2017_12_18 Avienda WCA Notice of DecisionBWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1
of 3
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit (LGU)
City of Chanhassen
Address
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant Name
Level 7 Development, LLC
(c/o Mark Nordland)
8315 Cascade Drive – Suite 165
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Project Name
Avienda
Date of
Application
March 14,
2017
Application
Number
07-01WRP
Attach site locator map.
Type of Decision:
Wetland Boundary or Type No-Loss Exemption Sequencing
Replacement Plan Banking Plan
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (if any):
Approve Approve with conditions Deny
Summary (or attach): The TEP met on November 20, 2017. The TEP reviewed the request for
sequencing flexibility. Based on the requirements in MR8420.0520 Subp 7a, the TEP agreed the
application met the requirements for sequencing flexibility. An email from Ben Carlson (BWSR) is
attached. TEP Findings of Fact are also attached.
2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION
Date of Decision: December 18, 2017
Approved Approved with conditions (include below) Denied
1. The approximately 20-acre Bluff Overlay District in the southwest of the project area be
preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement.
2. A $300,000 escrow be provided by the applicant for a future wetland/stormwater improvement
project in the city.
3. Complete the Withdrawal of Banking Credits form for LGU review and signature.
4. Provide proof of withdrawal of the wetland banking credits from the banks once the withdrawal
is completed.
5. Engineering plans of the design of the stormwater system that at least meets the outcomes of
the stormwater model provided with the WCA application be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval prior to grading.
LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary):
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2
of 3
A. Overview of Project
Level 7 Developm ent, LLC, has applied for a W etland Conservation Act (W CA) perm it with the City
of Chanhassen as the Local Governm ent Unit (LGU) for the W CA for the proposed Avienda project.
T he project is a 115-acre developm ent project for a Regional Lifestyle Center . The developer is
proposing to im pact 4.5878 acres of W CA regulated wetland. There is also 1,429 square feet of
waterway im pact, but this is not regulated b y W CA as it is not a W CA wetland. Wetland mitigation is
proposed through the purchase of wetland bank credit. Three banks and one back-up bank have been
identified. These banks are within the same Bank Service Area (BSA) as the project.
1. Applicant subm itted application Februar y 15, 2017 with prelim inary storm water m odel ing
inform ation on F ebruar y 21, 2017. (Wetland Permit Application, January 12, 2017).
2. City determ ined application was incom plete on March 10, 2017. This determ ination was
reviewed with the applicant on March 9, 2017. (WSB Memo dated March 10, 2017).
3. Applicant subm itted revisions on March 14, 2017. (Kjolhaug memo dated March 14, 2017).
4. City determ ined the application was com plete on March 17, 2017. A W etland Conservation
Act Notice of Application (NOA) was sent to the TEP on March 17, 2017. While the
application was technically complete, the NOA and Application checklist indicated that the
applicant may want to provide additional supporting information to allow the LGU to review
the application for conformance with WCA. (WCA Notice of Application dated March 17,
2017).
5. T he first 60-day tim eline ended Ma y 13, 2017. The LGU extended that tim eline in writing for
60 additional days. The LGU indicated that if the applicant wanted to extend the timeline
again, the Cit y needed this extension in writing. The following summarizes the subsequent
extensions.
Date of Extension Notice Date Extension Expires
First 60-Day Timeline May 13, 2017
Second 60-Day Timeline – April
21, 2017
July 12, 2017
June 19, 2017 September 10, 2017
September 6, 2017 October 10, 2017
October 3, 2017 December 10, 2017
November 20, 2017 February 8, 2018
6. On June 5, the applicant submitted information to the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
and copied the City in response to the COE comments. (Kjolhaug memo dated June 5,
2017 with attachments).
7. The TEP, City staff, applicant, and staff from Riley -Purgatory Bluff Creek met on July 11,
2017 to review the application and project. (The TEP includes staff from the Board of
Water and Soil Resources, the Soil and Water Conservation District, and the LGU. The
purpose of the TEP is to provide guidance on WCA items, if requested by the LGU to do
so). As a result of that meeting, information was clarified by the applicant. The LGU and
TEP indicated they were still awaiting other information. The meeting notes from that
meeting are attached. (WSB Memo Dated July 21, 2017 and Revised August 1, 2017 to
reflect review and comment of the meeting attendees).
