence with the rule changes but January will be it so if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise thank you for your time. ki r Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 19, 2016 Aller: Any questions from any individual? I just have a comment and I appreciate all the time and effort you put into these matters Mr. Jeffery. With the extra time obviously it sounds like you've got it set up to simplify these rules, which adds to the transparency and is a benefit to all the homeowners because they can get a better understanding and idea what they can and can't do with their property, which is beneficial to all so thank you for everything you're doing. Alright, so with that we'll move onto the first public hearing and last public hearing tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: 6421 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE 2016-03: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO PERMIT SITE GRADING TO WIDEN THE MAIN ENTRANCE/EXIT DRIVEWAY AT MINNETONKA MIDDLE SCHOOL WEST. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (Ol) AND LOCATED AT 6421 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: MINNETONKA SCHOOLS, ISD #276. Jeffery: Chairman Aller, Commissioners, thank you. Tonight I think Paul and Cliff from the school district are here to represent. Minnetonka Schools is requesting an interim use permit. As you've already mentioned it will be going before the council based upon your recommendation on February 8's. This is a public hearing. The property is located at 6421 Hazeltine Boulevard which is Trunk Highway 41 so it's in the southeast comer of Trunk Highway 41 and Highway 7, just south of Melody Hills. There are, the request is for an interim use permit because they are moving materials in excess of 1,000 cubic yards. The site plan in front of you shows 2 of the 3 proposed improvements. So if. Aanenson: ... shows up in red. Can I use the mouse for a second? I'm sorry. Jeffery: Take it. Oh not that one. I don't want to go there. Okay. Aanenson: Sorry. Jeffery: Alright. Okay so where did you find the laser? Aanenson: We lost it. Aller: We'll have to get some Minnetonka students to come in and code us and use their experience. Jeffery: Laser. Oh look at this. Aanenson: It's your friend. Jeffery: Alright. So this area here is they propose to expand the driveway, the ingress and egress from Trunk Highway 41 and the school. This is to improve traffic flows within the school. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 19, 2016 Buses will be routed around the outside. Automobiles will be routed around the inside. They will also at the same time be removing this island and replacing the pavement to get additional parking. That's one of our comments is to maintain that pedestrian access that's provided for that right now, and then the part that you can't see is up here by the tennis courts. They're going to do some trail work to improve pedestrian traffic flow through that area. There were originally, if you look in your staff report there's discussion of storm water improvement. At one time the school district was going to improve the pond to improve drainage out there. In discussions with them, staff didn't think that was necessarily well. While it was appreciated, it wasn't necessarily needed with this project at that time so we're not doing that. There is some minor drainage improvements that are going to be made in association with the trail but otherwise it's really about widening the access driveway onto the site. Staff does recommend approval of this with the conditions and Findings of Fact. Yep speak up Bob. Generous: Well I was just saying, put up that email that we received today and they're really, the concern that we're seeing is for the traffic on 41 and we are in the process of working with the school district and MnDOT to evaluate traffic conditions there and hopefully as part of that study we can see some improvements that may be possible in the future. Alley: Just quickly for the record, and for those of you at home we did receive an email correspondence regarding this matter which Bob was just addressing. That will be part of the package that goes to the City Council and will be attached to the package on the website so if you want to take a look at this and all the drawings regarding this matter you can do so on the City's website. Jeffery: There is no reason to believe that this improvement would result in increased traffic. There's no reason that the daily trips would increase. It's the same use. We are recommending approval of it with the conditions in the packet. As I said Cliff Buhman who is the engineer for the project and Paul from the District are here. Aller: Great. Any