2g. Wetland Permit 7016 Sandy Hook Circle \!II ii .
CITYOF 426.
1 LI,to ii ,, CHANHASSEN
,. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM /
4 .4
TO: Planning Commission `'"` p
te
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ,�Z ��'''`, ' Ce-n!sss^^
YID
DATE: July 10, 1990 "• ' `
SUBJ: Policy on Access Through a Wetland ._
On June 20, 1990, the Planning Commission heard conflicting
I opinions on what is the best means of access to open water through
a wetland (Attachment #1) . The Planning Commission requested that
Pat Lynch from the DNR, who was contacted by the applicants,attend
the next Planning Commission meeting to explain DNR's position on
Iaccess through a wetland.
Since adoption of the wetland ordinance, staff has used the
I expertise of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers and
DNR in determining wetland areas and what should or should not be
done to them. One of the most common requests is for access to a
I lake across a wetland area. When considering options, staff was
told by the above parties that a boardwalk (elevated) would be
preferred since it resulted in a one time alteration to the wetland
and allows the wetland vegetation to return to its natural state
I around the boardwalk. This practice has been followed by the City
in all cases even when a boardwalk crosses over dry wetlands
(example: Doczy on Lotus Lake and Crimson Bay on Lake
IMinnewashta) .
Staff has contacted Ceil Strauss and Pat Lynch of the DNR and
I requested one or both to attend the August 1st Planning Commission
meeting. Pat Lynch will attend the meeting on August 1st. In
addition, staff requested letters from the DNR, Corps of Engineers
and Fish and Wildlife on what would be the preferred means of
I access through a wetland to open water. Pat Lynch has submitted a
letter. Mr. Lynch's letter stated the issue has become confused
and will attend the Planning Commission meeting to address the
I issue (Attachment #2) . Ceil Strauss of the DNR stated she would
submit a letter describing the general policy of the DNR. Staff
has not yet received the letter. Paul Burke submitted a letter
IIrepresenting the Fish and Wildlife's position on access through a
II
.1
' Policy on Access through Wetland
July 23, 1990
Page 2
' wetland which states that boardwalks are preferred over filling
(Attachment #3) . Mick Weburg, Chief of Minnesota Permit Analysis
' for the Corps of Engineers, stated over the phone that the
environmentally preferred alternative would be to first limit the
number of accesses by using combined access on lot lines and that
' they would then encourage boardwalks as the means of access.
In the past and with the recent inquiries, staff has explained to
other governing parties that our wetland ordinance allows the City
' to regulate wetlands beyond what they are able to control (i.e.
beyond the ordinary high water mark, wetlands under 2 acres in
size, etc. ) and if they could regulate as far as they wanted, what
' would be their "wish list" in protecting wetlands. Of course their
position, as is ours, is no alteration unless it is an improvement
to the wetland. But in the case where some form of access should
' be allowed through a wetland, the three parties have consistently
said that a boardwalk (elevated) would be the preferred means of
access over filling, dredging or at grade boardwalk. Staff has
recommended boardwalks on the advice of the more knowledgeable
' parties and still believes this position has merit and should
continue to be applied. We also agree with the applicant that to
properly enforce this position, the wetland ordinance should be
' amended to include specifics on access through wetlands.
As far as the issue in front of the Commission tonight all of the
parties have stated that a boardwalk would be preferred but if the
' applicant is willing to remove the majority of the wetland fill
that they would allow the smaller strip of fill to remain. To
quote one, "there are bigger fish in the water" and "the fill will
' not be that damaging to the wetlands". But in light of their
regulations and what they can control, much of what the City
regulates with our wetland ordinance would be "small fish" to them
' and going back to their "wish list" we are enforcing what they
would if they could.
The City is being faced with a decision whether to uphold the
' wetland ordinance as in the past with no wetland alteration unless
it is an improvement to the wetland or to reach a compromise in
cases where the applicant is satisfied and the City minimizes the
' wetland disturbance. It is clear that the proposed wetland
ordinance revisions will have to include a clear policy statement
to avoid this sort of problem in the future.
If the Planning Commission and City Council wish to be consistent
with past practice and believe a boardwalk is the least harmful to
the wetland, then all of the fill should be removed and only a
' boardwalk permitted. Should the Planning Commission and City
Council feel the fill strip used as an access is acceptable, then
the applicant's request should be approved. In either case, the
Planning Commission and City Council should be prepared to direct
I.
Policy on Access through Wetland
July 23, 1990
Page 3 •
staff on what the City's policy on wetland alteration should be,
how strongly should it be enforced and when, if ever, is compromise
acceptable. In light of the City's past background on matters of
this sort and reluctance to establish a new precedent in advance of
completing a comprehensive wetland study, staff is recommending
that an elevated boardwalk be required.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On August 1, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the request for
a wetland alteration permit to allow a 4 foot by 42 foot long
crushed rock path through a Class A wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake.
The item had been tabled from the June 20, 1990, meeting to allow
for a response from the DNR, Fish and Wildlife and Corps of
Engineers on whether or not elevated boardwalks are the preferred
means of access to open water through a wetland. '
Pat Lynch from the DNR attended the August 1, 1990, Planning
Commission meeting to discuss alternatives for access through a
wetland. In addition, staff had received a letter from the Fish
and Wildlife Service and a verbal response from the Corps of
Engineers. All three parties agreed that a boardwalk would be the
preferred means of access through a wetland and supported the
City's policy of requiring boardwalks for access through a wetland
rather than filling or dredging. With this additional information,
the Planning Commission moved to recommend denial of Wetland ,
Alteration Permit Request #89-1 to allow a 4 ' x 42 ' crushed rock
path through a Class A wetland.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ,
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council denies Wetland Alteration Permit Request #89-1 to
allow a 4 ' wide by 42 ' long crushed rock path through the Class A
wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report. '
2. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1 and June 20, 1990.
3. Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service dated July 16, 1990.
1
,' C ITY O F PC DATE: 6-20-90 _ - t'
CC DATE: 7-9-90
C11AN1AE1 ' CASE #: 89-1WAP
,' JO:v
STAFF REPORT
I PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for a Path/Walkway
through a Class A Wetland on Lotus Lake
I-
LOCATION: Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lane
' U APPLICANT: Chris Engel
7016 Sandy Hook Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
0
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family
IIADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Lotus Lake
S - RSF, Single Family
' E - RSF, Single Family
W - RSF, Single Family
' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property
Q PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: The site is an outlot used as a
Immo recreational beachlot for the
I < neighborhood. Currently there
is fill up to the open water of
Lotus Lake containing rock.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density imin
cn
!.
Chris Engel Wetland Alteration Permit
June 20, 1990
Page 2
BACKGROUND
A wetland area adjacent to Lotus Lake was filled in the early
summer of 1988 along three properties (Frost, Pfankuch and
recreational beachlot) . While the property was being filled, staff
was contacted by a resident questioning whether this was approved.
Staff from the Planning and Engineering Departments went out to the
site to determine exactly what was taking place. The staff that
visited the site stated to the applicant that what they were doing
required a grading permit and that any further activity on the site
was not permitted until a grading permit was obtained. The
contractor filling the site came to City Hall and filled out an
application for a grading permit. The Planning Department again
visited the site to determine if a wetland existed. Staff saw that
wetland vegetation had existed and that a wetland alteration permit
was required. Staff contacted the applicants and stated that what
was occurring was not permitted without a wetland alteration
permit.
Staff visited the site with Paul Burke of the Fish and Wildlife
Service who provided a report on the site dated June 30, 1988.
After several contacts with the applicants, an application was 111 filed for a wetland alteration permit by Mr. Frost and Mr. Pfankuch
on January 12, 1989. The application for the Pfankuch and Frost
wetland alteration permit was brought before the Planning
Commission on February 15, 1989. The Planning Commission tabled
action until it could be clarified what actually occurred between
the applicants and staff and to allow time for the Lotus Lake
Betterment Association (recreational beachlot) to be included in
the wetland alteration permit application since it became apparent
that the wetland on their property was also filled.
Staff was in contact with the Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers '
and the Department of Natural Resources at the beginning of this
process. The DNR responded that the fill was in violation of
Minnesota Rules 6115.0190 and that any permit to fill below the
ordinary high water mark would be denied. Pat Lynch of the DNR
stated that any fill below the ordinary high water mark would be
required to be removed and the area restored. Since the DNR was
involved, staff felt that we should work with the DNR and the Fish
and Wildlife Service to provide a plan agreeable to all regulatory
parties as to the amount of fill area that needed to be removed and
how much of the wetland should be restored. The City and the DNR
are the two agencies which have jurisdiction over the wetland. The
DNR's jurisdiction ends at the OHWM while the the City's control
extends over the entire wetland. The Fish and Wildlife Service was
used as a resource. The DNR has required the property owners to
remove the fill up to the ordinary high water mark by May 1, 1990.
The DNR has staked out the OHWM where the applicants have to remove
the fill.
.t
Chris Engel Wetland Alteration Permit
June 20, 1990
Page 3
On February 21, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the wetland
alteration permit for fill within a wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake
on the subject site. The Planning Commission recommended approval
of the permit with staff's conditions, adding to condition No. 1
that the fill will need to be removed by June 15, 1990. The
Planning Commission also added condition No. 5 that states the
applicant will have to submit and receive approval for a grading
and erosion control plan prior to any work being done on the site.
On March 12, 1990, the City Council also approved the wetland
alteration permit with the conditions from the Planning Commission
(Attachment #1) . The conditions of approval were as follows:
1. The applicant shall remove 25' x 45' x 30' of fill measuring
from the property line adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the
final plat. The fill will be removed by June 15, 1990, using
the typical cross section provided by the DNR.
2. The applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the
restored wetland to provide access to the dock.
3. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a
natural state.
4. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately
removed as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual, "Spread, Impact and Control of Purpose Loosestrife in
North America Wetlands".
5. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall
submit for City staff approval a grading and erosion control
plan.
ANALYSIS
Condition No. 2 of the wetland alteration permit approval stated
that the applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the
restored wetland to provide access to the dock. The applicant is
requesting to maintain a 4 ' wide by 42 ' long rock walkway to
' maintain access to the dock rather than removing all of the rock
and installing a boardwalk through the restored wetland.
' The applicant has been working closely with the DNR in removing
fill below the ordinary high water mark. In speaking with Pat
Lynch from the DNR, the applicant was told that the DNR would not
' be opposed to the proposal to leave in place a gravel access strip
5' wide and extending no further waterward than the existing fill
area in order to allow access area to the association dock. Pat
Lynch further stated that in order to retain the access strip to
the dock, the applicant must also secure approval from the City of
1
•
IF
IF
Chris Engel Wetland Alteration Permit
June 20, 1990
Page 4 I
Chanhassen Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
(Attachment #2) . 1
In the past, the City has consistently recommended that access to
a dock or open water through a wetland be achieved by a boardwalk
versus clearing wetland vegetation and filling a path area. The
City's position on requiring boardwalks was the result of working
with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers and DNR in
determining the best way to provide access through wetlands which
would have the least amount of alteration, short and long term, to
the wetland. Therefore, staff was somewhat surprised when the DNR
stated that they would have no objection to a rock pathway through
an area that will be a restored wetland. In speaking with Ceil
Strauss from the DNR, it was stated that the DNR prefers boardwalks
as means of access to open water through a wetland versus filling.