8. The applicant submitted additional information to the City on the October 9, 2017 with
revised project plans. The project proposes to im pact 4.5878 acres of wetland. This is a
reduction of 0.309 acres of impac t from the original application. (Kjolhaug memo dated
October 9, 2017).
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3
of 3
T able 1. Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts
Wetland
Number Wetland
Type
Wetland
Acreage
Impact
Acreage (fill
and
excavate)
Fill or
Excavate
Wetland
Management
Class
Wetland 1 1, 3 1.1001 1.1001 F Manage 2
Wetland 1/2 1, 2 0.1860 0.1860 F Manage 2
Wetland 2 1, 2, 5 2.2569 2.2569 F Manage 2
Wetland 3 1 0.6696 0 NA Manage 2
Wetland 4 1 0.1253 0 NA Manage 2
Wetland 5 1 0.3483 0.3483 F Manage 3
Wetland 6 1 0.5302 0.4986 F Manage 2
Wetland 6 1 0.2514 0 Manage 2
Wetland 7 1 0.0150 0.0150 F Manage 3
Wetland 8 1 0.0844 0.0844 F Manage 3
Wetland 9 1 0.0985 0.0985 F Manage 3
Wetland 10 1 0.0740 0 NA Preserve
TOTAL 5.6406 4.5878
9. On October 26, 2017, the applicant submitted a revised application to the US Corps of
Engineers (COE) pertaining to reduced jurisdictional status of the COE wetlands as well as
reduced wetland impacts. This submittal contained the grading plan which also informed
the WCA review. (Kjolhaug memo dated October 26, 2017).
10. On November 20, 2017, the applicant submitted a request and supporting information for
sequencing flexibility within the WCA rules. This submittal, along with the October 9, 2017
memo responding to the TEP meeting from July and a memo dated June 5, 2017
responding to COE comments, was provided to the TEP and other s for review and
comment on November 20, 2017. Revised stormwater modeling and analysis
accompanied this memo. (Kjolhaug memo dated November 20, 2017 ; Draft Stormwater
Management Plan – DP5.5 dated November 20, 2017 ).
11. On November 30, 2017, members of the TEP and City staff met to review the sequencing
flexibility request. At this meeting, the TEP reviewed and discussed that the applicant
appeared to meet the sequencing flexibility in WCA and acknowledged that the project was
still out for comments and the stormwater review was still pending from the City. An email
from BWSR staff is attached to this memo that documents BWSR’s comments on the
application and that they support the sequencing flexibility application. (Email dated
December 1, 2017 from Ben Car lson, BWSR TEP member).
12. A revised draft stormwater management plan and model was provided for review on
December 11, 2017 based on questions from WSB during the review period. (Draft
Stormwater Management Plan – DP5.5 dated December 11, 2017 ).
13. Comments were received from the Riley -Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD) on December 7, 2017. (Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek letter dated December 7,
2017).
14. A response from the applicant was received on December 13, 2017 in response to
RPBCWD comments. (Larkin Hoffman memo dated December 13, 2018).
B. WCA Review and Findings
1. Wetland Boundary, T ype and Classification: The LGU reviewed the wetland delineation,
typing, and MnRAM classifications. This inform ation is summ arized below. The LGU and
T EP concurred with the wetland delineation, wetland t yping, and MnRAM classifications as
noted below and in the application.
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 4
of 3
T able 2. Wetland Type and M anagement Classification Summary
2016 Application City's Plan 2014 Report
Cowardi
n
Ci rcul ar
39
Manage me nt
Cl ass
Manage me nt
Cl ass
Cowardin Circular
39 Wetl and 1 PEMAd T1 M2 M2 PEMB T2
PEMCd T3
Wetl and 2 PUBG T5 M2 M2 PEMB T2
PEMBd T2 PUBFx T4
PEMAd T1
Wetl and 3 PEMA T1 M2 M3 PEMB T2
Wetl and 4 PEMAd T1 M2 PEMB T2
Wetl and 5 PEMAd T1 M3 PEMA T1
Wetl and 6 PEMAd T1 M2 M2 PFO1A T1
Wetl and 7/8 PEMAd T1 M3
Wetl and 9 PEMAd T1 M3
Wetl and 10 PFO1A T1 P
Findings: The LGU and TEP concur with the wetland boundary, type, and
management classification as outlined in the current application and summarized in
the Table 2.