questions of staff at this point? Would the applicant like to come W. Ah Commissioner Weick. Weick: What is the significance of the path that goes between the, that cuts the parking lot? Aanenson: If you go to this first map. It kind of shows the when they walk. Weick: Is that just to keep a walkway to the tennis courts? That's the idea? Jeffery: Well this trail system does connect to Melody Hills and it connects to a larger trail system so it would be best to continue that. Somehow have that north/south connection. Aanenson: Just so you know what we've done in other subdivisions in the area we've made connections. There's one on the south that, and then there's also one on the. if Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 19, 2016 Generous: Southeast. Aanenson: Yeah. On the. Jeffery: Take it. Aanenson: I can't get the pointer. It's not working. Yeah over on that side. Yes so we've connected both those neighborhoods. You can see there's walking trails through there so we just want to make sure that that's continued. Aller: Would the applicants like to come forward? They don't have to if they don't want to. Otherwise you can, ahight. So with that I'll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I'll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion. I've been up there a lot. Commissioner Weick and I, I think that's a good safety feature up there. The courts are used. Weick: I agree. Aller: The courts are used all the time. It's a well used property. Weick: I just didn't know if it was beyond just to keep the walkway there so. Aller: Any questions? I think the packet is pretty self explanatory. Has all the information you need so I'll entertain a motion at this time either for or against. Undestad: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to permit grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards to allow parking lot alteration. Widen the main entrance/exit driveway and drainage improvements and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad, seconded by Commissioner Hokkanen. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to permit grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards to allow a parking lot alteration, widen the main entrance/exit driveway and 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 19, 2016 stormwater improvements subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. The applicant's engineer shall adjust the slope of the expanded drive lane to convey runoff to the northeast gutter line. 2. The plans must be revised to label the catch basins to match the CB/MH Schedule on Page C5. 3. Slopes shall be labeled on all proposed pipes. 4. The note for the draintile shall be revised so that no sock is used on the draintile. 5. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan (including additional detail plates) for this project per City Code §19-154. 6. A $5,000 escrow to guarantee restoration and erosion control measures will be required with the permit. 7. Staff will require that the applicant provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. 8. An as -built grading plan is required at the completion of site grading to ensure compliance with the approved grading plan. 9. MnDOT comments shall be incorporated into the plans. 10. The parking spaces and aisles must be adjusted to meet the Chanhassen City Code requirements. 11. The parking lot design shall be revised to provide a travel path for north -south pedestrians. 12. The applicant shall submit documentation to the city for how the queues will lay out with use of the gates. 13. The plan must follow all applicable State and Federal guidelines. 14. The applicant shall install a total of two islands in the reconfigured parking area and a minimum of four deciduous trees. 15. The interior width of the landscape islands or peninsulas shall be 10 feet. 16. The applicant shall install perimeter landscaping to correspond to existing parking lot site conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS. None. 61 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 19, 2016 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: City Council action update. Aanenson: Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. We didn't have any items on the last City Council so there are no updates so these items are on now will be before it. I think we tried to fast track some of the items at the end of the year to get them passed through. I will give you an upgoing future agenda items. We are working on a few subdivisions so you'll be seeing some projects come forward. Right now we're kind of trickling in on some of these but we will have a meeting on February 2°a. There's a wetland alteration permit variance