What is different with this case is that the filling has already
occurred within the wetland. The applicant is proposing to not
remove a 4 ' wide by 42 ' long strip of rock and allow it to be
maintained to serve as access to the dock and water. Staff
understands that this is an existing situation and that it will
result in additional cost for the applicant to have to remove the
4 ' wide by 42 ' long strip of rock in addition to the other area
that has to be removed and then to have to install a boardwalk.
Staff still strongly feels that we need to support the installation
of a boardwalk to be consistent with past practices and in terms of
wetland preservation, the boardwalk is the best means of access
with the least impact to the wetland. Therefore, staff must
recommend that all the illegal fill be removed and that if the
applicant wishes to maintain access to the dock and open water that
a boardwalk be installed. Should the Planning Commission/City
Council wish to allow the 4 ' wide by 42 ' long rock walkway to
remain, staff is recommending that it be conditioned upon approval
of those exact dimensions and that the path cannot be widened or
lengthened without an additional wetland alteration permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following 1
motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends denial of the wetland ,
alteration permit request to allow a 4' wide by 42 ' long
crushed rock path through the Class A wetland adjacent to
Lotus Lake." 1
I
I
.1
11 Chris Engel Wetland Alteration Permit
June 20, 1990
' Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
' 1. City Council minutes dated March 12, 1990 and letter to
applicant.
2. Letter from DNR dated May 21, 1990.
' 3. DNR regulations.
4. Application.
5. Site plan.
1
1
1
1
1
t
Lk i'C- l a.. .)- 19i6 -U-&.4 go wn.c L ( rw 4
Councilman Bout moved, Mayor andel seconded to table the Preliminary Plat to
subdivide 20.9 acres for Peter and Deanna Brandt for further study on the access
situation. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Q oriel: Gary, with the discussions that we've had, can you see if you can 1
pull something together so we can have something? Do you have a timeframe that
you're going to need?
Gary Warren: We'll be hard pressed to get it back at the next Council. I would
say the...
Mayor Qrdel: The first Council meeting in April is what you're saying? 1
Gary Warren: Yeah. April 9th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll bring this back on April 9th with hopefully some
conclusions. Thank you for caning. Appreciate it.
. 1
-`i WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST, 7007 CHEYENNE TRAIL, CHARLES HIRT, LOTUS LAKE
BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION.
v Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located on Lotus Lake. The property is 1 of 3
that filled a portion of the wetland last...without first receiving -a wetland
alteration permit. We went through the process with the Corps of Engineers and 1 ,
the DNR to verify exactly what the DNR wanted to have removed since it was in
violation of the DNR regulations also. The DNR has agreed with the applicant to
remove a certain area of fill that's shown in the heavier dark area. What the 1
City staff did was go back through the history to try to determine exactly where
the edge of the wetland was to begin with and to require the applicant to remove
all the fill that was placed illegally on the wetland. So we are recommending
beyond what the DNR proposed for them to fill and instead of a 25 x 36 x 30 foot
area, we are recammending that it be a 25 x 45 foot in depth area to be removed.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the staff recommendation adding
that it had to be removed by June 15, 1990 and that the applicant, adding
condition 5 that the applicant has to subadt the plans for city staff approval
prior to any grading of this site.
Councilman Boyt: I'd move approval.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson: What about the other two lots?
Jo Ann Olsen: They're coming through. They're going to be seen by the Planning
Cam/as/on the next meeting. The applications came in separately. Staff will
be making the same recommendation for then.
Mayor andel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue?
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Wetland Alteration 1
Permit #89-1 with the following conditions:
34 1
1
City Council Maeti.ng --March 12,1990
II
II I 1. The applicant shall remove 25' x 45' x 30' of fill Treasuring from the
property line adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the final plat. The fill
will be removed by June 15, 1990, using the typical cross section provided
by the DNR.
2. The applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the restored wetland
' to provide access. to the dock.
3. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a natural state.
' 4. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately removed as
recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service manual, "Spread, Impact and
Control of Purple Loosestrife in North America Wetlands".
' 5. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall submit for
City staff approval a grading and erosion control plan.
All voted in favor and the nation carried.
' APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FRONTIER TRAIL UPDATE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
89-10; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Gary Warren: What would your pleasure be Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Oriel: Very lightly. We've gone over this enough times.
Gary Warren: Plans and specifications have been prepared as directed. A
neighborhood meeting was held February 6th which we were able to discuss and
review the plans in the draft form with the interested neighbors who were able
to attend the meeting. The controversial item that appears in the plans is a
' sidewalk along the alignment which as directed by Council we looked at in detail
in locating it with the understanding that it was to be brought back for
' consideration as a part of the plan and spec package. Current engineer's
estimate for the project is about $716,000.00. That's without the walk. The
walkway is estimated to be approximately $52,000.00 cost. That's with our
overhead applied to it. We've been able, we've taken the input from the
' residents and concerns about the magnitude of the storm sewer improvements that
we were looking at in the feasibility study and we have been able to reduce that
cost by about $40,000.00 by our detail look at the topography and such.