2. Sequencing Flexibility
The applicant has requested sequencing flexibility pursuant to Minnesota Ru les 8420.0520
Subp 7a. Flexibility in application of the sequencing steps (i.e. avoid and minimize impacts)
may be allowed at the discretion of the Local Government Unit subject to one of the following
conditions. If sequencing flexibility is allowed, the requirements of MR 8420.0520 Subp 1-7
that require specific avoidance and minimization criteria do not apply. Below is a review of
whether the applicant has met one of these conditions to be eligible for sequencing flexibility.
Subpart 7a. A.1. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if the wetland impacted
has been degraded to the point where replacement of it would result in a certain gain in
function and public value.
Findings: A Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) assessmen t is a State
approved method for evaluating the functions and values of wetlands. Based on the
results of a MnRAM assessment, wetlands are classified as Preserve, Manage 1,
Manage 2, or Manage 3, with the highest functions and values in the Preserve
category and the lowest functions and values in the Manage 3 category.
The MnRAM assessment has been completed for the on -site wetlands as well as the
proposed wetland bank wetlands, which are proposed for wetland mitigation. Some
of the on-site wetlands (Wetlands 1, 2, 5, 9) have been degraded from agricultural
activities and apparent manipulation such as grading (as evidenced from the aerial
photos). The on-site wetlands are Manage 2s and 3s as noted in the Table 2 above.
The MnRAM assessments of the wetland bank sites show that the proposed wetland
replacement is of better function and value than wetlands proposed to be impacted.
The wetland bank sites are ranked as Preserve.
The TEP concurred that, based on the MnRAM assessments, the replacement
wetlands would result in a gain in function and value within the same Bank Service
Area (BSA). This meets the requirements of WCA so sequencing flexibility is met.
While the WCA requires wetlands to be replaced in the same Bank Service Area and
the project meets this requirement, the city acknowledges lost functions and values
within the City of Chanhassen. Therefore, the C ity is requiring an escrow of $300,000
to fund a future wetland/water quality project in the city. Three possible projects have
been identified at this time.
Subpart 7a.A.2. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if avoidance of a wetland
would result in severe degradation of the wetland’s ability to function and provide public value.
This could occur if surrounding land uses or implementation of BMP’s cannot reaso nably
maintain the wetland’s ability to provide functions and values.
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 5
of 3
Findings: While some information related to the difficulty to maintain the existing
function and value of the on-site wetlands was alluded to in the original application
(Page 19 of January 12, 2017 application), the applicant has not supplied further
documentation regarding this item. Therefore, this item does not apply.
Subpart 7a.A.3. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if the only feasible and
prudent upland site available for the project or replacement has greater ecosystem function
and public value than the wetland. This may be appropriate only if the applicant
demonstrates impact minimization to the wetland agrees to perpetually preserve the
designated update site, and completely replaces the impacted wetland’s functions and values.
Findings: There is a, approximately 20-acre high quality wooded area in the
southwest portion of the project site. The area is designated as the Bluff Creek
Overlay District (BCOD). This area provides ecosystem value to the area by
protecting the bluff and providing a high quality, vegetated wooded area that contains
a diversity of native vegetation (red and bur oak, sugar maple, basswood, American
elm, and black cherry that appear to hav e not been clear cut based on aerial photos
that go back to 1940. The area will be placed into a perpetual conservation easement
to preserve it in perpetuity. Additionally, alternatives supplied by the applicant indicate
alternative sites either have simil ar or potentially greater ecosystem impact.
The TEP concurred with this finding and this project meets the requirements of WCA
for sequencing flexibility for this subpart.
Subpart 7a.A.4. Sequencing flexibility can be allowed by the LGU if the wetland i s a site
where human health and safety is a factor.
Findings: Health and human safety of the wetlands being impacted is not a factor.
This condition does not apply.
Subpart 7a.B. Flexibility in the order and application of sequencing standards must not b e
implemented unless alternatives have been considered and the proposed replacement
wetland is certain to provide equal or greater public values.