setback and then we also have one for the February 16te and we're also planning on doing Planning Commission interviews so those interviews would be the people that are reapplying wouldn't be a part of those interviews. But then the council will interview all applying applicants so, we'll see who applies and how many interviews we may have. Don't know all that yet. Just plugged in some of Terry's stuff coming up but we do anticipate a couple projects. Like I said we are working on a couple subdivisions right now and potentially another restaurant. That's what I read in the paper. And that's all I had. We'll do work session after the close of the meeting. Just spend a few minutes kind of going through comp plan. Kind of segue into what we talked about with stormwater management so. Allen: Great. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 2016 as presented. Undestad moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim G71 City Council Action Update MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Mount Olivet Rolling Acres: Approve Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Adult Daycare in the Industrial Office Park (IOP) District,18976 Lake Drive East —APPROVED • Golf Zone, 825 Flying Cloud Drive: Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Permit Paintball in the Agricultural Estate (A2) District; Interim Use Permit to Allow Paintball; and Variance for New Signage — APPLICANT WITHDREW APPLICATION The minutes for this meeting can be viewed from the City's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on "Agendas and Minutes" from the left -side links. gAplan\fo=\city council action update.doc G -a- Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule DATE ITEMS Work Session Items • Holasek Property Rezoning/Site Plan/Subdivision (EAW) • Frontier Building Redevelopment -West 78 b Street • Highway 5 Centre Redevelopment (NW corner TH 5 and Great Plains Blvd.) • 1891 Arboretum Boulevard Office/Industrial Possible Future • 1630 Lake Lucy Road Subdivision? Items (Date • 2040 Comprehensive Plan Unknown) • Seven Forty -One Sign Plan PUD Amendment • Dakota Retail Sign Plan Amendment (Variance) • Wilson Property — 9150 Great Plains Boulevard • February 16 • Interview Planning Commission Applicants (tentative depending on number March 14 CC of new applicants) March I March 28 CC • 9001 Lake Riley Blvd. - Majkrzak fence variance March 15 April 11 CC • April 5 • WORK SESSION April 19 • Wilson Nursery May 9 CC • Stormwater ordinance, erosion control ordinance, flood plain May 3 May 23 CC • May 17 June 13 CC • June 7 June 27 CC • June 1 CC Jul II • Buffer Ordinance Jul 5 • NO MEETING SCHEDULED July 19 August 8 CC • Au ust 2 • NO MEETING — NATIONAL NIGHT OUT August 16 September 12 CC • September 6 September 26 CC • September 20 October 10 CC • October October 24 CC • Authorize SWMP Disribution October 18 November 14 CC • November 1 November 28 CC • Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule DATE November 15 December 12 CC December 6 January 3 CC g:\agendU\pc\ftdu planning commission agenda ite .docx CITY OF CHANHASSEN APPLICATION FOR EARTHWORK PERMIT Name and Address of Property Owner: R k, u-hcb \%QzL\ <+ s ln4yn �•Gs LT Contact: i 1,,�k Phone: b� dAN �Ai% Fax: Alternate Phone: Legal Description of subject property: Yermrr No. Name and Address of Excavator: \Cp..�POQP�z - LO�^S'Ct Jt,T•t)� L� asKa. ^J Contact: picot PoW ccZ Phone: 41a Fax: ° IbA M �p Alternate Phone: Lot 00'1 Block 00\ Subdivision uo ,, h�Qac7o. — I Property Identification Number: a57 N)�.0D7N Site Address: 'A%AN. ^,k D z\arK L„N Description of work to be done: �r a ate, eKt e ttiY n.� k L r,+.S�cvt r:an Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended: Estimated quantity of excavation (cubic yards): M M>0 3W Attach a plan showing the following: 1. Present elevations. 2. Proposed elevations. 3. Elevations of neighboring property within 15 feet of excavation. 4. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 15 feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. I have read and understa e City of Charm sen's General Requirements for obtaining a grading/earthwork permit. Signature of Applicant . -, - cz Date: Office Use Only Date Received: $50 Application Fee Received: ❑ Yes ❑ No Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Receipt No. Date: Security Amount: $ Processed by: Receipt No. Date: UEEY LOY CRANE ASSEN PERMIT APPLICATION BUILD ZONE FIRE ENG 7700 MARKET BLVD * PO BOX 147 * CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Phone: 962-227-1180 Fatu 952-227-1190 Web: www.ci.chanhassen,mn.us Please Type or Print. Complete Sections A & F and either Sections 13, C, D or E A GENERAL INFORMATION tz'3-7'mq License Number: LTYPIN. Lot_ Db0l _Block: UO\ Subdivision: Parcel Identification Number: 2enmg. V adance mcptiied: Yes ❑ No D Planning Dept Case Number: IS there a wetland within 75' of any property lines? Yes ❑ No D Is the Mputy in a fbodplain? Yes D No ❑ If YES, Complete Certificate of Camplianm for Authorized Floodplain Developmem, Sewer Available: Yes D No City Water Available: Yea D N(P< *** RENOVATION, REMODEL, RESIDE, REROOF AND WDWOW REPLACIi 4ENT:*** Year Structure Was Built: Liattsee Lead Certificate Number - THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THS INFORMATION PROVIDED IS ACCURATE AND HEREBY AGREES TO DO ALL WORT{ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHANBASSEN CITY CODS AND THE XWNESOTA SEATS LAWS REGULATING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION NAME: COMPANY: ersl�rrwrnsYw SIGNATURE: DATE PHONE (HOME): )<M kIL; (WORD: (CELL): (FOX): SIGNER MUST BE CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTORS AGLYT OR EMPLOYEE *ALL ESCROW FM WILL BE REFUNDED TO I= CONTRACTORUPPLICANT* G APPROVALS *Route Applications in the Order Below: °Pads & Rec to Review Commercial only *OFFICE USE ONLY* DATE RECEIVED date: mgal tea. date: PARK & REC: FIRE MARSHAL: 0 gati VALUATION $ PermB Fee Plan Review Fee — StateSurchsrge SAC Re uoits) — Sewa Surcharge --- Part Dedication Fee--- Trtnk Water Hookup — Trunk Sewer Hookup -- Warr Meter --- 011nmon Control Escrow— TOTAL--------_ B ONE & TWO FAMILY DWELLIN(i Dwelling Square Footage: 1" Level (basement) 2"a Uver 3r° Lever 4" Leve1 Total Finished Finished Finished Finished Finished Unfinished Unfinished Unfinished Unfinished Unfinished Garage Square Footage: Attached Detadnd Tuck Under HVAC System: Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Electic ❑ Forced Air ❑ Hot Water.0 A/C ❑ Mechanical Ventilation ❑ Numbs of Baths: Full_ 94 iS_ Number of Bedrooms Number Fume Bedrooms Numbs of Fireplaces: Masonry Mamdawned Other Deck - Sq- Footage 3 Season Porch - Sq. Footage Screw Porch - Sq. Footage — Value of Dwelling EXCLUDING Land: C COW EB,C IAL AND MU9TSIAL Contact Person: Phone (H): (W): E-Mail' City. State: —Zip: New ❑ Alter ❑ Repair ❑ Addition ❑ Other ❑ SquareFootage: Construction Type: Location in Building: � Proposed Use: Description of Work: Sprinkiered: Yes O No 0 Occupancy CLusiScatan(s): HVAC System: GasO on ❑ Electric ❑ Ar- ❑ Forced Air ❑ Space Heat ❑ Hot water ❑ steam ❑ Land Value Acreage: Valve of Improvement SEE COMMERCIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS CHECBLiST FOR ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL 1 N— ..it 1,i1• t • /D1u 104�- Occupantiferont: Current Address: Contact Person: Phone (H): (W): City: State: Zip: Building Manager: Contact Person: Address: Phone(ii): (W): - FS-Mat7: City; State Tip: New ❑ Alter ❑ Repair ❑ Square Footage Consuwdon Type: Occupancy CLtssificatioo(s) Location in Building: Proposed Use: Description of Work HVAC System: GasO Oil ❑ Electric 0 A/C ❑ Forced Air ❑ Hot Water ❑ Sp Wend: Yes ❑ No ❑ Adjoining Tenants: Name: Name: Address: Occupancy Classdfiatioh: Address: Occupancy Classification: Proposed Use: Value of Improvement SEE COMMERC kL PERMIT REQLUWd N•PS C RECSIdST FOR ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS •d N: I Dl:a lui' t.• ID1.•MIS Occupanaenant: �/GY\'� PNU �`L � �/D �C� �,r ✓JT Contact Person: 1u4sI Phone (M:6A>r'19-MWQ (W)- Additmn ❑ Baseu=tFinish D Deck I7 Demolition ❑ Fence ❑ FireplaceD Crcaditrg 0 P001 O Remodel ❑ Repair O Reroof ❑ Reside O Shed ❑ UST Installation/Removal ❑ Od=)k- Year home was bmlt Explain: c w y r� %cAZ\ Square Footage: Ll QQn Dimensions NDC> ., 17k, Value of Improvement G:� APLITra+srvmwWaswcwavdasap� a..rsw t-rru RILEY LAKE MEADOWS----...., �_ /inx�itini ia.i�[ni uL[x`pxzl szcze .T. U., w[zanirn w1Ti vi<.�'s�s� N r � 0'C N i• u., Ya[. [[ Yxxw le.m9Xe8 To ` xrro9er[. E.( .` gg* ��e}}xorzs H Ncn X u Isx NXX xv[ f;�f- Q XRIIMXF Ge1NRY0 xxG[O eV tl/AX9C G G C" X �M r�KG 1 LAKE rV. 91Tx MC•99 ROYYIRT, INC. 9Y YYNPG PSG V11[11V......T. G[ 4xK i�[l1 W 10r �ux ix Ni.Ci�R YYaWgiX1 MO �plgNxp'Xr�d "n U.Tu aGX9.L.1., I+ Y Y L C[OYM VGTYxI GTUY. g XO"'i".MGI[ uYi[Y[Yv [oY1ifl�i Yx.YC D[p \ 0. CITY OF CHANHASSEN HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET EXISTING AND PROPOSED HARDCOVER Property Address: a " /� �\ .ram Lr. A. House S`7 X --? = 10.9C� S.F. X = S.F. X = S.F. X = S.F. X = S.F. B.Garage 8b X S.F. X = S.F. C. Driveway 4DD X S.F. X S.F. D. Sidewalks X = S.F. X = S.F. E.Patio/Deck X = S.F. X = S.F. F.Other X = S.F. (i.e. shed, etc.) X --_S.F. X = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER: S.F. TOTAL LOT SIZE: S.F. HARDCOVER PERCENTAGE: % MAXIMUM % ALLOWABLE: % Prepared by: �.