' Similarly, through rehabilitation strategy we've utilized has also reduced our
sewer rehab estimate by about $63,000.00. On the other side of the ledger, the
road sections out there and the soil borings and such that we dealt with have
indicated a need for a little bit more significant road section and the costs
' for the road section have increased. Net bottom line is that we are close I
think to the feasibility study estimate. A little bit above it. The elements
of the project that were proposed for assessing however are pretty close to cur
' original estimates. The item is before the Council for consideration and
approval for authorizing advertising for bids.
' Councilwaran Dialer: Mr. Mayor, if I may start on that one.
Mayor C viiel: Yes. Co ahead Ursula.
35
I
DIY_ 4r
CITY OF ;. et.
cHANHAssEN Illitme!,,.. _
0010, e
i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
N
March 28, 1990
Dr. Charles Hirt I
Lotus Lake Betterment Assoc.
7007 Cheyenne Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Dear Dr. Hirt:
This is to confirm that on March 12, 1990, the City Council I
approved the wetland alteration permit request for the Lotus Lake
Betterment Association with the following conditions '
1. The applicant shall remove 25' x 45' x 30 ' of fill measuring
from the property line adjacent to Lotus Lake as shown on the
final plat. The fill will be removed by June 15, 1990, using
I
the typical cross section provided by the DNR.
2. The applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the
I
restored wetland to provide access to the dock.
3. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a
Inatural state.
4. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately
removed as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service
I
Manual, "Spread, Impact and Control of Purple Loosestrife in
North America Wetlands".
5. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall I
submit for City staff approval a grading and erosion control
plan. I
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
I
Jo Ann Olsen I
Senior Planner
cc: Ceal Strauss
Engineering Dept.
I
Building Dept.
i - STATE OF �,
• / / wus.z
"DEPARTMENT OF NATL ; F �.' LIT:‘,''.7,;'• :- l 14�4a ` v
METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. P Mt; 55106
PHOtie K:.2964523 FILE NO.
IMay 21, 1990 MAY 2 31993
I 01 Y OF CNANHASSEN
Dr. Charles Hirt
7007 Cheyenne Trail -
IChanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Dr. Hirt:
I .
RE: UNAUTHORIZED FILL, V89-6055, LOTUS :LA:!<E (10-6P) , CARVER COUNTY
Thank you for your recent telephone call regarding the fill below
Ithe ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of Lotus Lake.
As we discussed, I am not opposed to your proposal to leave in place
a gravel access strip 5-feet wide, extending no further waterward
IIthan the existing fill area, in order to allow for access to the
association dock. The remainder of the material below the OHW must
be removed in accordance with the letter I sent you, dated December
I6, 1989.
You also requested an extension of time to complete the restoration
I . efforts. By virtue of this notice, I am extending the date by which
restoration is to be completed to July 15, 1990. I trust this will
allow ample time to complete the project.
IAs you are aware, in order to retain the access strip to your dock,
you must also secure approval from the City of Chanhassen and the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District.
IPlease call if you have further questions. I 'd appreciate being
contacted at least three days prior to commencing restoration.
II
çyrelY ,,
\ ) 't '
IIPat Lynch
Area Hydrologi t
IPL166:kap
Icc: JoAnn Olsen, City of Chanhassen
Bob Obermeyer, Barr Engineering
Ken Harrell , USCOE
•
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I
1
ir
URCES 6115.0202 6115.0202 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 5378
ration district and parts 6115.0270 to 6115.0272; and alterations of protected waters for mining, I
Lions, and require- Part 6115.0280.
Statutory Authority:MS s 105.415
I
improve fish and History: 8 SR 533
egree of habitat to 6115.0210 STRUCTURES IN PROTECTED WATERS.
l not create other
vigational obstruc- Subpart 1.Goals.It is the goal of the department to limit the occupation of
protected waters by offshore navigational facilities, retaining walls, and other I '
ns officially desig- structures in order to:
A. preserve the natural character of protected waters and their shore-
lel excavation will lands;
iimentation in the B.provide a balance between the protection and utilization of protected
waters; and
native other than C. encourage the removal of existing structures which do not serve the
public interest from the beds of protected waters at the earliest practicable date. I
with a total drain- Subp.2.Scope.This part applies to the placement,construction,reconstruc-
permitted where tion, repair, relocation, abandonment, or removal of any structure placed on or
)sion,or sedimen- in protected waters.
purse with a total Subp. 3.Placement of structures not permitted.Placement of structures shall
applicant may be not be permitted where the structure: ;
include: A. Will obstruct navigation or create a water safety hazard.
B. Will be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat, or pro-
tected vegetation. Construction is prohibited in posted fish spawning areas.
C. Is designed or intended to be used for human habitation or as a
i
ogy as follows: boathouse.
ton; D. Is designed or intended to include walls, a roof, or sewage facilities.
Subp. 4. No permit required. No permit shall be required for the following !i '
activities, unless prohibited under subpart 3:
nstream; A. To construct, reconstruct, or install a seasonal dock or floating
f �
-egistered profes- structure provided:
1
realigning chan- (I)the structure will not constitute a hazard to navigation or public
)realig t provides health, safety, and welfare, as determined by the commissioner,
(2) the structure will not include fuel-handling facilities; ; ,
I will adequately (3) the structure will allow the free flow of water beneath it; and
(4) the structure is not used or intended to be used as a marina.
f encroachment, B.To construct or reconstruct a permanent dock on wood pilings or rock
ogical system of filled cribs on lakes provided: ,_
(1)the dock is a single lineal structure with no appurtenances;
atercourses shall (2)only one dock is installed per riparian lot;
and the specific (3)the structure shall not exceed six feet in width nor exceed 50 feet
submission of in length, or extend to a depth greater than four feet, whichever is less; _
)f this part. (4) the structure shall comply with the requirements of item A,
subitems (2), (3), and (4);
(5) for a permanent dock on wood pilings, the surface area of the
lake is equal to or greater than 500 acres;
t FOR OTHER (6)for a permanent dock on rock filled cribs,the surface area of the
:T,OR CROSS- lake is equal to or greater than 2,500 acres; and
and 6115.0201 (7)structures using rock filled cribs shall only be placed where the
lakebed is predominantly bedrock which is incapable of supporting wood pilings
ity or activities and shall utilize intermittently spaced cribs which allow unrestricted circulation
192; structures, of water beneath the dock.