Findings: In the February 15, 2017 documentation, the applicant provides an
alternatives analysis that look s at alternative locations within the city as well as
alternative configurations for development within the chosen project site. In sections
5.2 and 5.3 of the Avienda Wetland Permit Application dated January 12, 2017 (and
resubmitted February 15, 2017), two avoidance alternatives are provided. One is the
no-build and the other is a development plan that avoids wetland impacts. The
applicant also provided alternative site alternatives. The alternative sites either had
similar impacts or greater impacts to wetlands or natural resources. Alternatives have
been considered.
Regarding if the replacement wetland, as stated in B.2 above, the applicant has
completed MnRAM assessments of the on-site and replacement wetlands. The
information has been reviewed by the TEP. The information indicates that the
replacement wetlands will provide greater function and value than the existing
wetlands within the same BSA.
The applicant will also provide a $300,000 escrow to fund a future wetland/water
quality project within the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek watershed.
Additionally, the stormwater management plan has been reviewed. Based on the
review of the Draft Stormwater Management Plan – DP5.5 dated November 20,
2017, there were questions regarding the nondegradation analysis and the
hydrology analysis for some of wetlands. These questions were brought to the
applicant and changes were made to the design. Based on the review of the Draft
Stormwater Management Plan – DP5.5 dated December 11, 2017, these questions
were addressed. This review has taken into account the hydrology impacts and
water quality impacts on the remaining wetlands (Wetland 3, 4, and 6) as w ell as the
downstream MnDOT wetlands. Based on the stormwater management plan, the
project plan will not negatively impact the remaining on -site or downstream MnDOT
wetlands from a hydrological or water quality perspective. It is important to note that
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 6
of 3
this review was based on WCA requirements, and not requirements that may need to
be met by other permitting agencies. Therefore, this subpart of the sequencing
flexibility has been met.
Water Quality and Nondegradation
The project area is within the Lake Sus an watershed and the Bluff Creek
watershed. These receiving waters are listed as impaired and as such need
to show the project meets nondegradation standards. While detailed
engineering design plans have not been provided, the modeling of the design
plans indicates the project will meet the nondegradation requirements. The
engineering plans will need to meet the results provided in the model. The
data below is based on WSB’s review of the model.
LAKE SUSAN City's Non-Degradation Summary Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Name
Subwatershe
d Area
Subwatershe
d Max
Allowable
Subwatershed
Average Flow
Estimate of
Area within
Subwatershed*
Max
Allowable
Flow within
P8 Surface
Outflow**
[ac][ac-ft][ac-ft per ac][ac][ac-ft][ac-ft]
LS 2-1 28.96 42.1 1.45 30.7 44.6
LS 2-2 51.03 68.4 1.34 5.4 7.2
LS 2-4 57.39 41.5 0.72 3.6 2.6
TOTALS 39.7 54.5 13.03 Meeting Requirement
BLUFF CREEK City's Non-Degradation Summary Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Name
Subwatershe
d Area
Subwatershe
d Max
Allowable
Flow 2020
Subwatershed
Average Flow
Estimate of
Area within
Subwatershed*
Max
Allowable
Flow within
Subwatershe
P8 Surface
Outflow**
[ac][ac-ft][ac-ft per ac][ac][ac-ft][ac-ft]
BC-A5.11 102.15 148.6 1.45 50.3 73.2
BC-A5.2 35.38 49.8 1.41 16.2 22.8
BC-A5.7 53.75 51.6 0.96 4.5 4.3
TOTALS 71 100.3 10.41 Meeting Requirement
*Estimates were determined from georeferencing documents into ArcGIS and should not be considered exact