� �% Q� Date: -1�11A— Signature: Reviewed by: Date: Comments: G:\PLAN\Forms\Hardcover Calculation Worksheetxls COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 I Fax: (952) 227-1110 0 CITY OF CHANNASSEN AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Agency Review Request Date: January 6, 2016 Agency Review Response Deadline: January 21, 2016 Date Application Filed: January 4, 2016 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: Drew Ingvalson, Planner 952-227-1132 dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Krista Spreiter, Natural 952-227-1173 kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Resources Technician Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60-Day Review Period Deadline: February 2, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. February 22, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. March 4, 2016 Request for Variance to the shoreland setback and Wetland Alteration Permit to construct a driveway on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) and located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows). Applicant/Owner: David Vogel. In order for staff to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: Federal Agencies: Adjacent Cities: ❑ Attorney E Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Chaska E Building Official ❑ US Fish & Wildlife ❑ Eden Prairie E Engineer ❑ Jackson Township E Fire Marshal Watershed Districts: ❑ Minnetonka E ❑ Forester Park Director ❑ Carver County WMO ❑ ❑ Shorewood Victoria E Water Resources El Lower MN River ❑ Law Enforcement ❑ Minnehaha Creek Adjacent Counties: E Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Carver County Agencies: E] ❑ HennepinUtilities: Scott ❑ ❑ Community Development Engineer ❑ Cable TV — Mediacom ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Electric — Minnesota Valley School Districts: ❑ Historical Society ❑ Electric — Xcel Energy ❑ Eastern Carver County 112 ❑ Parks ❑ Magellan Pipeline ❑ Minnetonka 276 E Soil & Water Conservation District ❑ Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy ❑ Phone — Century -ink Other Agencies: State Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad ElBoard of Water & Soil Resources ❑ Authority M N Landscape Arboretum ❑ El Health Historical Society ❑ SouthWest Transit El Natural Resources -Forestry El TC&W Railroad E Natural Resources -Hydrology ❑ Pollution Control ❑ Transportation 7C,gFC CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 O1/06/2016 1:14 PM Receipt No. 00304553 CLERK: joleneb PAYEE: David & Amy Vogel 6880 Bass Court Shakopee MN 55379- ------------------------------------------------------- Variance 200.00 Notification Sign 200.00 Escrow for Recording Variance Documents 100.00 Wetland Alteration Permit 150.00 Property Owners List 18.00 Overpayment -Refund 50.00 Total 718.00 Cash 0.00 Check 718.00 Change 0.00 DINED ka Existing Contour & Elevation Mn_Topo Lidar (white) op of Bank/Creek Minimum 30 Ft. into 50' setback) Delineated Wetland Boundary (red) Property Boundary F:- Proposed Wetland Impact 957 SF (yellow hatch) Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota 0 5 10 20 0 Fnn} Minimum 10 Ft. Wetland Setback From Proposed Driveway &X 0 Proposed Driveway (12 ft wide) (green) 12 In. Culvert a, W-1.16256 SF, Proposed Contour (black) & Elevation (yellow/black) Phone. (612)-802E619 Email'. jacobwnenv@mw.wm PmKUN Dab'. ijff: Vwp'- I .-: r N� 4 M i alp Ir 440. i << 14 ✓ e �� 1. r��V 141 ' �1' '�%g•� 1 `i P 01111 r r- x to �.. _ g'Iry } ♦` ;Alga. t & I +d ' . .t Al !in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Jacobson Finy"ronmental. Pl :(612YW2A 19 E-mail: jBwbaonanv�man mm 0 25 50 100 • r .._ o r' Property Boindary (Orange) OW Property Card Parcel ID Number 257420070 Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name GAYLE M & RICHARD P VOGEL TRUSTEES OF TRUST 105 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8660 Property Address Address 9641 MEADOWLARK LN City CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Parcel Information Uses Res V Land GISAcres 2.4 Net Acres 2.4 Deeded Acres 2.5 Plat RILEY LAKE MEADOWS Lot 007 Block 001 Tax Description Building Information Building Style Above Grade Bedrooms Finished Sci Ft Year Built Garage N Bathrooms Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0112 WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF N N I N Assessor Information - Estimated Market Value 2014 Values (Payable 2015) 2015 Values (Payable 2016) Last Sale Land $520,700.00 $555,200.00 Date of Sale Building $0.00 $0.00 Sale Value Total $520,700.00 $555,200.00 The data provided here, uh is for reference purposes only. This data is not suitable for legal, ergineeong, surveying or other similar purposes. Carver County