•
0 to 6115.0222; C. To construct or reconstruct a boat launching ram
rotected waters, g p provided:
,jili .,
•
yr ,
1 5379 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 6115.0211
i 6115.02I1 PL
F (1) Privately owned ramps shall not exceed 12 feet in width, and
I extend more than ten feet beyond the ordinary high water mark or into water A.Si'
more than four feet in depth, whichever is less. Excavations five cubic yards or Hance difficult
less,and placement of up to five cubic yards of crushed rock, gravel, clean sand,
I I:
or small stone shall be allowed in order to provide a stable base or maintain use wave conditio
of the ramp.
(
(2) Publicly owned ramps shall not exceed 24 feet in width and offshore slope
extend more than 20 feet waterward of the shoreline or into water more than four
I1 feet in depth, whichever is less. Excavations of 60 cubic yards or less, and docking equip
i placement of up to 30 cubic yards of crushed rock, gravel, clean sand, or small
stone shall be allowed in order to provide a stable base or maintain use of the B.Pil
ramp. is too shallow
1 ./ authorized.
(3)The ramp shall be constructed of gravel, natural rock,concrete, C.Th
steel matting, or other durable inorganic material not exceeding six inches in
li
considered to
.. thickness.
D. Remove structures or other waterway obstiuctions provided: D. TI
1 .b (1) the original cross-section and bed conditions shall be restored
Subp. 3. 1
i, insofar as practicable; struction of all
shall be utilize
1 t (2)the structure shall be completely removed including any footings wharf projecti
or pilings which obstruct navigation; Wharves
(3) the structure is not located on an offically designated trout A. is ;
stream;
(4) the structure does not function as a water level control device. B. c
1 Subp. 5.Permits required;criteria.Permits shall be required for the construc-
tion, C. do
lion, reconstruction, repair, or relocation of any structure on or in protected area or beyonc
'r, waters, except as provided under subparts 3 and 4,and shall meet the following D. siz
general criteria: E.is n
A.The proposed project must represent the minimal impact solution to ly designed to
a specific need with respect to all other reasonable-alternatives. Subp. 4. E
B. The project will involve a minimum of encroachment, change, or shall on or rect
I. shall damage to the environment,including but not limited to fish and wildlife habitat, be permit
navigation, water supply, and storm water retention. Iisted specific c
The proposed structure shall be consistent with applicable floodplain, A. Alt
IC.
shoreland,and wild and scenic rivers management standards and ordinances for B Thy
the waters involved. factors includ)
D. Adverse effects on the physical or biological character of the waters E, subitec (2),
I shall be subject to feasible and practical measures to mitigate the effects.
C.The
E. The proposed structure shall be consistent with water and related factors listed ir.
land management plans and programs of local and regional gpvernments,provid- D. The
ed these plans and programs are consistent with state plans and programs. i blend in with
F. Except for docks and boat ramps, all new structures shall have a occupied in rel
title-registered permit,unless a public agency or local governmental unit accepts E. The
responsibility for future maintenance or removal. to withstand th
and shall be fac
Statutory Authority:MS s 105.415
I size and gradat.
History: 8 SR 533 F.The
6115.0211 SPECIFIC STANDARDS. to the listed spe
Subpart 1.In general.In addition to compliance with the general standards (1,
in part 6115.0210, subparts 2 to 5, specific requirements shall apply to the lots; provided
activities described in subparts 2 to 8.
Subp. 2. Docks. Except as provided in part 6115.0210, subpart 3, item B, a
permit shall be required for the construction or reconstruction of any dock and the ordinary hi€
shall be granted provided:
to provide a sin
;
I
i
JRCES 6115.0211 6115.0211 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 5380 I
Fart in width, and A.Similarly situated docks in the vicinity have not experienced mainte-
:ark or into water nance difficulty and the use of a seasonal dock is precluded because: I
we cubic yards or Y P
;ravel, clean sand, (1) long fetches would subject seasonal docks to damaging storm
ie or maintain use wave conditions;
I
(2) bottom conditions such as bedrock or an extremely gradual
feet in width and offshore slope would preclude the use of seasonal dock stringers; or
:er more than four (3)the number of public and private users is so great the seasonal
ards or less, and docking equipment would not provide adequate stability.
I.a
n sand, or small B.Piling docks shall be preferred in all cases unless the depth to bedrock
aintain use of the is too shallow to allow the driving of piles,in which case rock crib docks may be
j authorized.
ral rock,concrete, C.The docks shall extend waterward only to a navigable depth,generally
I
ling six inches in considered to be no greater than four feet.
D. The dock shall not exceed six feet in width.
s provided: Subp. 3. Wharves.A permit shall be required for the construction or recon- '
shall be restored struction of all wharves.The following order of preference for construction types
shall be utilized: bulkheaded shoreline, inland slip with bulkheaded sidewalls,
Iding any footings wharf projecting into protected waters.
