RE Dorsey Wetland requestLyndon,
Rick is correct that at the Planning Commission meeting it was indicated that if additional impacts were necessary to accommodate needed design changes, that, depending upon the amount
of additional impact, the existing application could be updated to reflect this without having to go through another WCA application process. It is less clear what that would mean
under our City Wetland Alteration Permit process which requires a public hearing for all impacts. Either way, at no point was it even intimated that additional impacts, either primarily
caused by the proposed plan or secondarily resulting from the proposed plan were likely to result. The answer was to a hypothetical question of "if the county had to change the design
to accommodate" drainage or other infrastructure the replacement plan could be amended. It was also discussed that I was not aware of what discretion we had in regard to the amount
of additional impact and or mitigation that could be addressed administratively before a new application would be required.
The TEP did discuss this area and it was concluded that no additional impacts were needed to accomplish the intended purpose of the plan. The TEP agreed that this was not similar to
the wetland near the house. No significant grade change will occur downstream of the wetland and the hydrology source will remain. Since you can excavate within a type 1, 2 and 6
wetland without it being considered an impact, even if the area was to be reshaped to provide positive drainage it would not be a permanent impact and would not require mitigation.
One last important point, no delineated boundary has been approved beyond the proposed right-of-way. That is to say, while we know that there is wetland beyond the r/w we cannot say
how much additional impact there would even be if it was allowed because there is no boundary to define the limit of the wetland.
To summarize:
1) There are no anticipated impacts to this area from the proposed project as designed.
2) The project can be accomplished as designed.
3) Excavation within this wetland type is not considered an impact provided it still has the 3 parameters (vegetation, soils and hydrology).
4) The approved wetland delineation applies only to the right-of-way so there is no legal way to say that only x^2 feet will be impacted if it were allowed.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have attached the minutes from the March 4, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The first paragraph is Mark Anderson of MFRA speaking.
Regards,
Terry
Terrance Jeffery | Water Resources Coordinator
City of Chanhassen | Engineering Department
7700 Market Boulevard | Chanhassen, MN 55317
DESK 952.227.1168 | MAIN 952.227.1160
-----Original Message-----
From: Lyndon Robjent [mailto:lrobjent@co.carver.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:44 AM
To: Jeffery, Terry
Cc: Oehme, Paul; Bill Weckman
Subject: Dorsey Wetland request
Rick would like us to mitigate the wetland near his western property line to the edge of the temporary easement. He believes, that similar to the one by his house, that the construction
will impact this wetland beyond the toe of slope (or our construction limit). He said he brought this up at planning commission.
Can you have Linda and company do a review of this similar to the other one. Should be prepared to answer this at Monday's meeting.
Lyndon Robjent
Carver County Engineer/PWD
Disclaimer: Information in this message or an attachment may be government data and thereby subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, may be subject to attorney-client
or work product privilege, may be confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise protected. The unauthorized review, copying, retransmission, or other use or disclosure of the
information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this
message from your computer system.