** Determined only comparing the surface outflow and using the reported drainage areas from page 8 of the stormwater management plan
LAKE SUSAN City's Non-Degradation Summary Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Name
Subwatershe
d Area
Subwatershe
d Max
Allowable TSS
2020
Subwatershed
Average TSS
Estimate of
Area within
Subwatershed*
Max
Allowable
TSS within
Subwatershe
P8 Surface
Outflow TSS**
[ac][lbs][lbs per ac][ac][lbs][lbs]
LS 2-1 28.96 10967 378.69 30.7 11625.9
LS 2-2 51.03 17605 344.99 5.4 1863.0
LS 2-4 57.39 10252 178.64 3.6 643.1
TOTALS 39.7 14132.0 356.1 Meeting Requirement
BLUFF CREEK City's Non-Degradation Summary Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Name
Subwatershe
d Area
Subwatershe
d Max
Allowable TSS
2020
Subwatershed
Average TSS
Estimate of
Area within
Subwatershed*
Max
Allowable
TSS within
Subwatershe
d
P8 Surface
Outflow TSS**
[ac][lbs][lbs per ac][ac][lbs][lbs]
BC-A5.11 102.15 38263 374.58 50.3 18841.2
BC-A5.2 35.38 12876 363.93 16.2 5895.7
BC-A5.7 53.75 13017 242.18 4.5 1089.8
TOTALS 71 25826.7 522.2 Meeting Requirement
*Estimates were determined from georeferencing documents into ArcGIS and should not be considered exact
** Determined only comparing the surface outflow and using the reported drainage areas from page 8 of the stormwater management plan
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 7
of 3
Hydrology
Based on a review of the hydrology imp acts (see table below), the project will
not significantly alter or negatively impact the hydrology of the remaining on -
site wetlands (Wetland 3, 4, and 6) nor the downstream MnDOT wetlands. It
should be noted that Wetland 3 is proposed to have a culvert o utlet placed at
the elevation of the existing wetland (about 921). In practice, the wetland is
expected to remain at that elevation or up to one foot about that elevation.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to negatively impact the hydrology of
the wetland.
LAKE SUSAN City's Non-Degradation Summary Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Name
Subwatershe
d Area
Subwatershe
d Max
Allowable TP
2020
Subwatershed
Average TP
Estimate of
Area within
Subwatershed*
Max
Allowable TP
within
Subwatershe
P8 Surface
Outflow TP**
[ac][lbs][lbs per ac][ac][lbs][lbs]
LS 2-1 28.96 36.7 1.27 30.7 38.9
LS 2-2 51.03 59.4 1.16 5.4 6.3
LS 2-4 57.39 34.8 0.61 3.6 2.2
TOTALS 39.7 47.4 4.9 Meeting Requirement
BLUFF CREEK City's Non-Degradation Summary Proposed Site Information
Subwatershe
d Name
Subwatershe
d Area
Subwatershe
d Max
Allowable TP
2020
Subwatershed
Average TP
Estimate of
Area within
Subwatershed*
Max
Allowable TP
within
Subwatershe
d
P8 Surface
Outflow TP**
[ac][lbs][lbs per ac][ac][lbs][lbs]
BC-A5.11 102.15 128.4 1.26 50.3 63.2
BC-A5.2 35.38 43.1 1.22 16.2 19.7
BC-A5.7 53.75 44 0.82 4.5 3.7
TOTALS 71 86.6 6.9 Meeting Requirement
*Estimates were determined from georeferencing documents into ArcGIS and should not be considered exact
** Determined only comparing the surface outflow and using the reported drainage areas from page 8 of the stormwater management plan
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 8
of 3
C. Approval and Conditions
Based on the review of the project for conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act, the project
meets the requirements for sequencing flexibility. The City Council approved this application and
replacement plan with the conditions below. These conditions must be met before wetland impact can
occur:
1. The approximately 20-acre Bluff Overlay District in the southwest of the project area be
preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement.
2. A $300,000 escrow b e provided by the applicant for a future wetland/stormwater improvement
project in the city.