Wharves shall be permitted provided the structure: I
designated trout A. is part of a designated port facility;
B. is consistent with local land use plans and ordinances; .
el control device. C. does not extend further waterward than any existing wharves in the
1 for the construe- area or beyond any established harbor line, whichever is less; ''
a or in protected D. size is the minimum practicable; and
feet the following E.is not an obstruction to flood flows or longshore drift and is adequate-
ly designed to resist the natural forces of ice, wind, and wave. I
mpact solution to Subp. 4. Breakwaters and marinas. A permit shall be required for the con-
s' struction or reconstruction of all offshore breakwaters and marinas.These structures i
II
ment, change, or shall be permitted provided the following general conditions and the additional
d wildlife habitat, listed specific conditions are met:
A. Alternative dock or inland facilities are infeasible.
icable floodplain, B. The facility shall be adequate in relation to appropriate engineering
nd ordinances for factors including but not limited to those listed in part 6115.0201,subpart 5,item I
cter of the waters E, subitem (2), units (f) to (n). ......
the effects. C.The plan shall be adequate in relation to the geologic and hydrologic
factors listed in part 6115.0201, subpart 5, item E, subitem (2), units (a) to (e).
I
eater and related D. The size and shape shall be designed in a compact fashion so as to
rnments,provid- blend in with the surrounding shoreline while minimizing the surface area
id programs. - occupied in relation to the number of watercraft to be served.
Tres shall have a E. The breakwaters shall not exceed the minimum thickness necessary
:ntal unit accepts to withstand the anticipated forces consistent with maintenance requirements
and shall be faced with an adequate layer of natural rock riprap of appropriate
size and gradation.
F. The following types of offshore structures shall be permitted,subject I
to the listed specific conditions:
;eneral standards (1) Private offshore structures serving several contiguous riparian I
iall apply to the lots; provided:
(a) The site shall meet the standards of subpart 2 for a dock.
'part 3, item B, a (b) The structure shall minimize encroachment waterward of
of any dock and the ordinary high water mark. ,
(c)The total length of the structure shall be appropriately sized
to provide a single mooring space for each riparian lot served.
' �.`y-: .. .:�'�'!'.°�LV4..!!ns....._ .. Si�eTth:YT..'RlMiwf....T-aw�^..w.,ww°�`
rimanimP'I
1 i 5381 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 6115. 1 6115.0211 PU
:1 02 1
' ' (2) Private offshore structures for proposed multifamily or cluster consistent wit
or residential planned unit developments; provided: programs for I
.1 (a) The structure shall minimize encroachment waterward of E. En
the ordinary high water mark and its total length shall be appropriately sized to the absolute n
' provide a single mooring space for each riparian lot to be served. The number Subp.6.B
of mooring spaces to be provided shall generally be the amount of natural or reconstruct)
shoreline to be served divided by the lot frontage requirements of the local land subpart 4, iter
use control authonty. A. the
(b)The development plan shall be approved by the local land 1, B.the
use control authority. launching of N
• (3)Private offshore structures for resorts, campgrounds, or similar i C. the
I enterprises; provided: D.co
j;
(a) The structure shall minimize encroachment waterward of result in subst
j!�. . . the ordinary high water mark and its total length shall be appropriately sized to Subp. 7. (
provide one moonng space for each rental cabin or campsite unit plus a reason- reconstruction
able number of mooring spaces for transient watercraft. structures, cal
(b) The development authority. p lam shall be approved by the local land covered by sp(
. 'll A. Pe
(4) Public offshore structure projects; provided: minor mainte
(a) A local unit of government shall pass a resolution which work, shall be
1 specifies the public interests to be benefited by the proposal. (
f i. (b) The structure shall be appropriately sized consistent with (:
s the demand for mooring facilities in the area and the number of watercraft to be ment cost of t
served.
(c)The structure shall be available for use by the general public. increased by v
(d) The development plans shall minimize the waterward of the structur
encroachment of the facilities. (,
(5) Offshore marinas; provided: local land use
I (a) The area shall be zoned for such use or local government
shall grant a land use permit.- B. Pe
(b)The proposed marina shall minimize encroachment water- owned structu
i, ward of the ordinary high water mark.
(c) The marina shall be sized consistent with the demand for 1 tal impact;
I mooring facilities in the area and the number of watercraft to be served. (.
Subp. 5. Retaining walls and erosion and sedimentation control structures.A pressures; and
permit shall be required for the construction or reconstruction of all retaining (:
walls and erosion and sedimentation control structures that do not impound i ily obtrusive o
water. The construction of retaining walls shall be discouraged because their C. Th
appearance is generally not consistent with the natural environment and their structures shah
( construction and maintenance cost is generally greater than riprap, mental unit ac
SI
The issuance of permits shall be contingent on the following conditions: removal.
A.Existing or expected erosion problems shall preclude the use of riprap Subp.8.R•
shore protection, or there shall be a demonstrated need for direct shoreland a structure is r.
docking; or navigation, or
B. Design shall be consistent with existing uses in the area. Examples removed from
are: riverfront commercial-industrial areas having existing structures of this Except as provi
�i nature,dense residential shoreland areas where similar retaining walls are corn- for the remova
mon,resorts where floating docks may be attached to such a bulkhead,or where boathouses, br
barges are utilized to transport equipment and supplies; and i provided.