does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained herein. This data is furnished on w as is basis and Carver County makes no representations or warranted. either expressed or implied for the merchantability or fitness of the ufotmation provided for any purpose_ This disclaimer s opened pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466. D3 and the user of the data provided herein acknowledges that Carver County shall not be liable for any damages. antl by using this data n any way expressty waives all claims, and agrees to defend indemnifyand hold harmless Carver County. as officials. officers .. agentsemployeesetc. from any add all claims brought by anyone who uses Me Information provided for herein, its employees or agents. or CARVER mind parties whidi arise our of users access. By acceptance of this data the user agrees not to remand this data or provide access to It or any pan of it b another parry unless the user includes COUNT: with the data a copy of this disclaimer. Tuesday, January 05, 2016 SCANNED Carver County.. MN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHANI�ASSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline Agency Review Request Date: Agency Review Response Deadline: Date Application Filed: January 6,2016 January 21,2016 January 4,2016 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: Drew Ingvalson, Planner 952-227-1132 dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Krista Spreiter, Natural 952-227-1173 kspreiter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Resources Technician Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60-Day Review Period Deadline: February 2, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. I February 22, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. I March 4, 2016 Application: Request for Variance to the shoreland setback and Wetland Alteration Permit to construct a driveway on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) and located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows). Applicant/Owner: David Vogel. Planning Case: 2016-04 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-04 In order for staff to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: Federal Agencies: Adjacent Cities: ❑ Attorney ® Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Chaska ® Building Official ❑ US Fish & Wildlffe ❑ Eden Prairie ® Engineer ❑ Jackson Township ® Fire Marshal Watershed Districts: ❑ Minnetonka ® Forester ❑ Carver County W MO ❑ Shorewood El Park Director El Victoria ❑ Lower MN River ® Water Resources ❑ Law Enforcement ❑ Minnehaha Creek Adjacent Counties: ® Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek ❑ Hennepin Carver County Agencies: Utilities: ❑ Scott ❑ Community Development ❑ Cable TV — Mediacom ❑ Engineer School Districts: ® Environmental Services ❑ Electric — Minnesota Valley ❑ Electric — Xcel Energy ❑ Eastern Carver County 112 El Historical Society ❑ Parks ❑ Magellan Pipeline ❑ Minnetonka 276 ® Soil &Water Conservation District ❑ Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy ❑ Phone — Centuryl-ink Other Agencies: State Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad ElBoard of Water & Soil Resources Authority ❑ MN Landscape Arboretum ❑ Health El Historical Society ❑ SouthWest Transit ❑ TC&W Railroad El Natural Resources -Forestry ❑ Natural Resources -Hydrology "NNF- ❑ Pollution Control "' ❑ Transportation $150.00 Wetland Alteration Permit $200.00 Variance $200.00 Notification Sign $18.00 Property Owners List (6 addresses x $3 each) $100.00 Escrow for recording variance documents (2) $668.00 TOTAL $718.00 David Vogel paid Check 4099 -$50.00 BALANCE TO BE REFUNDED .fib t to — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHA NSFN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: ��/ Lt I (O = PC Date: ,�/�, I b r NCc Date: ,��—��(o _ i0-Day Review Date: _ �' 4 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on -site sewers..... $100 ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 ❑ All Others ......................................... ................ $425 ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)....... ........... $750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 ❑ All Others......................................................... $500 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Administrative..................................................$100 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ( thousand square feet) 'Include number of existing employees: 'Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts ......................................