3. Complete the Withdrawal of Banking Credits form for LGU review and signature.
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Change
2-year 10-year 2-year 10-year 2-year 10-year
[cfs][cfs][cfs][cfs][cfs][cfs]
Wetland 6 6.66 18.19 7.02 19.17 0.36 0.98
Wetland 3 9.36 19.05 9.29 17.06 -0.07 -1.99
Wetland 4 31.63 62.79 16.01 41.71 -15.62 -21.08
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M9)84.57 174.15 56.81 158.25 -27.76 -15.90
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M10)20.86 54.97 20.59 53.65 -0.27 -1.32
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Change
2-year 10-year 2-year 10-year 2-year 10-year
[af][af][af][af][af][af]
Wetland 6 0.79 1.86 1.46 2.95 0.67 1.09
Wetland 3 0.74 1.45 0.77 1.40 0.02 -0.05
Wetland 4 3.18 6.06 4.09 6.64 0.92 0.58
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M9)11.84 22.39 11.94 23.27 0.10 0.88
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M10)9.26 18.41 10.36 20.14 1.10 1.73
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Change
NWL 2-year HWL 10-year HWL NWL 2-year HWL 10-year HWL NWL 2-year HWL 10-year HWL
Wetland 6 884 885.35 885.49 884 885.47 885.64 0.00 0.12 0.15
Wetland 3 920.80 921.68 921.97 920.80 921.36 921.63 0.00 -0.32 -0.34
Wetland 4 884.03 884.71 884.92 884.03 884.54 884.79 0.00 -0.17 -0.13
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M9)869.50 870.49 871.29 869.50 870.49 871.33 0.00 0.00 0.04
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M10)891.00 891.68 892.56 891.00 891.78 892.70 0.00 0.10 0.14
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Change
2-year event 10-year event 2-year event 10-year event 2-year event 10-year event
Wetland 6 1.35 1.49 1.47 1.64 0.12 0.15
Wetland 3 0.88 1.17 0.56 0.83 -0.32 -0.34
Wetland 4 0.68 0.89 0.51 0.76 -0.17 -0.13
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M9)0.99 1.79 0.99 1.83 0.00 0.04
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M10)0.68 1.56 0.78 1.70 0.10 0.14
Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Change
2-year event 10-year event 2-year event 10-year event 2-year event 10-year event
[hr][hr][hr][hr][hr][hr]
Wetland 6 12 13 14 14 2.00 1.00
Wetland 3 23 24 23.00 24.00
Wetland 4 13 14 19 20 6.00 6.00
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M9)187 213 211 243 24.00 30.00
Downstream Wetland
(MNDOT M10)194 227 198 233 4.00 6.00
*Criteria used to determine duration:
Start at the time elevation goes above the NWL
Duration continues until elevation returns to within one tenth of a foot above the NWL
Inflow Volume
Discharge Rates Entering Wetlands
Bounce Duration*
Water Levels
Bounce
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 9
of 3
For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank:
Bank Account #
1494 - Drummer
1605 – Schmidgall
174 – Ryan
1636 – Kremer
(back up bank)
Bank Service Area
BSA 9
BSA 9
BSA 9
BSA 9
County
Blue Earth
Stevens
Rice
Lyon
Credits Approved for
Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest
.01 acre)
261,360 sf
108,900 sf
65,000 sf
TOTAL: 435,260 sf. This is
more credit than the
399,689.12 sf needed. The
applicant will need to submit
corrected and updated Bank
Withdrawal forms reflecting
the 399,689.12 sf of banking
credits.
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!
LGU Authorized Signature:
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
Andrea Moffatt
Title
Senior Environmental Scientist
Signature
Date
12/22/2017
Phone Number and E-mail
763-287-7196
amoffatt@wsbeng.com
THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT .
Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all
appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands.
4. Provide proof of withdrawal of the wetland banking credits from the banks once the withdrawal
is completed.
5. Engineering plans of the design of the stormwater system that at least meets the outcomes of
the stormwater model provided with the WCA application be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval prior to grading.
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 10
of 3
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:
Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send
petition and $ fee (if applicable) to:
Appeal of LGU governing body decision.
Send petition and $500 filing fee to:
Executive Director
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES
SWCD TEP member: afinke@co.carver.mn.us
BWSR TEP member: ben.carlson@state.mn.us
LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact):
DNR TEP member: Becky.Horton@state.mn.us
DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member)
WD or WMO (if applicable): kwold@barr.com, cbleser@rpbcwd.org, tjeffery@rpbcwd.org
Applicant and Landowner (if different) Melissa@kjolhaugenv.com; plarson@larkinhoffman.com;
mnordland@launchproperties.com; mkjol@kjolhaugenv.com; ssabraski@landform.net
Members of the public who requested notice:
Corps of Engineers Project Manager Ryan.M.Malterud@usace.army.mil
BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan decisions only)
5. MAILING INFORMATION
➢ For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA_areas.pdf
➢ For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR_TEP_contacts.pdf
➢ Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices:
NW Region:
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
2115 Birchmont Beach Rd.
NE
Bemidji, MN 56601
NE Region:
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
1201 E. Hwy. 2
Grand Rapids, MN
55744
Central Region:
Reg. Env. Assess.
Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Southern Region:
Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol.
Div. Ecol. Resources
261 Hwy. 15 South
New Ulm, MN 56073
For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr_regions.pdf
➢ For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=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:
BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 11
of 3
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Wetland Bank Coordinator
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
6. ATTACHMENTS
In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments:
TEP Findings of Fact and BWSR email
Signed City Resolution
Table 1. Revised Wetland Impact Summary for USACE Regulated Impacts Wetland Revised Proposed Impact (ac) Impact Type USACE Regulated USACE Regulated Impact (ac) Wetlands 1 1.1001 Fill No 0Wetland 1/2 0.1860 Fill No 0Wetland 2 2.2569 Fill No 0Wetland 4 -- -- Yes 0Wetland 5 0.3483 Fill No 0Wetland 6 0.4986 Fill Yes 0.4986Wetland 7 0.0150 Fill No 0Wetland 8 0.0844 Fill No 0Wetland 9 0.0985 Excavate No 0Total 0.4986
Figure 1 - Site Location & Property Boundary
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 750
Feet
Legend
Property Boundary
MnDOT ROW (adjacent to site)
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap
Residential Development
Residential Development
ResidentialDevelopment Trunk Highway 212Lyman Boulevard
Powers BoulevardParcel within property boundary (1.66-ac). Not proposed for development at this time.
916914
912 918920 910908906
9
0
4
902
900898
896894
892890888
886884 922924926928930882932880934936946
878
938
940
876
942
944
874
872
870948 950952954956958
890
89492
8
916
944
920898934
9428789
0
0946924 950
902
938934936
914
930910884
916926936
912932
916954
920932
952
9308749069
2
4
922
918
950
938
934 908892
932
916
914
886
876936
896 934
906942
930
918940
912 904946
926
930
940
874
9
2
4
918938
910
900910906
938
948
914
872
936898
9
0
6
928
9049149149
2
6940 902924928 934874934952948 918914
954
930916896
920946
944
896912900888
936908
9108
8
4924938 8929
2
2
944
912
91
6
902894
928926
904
902932 898922
938 920870Figure 3 - Topographic Elevations (2016 Metro Aerial)
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 250
Feet
Legend
Proposed Site
Wetlands
MnDOT Wetland
Waterway
Intermittent Drainageway
Ag Tile
Carver Co 2-ft Lidar
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap
950-ft
924-ft
908-ft
912-ft
938-ft
932-ft932-ft894-ft886-ft926-ft
930-ft910-ft906-ft906-ft
900-ft892-ft924-ft
914-ft936-ft
8
8
6
-
f
t
876-ft 916-ft9
0
0
-
f
t 902-ft946-ft912-ft930-ft946-ft
936-ft
902-ft
Figure 4 - Minor Watershed Boundaries (2016 Metro Aerial)
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-030)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 250
Feet
Legend
Proposed Site
Wetlands
MnDOT Wetland
Waterway
Intermittent Drainageway
Minor Watershed Divide
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap
WL6
WL3
2016 WL9
WL5
WL4
WL2
WL1WL1/2
WL7
WL8
WL10
Lake Susan &Riley CreekWatershed
Bluff CreekWatershed
Source: www.mngeo.state.mn.us
Figure 5 - Existing Drainage Areas (2016 Metro Aerial)
Avienda Mixed Use Regional/Lifestyle Center (KES 2015-130)Chanhassen, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product.
¯0 250
Feet
Legend
Proposed Site
Drainage Areas (DA)
Sub Drainage Area (SDA)
Surface Drainage Direction
Wetlands
MnDOT Wetland
Source: MnGeo, ESRI Imagery Basemap
WL6 DA17.48-ac
WL1/2 DA31.12-ac
WL8 DA3.85-ac
WL7 DA4.81-ac
DA2.56-ac
WL3 DA7.14-ac WL5 DA5.55-ac
DA12.61-acDA28.83-ac
DA3.62-ac
DA2.36-ac
WL9 SDA3.36-ac
WL10 SDA0.55-ac
WL4 SDA1.14-ac
12/18/17