C. Adequate engineering studies shall be performed of foundation con- A. the
tiebacks, as practicable;
ditions, iebacks,internal drainage,construction materials,and protection against
flanking; and B. adc
ID. The facility shall not be an aesthetic intrusion upon the area and is from removal,
II
s VI
■
6115.0211 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES . 5382 1
6115.0211
consistent with all applicable local, state, and federal management plans and
or cluster programs for the water body; and
1
E. Encroachment below the ordinary high water mark shall be held to
:erward of the absolute minimum necessary for construction. '-
ly sized to Subp.6.Boat launching ramp.A permit shall be required for the construction I
ie number or reconstruction of any boat launching ramp not covered under part 6115.0210,
of natural .4, item C, and shall be granted provided:id .
local land A. the applicant shall demonstrate a need for a launching facility; i'
local land V B.the proposed ramp shall be of the minimum dimensions necessary for I
launching of watercraft;
or similar if C. the proposed ramp shall not obstruct flowing water, and
. D.construction shall not necessitate alteration of shoreland which could 1
:erward of result in substantial erosion and sedimentation. 1
iy sized to Subp. 7. Other facilities. A permit shall be required for the construction,
a reason- reconstruction,relocation,removal,repair,and abandonment of all other offshore
structures, cables other than utility crossings, pilings, or other facilities not I
local land covered by specific regulations:
A. Permits for structural repair, relocation, or modification, other than •
minor maintenance work such as reroofing, painting of structures or similar i •'
work, shall be issued provided all of the following conditions are met:
ion which (1) the applicant demonstrates a need for the work; i ;
stent with (2) the cost of the work will not exceed 50 percent of the replace- ;.
craft to be ment cost of the structure; •,
(3)the degree of permanence of the structure will not be materially
:ral public. increased by virtue of constructing a new foundation or replacing the majority
:ral public.
and of the structure above the foundation; ; I
(4) the structure being repaired has appropriate permits from the i I I
local land use or sanitary authority;
(5) the degree of obstruction or structure size is not increased.
3vernment B. Permits for construction, relocation, or reconstruction of publicly- ' : I
owned structures shall be issued where:
tent water- (1)public need is documented and outweighs adverse environmen- .
errand for tal impact;
v (2)the site is adequately protected from the forces of ice and wave i �
ved.ed es.A pressures; and
l retaining (3)the proposed construction is of sound design and is not necessar- ...
impound ily obtrusive or visually incompatible with the natural surroundings. I
ause their C. The construction, relocation, or reconstruction of privately-owned
. and their structures shall be permitted only when a governmental agency or local govern- .
mental unit accepts responsibility for future maintenance of the structure or its
,ditions: { removal. ' ; I
•
e of riprap i Subp. 8.Removal of structures.Where the commissioner has determined that
shoreland D a structure is no longer functional, constitutes a public nuisance or a hazard to
navigation, or poses a threat to public health or safety, the structure shall be
removed from protected waters under the applicable provisions of these rules.
I
Examples Except as provided under part 6115.0210,subpart 4,item D,a permit is required
res of this for the removal or abandonment of all existing waterway obstructions including •
s are corn- boathouses, bridges, culverts, pilings, piers, and docks. Permits shall be issued I
1,or where provided:
A. the original cross-section and bed conditions will be restored insofar ,
.ation con- as practicable;
on against B. adequate provisions are made to mitigate any side effects resulting I
from removal, such as restoration of wave or current forces; and
area and is _
-wrs ••;a;.,.... .-te.ut„. .,' cpM,agw.a+,7 ..Ny.1.—-,,ecc(r....'1,9%,.?!K .? ?.7431 t , .,. , ..:.egr.k!eR^ -'
V , _ :1.
•
5383 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 6115.0220 6115.0220 PL:
C. no portion of the structure remains which would obstruct or impair management ;
I navigation, interfere with the passage of flood waters, or contribute to erosion such plans an,
and sedimentation. E. TI
Statutory Authority: MS s 105.415 merits of par
IHistory: 8 SR 533 protection of
6115.0212 RELATIONSHIP TO STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR OTHER or changing tl
ACTIVITIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN COURSE,CURRENT,OR CROSS-
"! .
SECTION.
Unless otherwise specified in other parts, parts 6115.0210 and 6115.0211
shall apply to structures proposed as part of any other activity or activities
Iincluding but not limited to: filling, parts 6115.0190 to 6115.0192; excavations, erosion and s
° parts 6115.0200 to 6115.0202;water level controls,parts 6115.0220 to 6115.0222;
bridges and culverts,parts 6115.0230 to 6115.0232;drainage of protected waters,
{ parts 61 I5.0270 to 6115.0272; and alterations of protected waters for mining,
I part 6115.0280. species;
Statutory Authority: MS s 105.415
i History: 8 SR 533 power.
I 1 • 6115.0220 WATER LEVEL CONTROLS. Statutory
Subpart 1.Goals.It is the goal of the department to manage protected waters History:
in order to: 6115.0221 SI
maintain natural flow and natural water level conditions to the In addit)
IA.i , maximum feasible extent;
specific requi
B.encourage the construction of small upstream retarding structures for A. F
•
the conservation of water in natural waterbasins and watercourses, consistent commissione
I . with any overall plans for the affected watershed area; and water resourc
C. limit the artificial manipulation of water levels except where the maintenance.
j balance of affected public interests clearly warrants the establishment of appro-
.
. priate controls and it is not proposed solely to satisfy private interests. body have be
1 Subp.2.Scope.The construction,repair,reconstruction,or abandonment of commissione
any structure intended to impound, divert, or control the level or flow of pro- •
tected waters shall be subject to the provisions of this part. natural cond:
I • Subp.3.Nonallowed water level control facilities.Construction or reconstruc-
tion of water level control facilities shall not be allowed where it is intended to a long period
I manipulate water levels solely to satisfy private interests. activities of
!! Subp. 4. No permit required. No permit shall be required to construct, essentially th
I reconstruct,or abandon a water level control structure on protected watercourses
i with a contributing watershed of 300 acres or less,except on officially designated for all practic
trout streams, provided the structure does not qualify as a dam under the rules than 1-1/2 fe
I for dam safety.