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (— units) ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ 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) [Variance (VAR) .................................................... $200 ❑� Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Z 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. Er Notification Sign (City to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200 ❑� Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre -application meeting) .................................................. $3 per address (� addresses) '% i� Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)....................................................................... $50 per document ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation ['Variance ❑v Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements (_easements) f o0 TOTAL FEE: �' j0 � F5 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: Parcel #: 257420070 Legal Description: Total Acreage: 2.40 Wetlands Present? Present Zoning: Rural Residential District (RR) 9641 Meadowlark Lane NE 1/4 of Section 25, T116N, R23W ® Yes ❑ No 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. ❑ Check box is separate narrative is attached. ... PropertySection 3: Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Signature: Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those j conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: David Vogel Contact: David Vogel Address: 105 Pioneer Trail Phone: (612) 991-2848 City/State/Zip: Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cell: (612) 991-2848 Email: dpvogel@gmail.com Fax: el Signature: Date: I Lk 111, This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fling this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: ❑� Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: Applicant Via: Z Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip. ❑ Other* Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing (required). SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMR FORM We need this variance to build a driveway for the house that we plan to build in the spring of 2016. The entire ditch has been designated as wetland, and we need to go within 50 feet of the stream to avoid constructing part of the driveway over additional wetland on the north side of the ditch. This variation will not only avoid taking out additional wetland, but also minimize the number of large trees needed to be removed that are also located in that area and beyond. The rest of the new driveway will mostly follow the dirt road that our family has used for over a 100 years to get to the lake with minimal removal of any additional trees. Property Card Parcel ID Number 257420070 Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name GAYLE M & RICHARD P VOGEL TRUSTEES OF TRUST 105 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8660 Property Address Address 9641 MEADOWLARK LN City CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Parcel Information Uses Res VLand GIS Acres 2.4 Net Acres 2A Deeded Acres 2.5 Plat RILEY LAKE MEADOWS Lot 007 Block 001 Tax Description Building Information Building Style Above Grade Bedrooms Finished S Ft Year Built Garage N Bathrooms Miscellaneous Information School District 0112 Watershed District WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF Homestead N Green Acres I N Ag Preserve I N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2014 Values (Payable 2015) 2015 Values (Payable 2016) Last Sale Land $520,700.00 $555,200.00 Date of Sale Building $0.00 $0.00 Sale Value Total $520, 700.00 $555, 200.00 The data provided herewith is for reference purposes only. This data is hot suitable for legal, ergineenng, surveying or other s,ol purposes. Carver County does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained herein. This data is famished on an as Is' basis and Carver County makes no representations or warranties, either expressed or implied. for the merchantability or fitness of the nfamation provided for any purpose. This disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03 and the user of the data prowled heren admowledges that Carver County shall not be liable for any damages, and by using this data in any way expressly waives all claims, and agrees to de ti inck mndy, and hdtl harmless Caner Canty, its officals, officers. agenda, employees, etcfrom any and all claims brought by anyone who uses the information provided for herein, its employees or agents, or CARVER third parties which arise out of users access. By acceptance of this data, the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it m any part of it to another party unless the user includes COUNTY With idle C21a a copy of this declaimer. Tuesday, January 05, 2016 Carver County, MN