Subp. 5. Permits required. Permits shall be required for the construction, l responsibility
repair, reconstruction, or abandonment of any water level control structure
. except as provided in subparts 3 and 4, and shall meet the following general lion;
' , criteria:
A. The project will involve a minimum of encroachment, change, or obtained froi
damage to the environment including but not limited to fish and wildlife habitat,
navigation, water supply, storm water retention, and agricultural uses. or owners of
B. Adverse effects on the physical or biological character of the waters will be locate
shall be subject to feasible and practical measures to mitigate the effects.
C. The proposed project shall be consistent with applicable floodplain, propagation
shoreland,and wild and scenic rivers management standards and ordinances for
I i the waters involved. private inters
D.The proposed project shall be consistent with water and related land waters and p
1
I
---- - ----- — ------- — — -- — -- -
•
I.
.CES.6115.0170 6115.0170 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 5366
s-section of the
Subp. 35. Riprap shore protection."Riprap shore protection" means coarse
allow vehicular stones,boulders,cobbles, artificially broken rock or concrete, or brick materials
other hydraulic laid loosely or within gabion baskets against the slope of the existing bank of a
protected water.
are structure for Subp. 36. Seasonal dock. "Seasonal dock" means a dock so designed and
ities are provid- constructed that it may be removed from the lake or stream bed on a seasonal I,
aching,mechan- basis. All components such as supports, decking, and footings must be capable I'
_ of removal by nonmechanized means.
capacity, refers Subp. 37. Structure. "Structure" means any building, footing, foundation,
A+ater storage). slab, roof, boathouse, deck, wall, or any other object extending over, anchored,
,truction,recon- or permanently attached to the bed or bank of a protected water.
y for the extrac- - Subp. 38. Structural height."Structural height" means the vertical distance
or nonmetallic from the natural tied of the stream or watercourse measured at the downstream I
ings basins,and toe of the control structure or from the lowest elevation of the outside limit of
ining.Ancillary the control structure, if it is not across a stream channel or watercourse, to the
)ntrol structures maximum storage elevation.
floating water- Subp. 39.Swellhead."Swellhead"means the difference between the headwa- I ,
ter elevation necessary to pass the regional flood through the proposed structure
and the tailwater elevation below the structure.
of the ordinary Subp. 40. Temporary " "
porary structure. "Temporary structure" means any seasonal
dock or floating structure that can be removed from protected waters before
lark"means the winter freeze-up.
section 105.37, Subp. 41. Watercourse."Watercourse" means any channel having definable
beds and banks capable of conducting generally confined runoff from adjacent
lock other than lands.During floods water may leave the confining beds and banks but under low I
and normal flows water is confined within the channel. A watercourse may be ''
3Iex established perennial or intermittent. '
it to Minnesota Subp. 42. Water level control structure. "Water level control structure" :III
- means any structure which impounds or regulates the water surface elevation or 1
r useful in the flow of protected waters,including dams regulated under the provisions of parts i'
not limited to, 6115.0300 to 6115.0520.
g and handling Subp. 43. Wharf. "Wharf" means a permanent structure constructed into
ie maintenance navigable waters as a part of a port facility for berthing or mooring commercial
watercraft, or for transferring cargo to and from watercraft in an industrial or i
iIlway designed commercial enterprise, or for loading or unloading passengers from commercial
blished for the watercraft, or for the operation of a port facility. -
ans an engineer
Statutory Authority: MS s 105.415
History: 8 SR 533
,e waters of the 6115.0180 [Repealed by amendment, 8 SR 533] •._ ,
tatutes, section 6115.0190 FILLING INTO PROTECTED WATERS.
•
ding or renova- Subpart 1. Goals. It is the goal of the department to limit the placement of
:eed 50 percent any fill material into protected waters in order to: _
A. minimize encroachment, change, or damage to the environment; •
which is repre- B. regulate the quantity and quality of fill and the purposes for which
Minnesota and filling may be allowed based upon the capabilities of the waters to assimilate the
verage frequen- material; and
C.maintain consistency with floodplain,shoreland,and wild and scenic
.ical or nearly- rivers management standards and ordinances.
d rock or stone, Subp. 2.Scope.Filling as used in this part involves placement of unconfined
supports, sheet or loosely confined materials in protected waters.
erials and con- Subp. 3. Nonpermitted placement. Placement shall not be permitted in the -
following cases:
+e!F°xsrK*a `*_�?a�!t�+.Ea+(�e—aert c+ w .!e •-eY..
E
It 5367 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 6115.0190 6115.0190 PUB
A. to achieve vegetation control; appropriate me
I commissioner;
B. to create upland areas, except where expressly provided herein; D. whc
C.to stabilize beds of protected waters which cannot support fill materi- the site conditic
als because of excessive depths of muck, steep bank, bed slope, or other condi- erosion control
I ! lions; consistent with
D. to stabilize or impound the site of active springs; E. the
E. to dispose of rock, sand, gravel, or any other solid material resulting a specific need
from activities carried out above the ordinary high water mark; 1 F.the
I F.to construct a roadway or pathway,or create or improve land accesses phy,and suscer
from eri heral shorelands to islands, or to facilitate land transportation across and currents ar
P P
the waters; however, where a project is proposed by a federal, state, or local G. ad'
I ' government agency and this provision would prevent or restrict the project, or shall be subject
create a major conflict with other public purposes or interests,the commissioner H. the
may waive this provision provided: shoreland,and
(1)there is no other feasible and practical alternative to the project the waters invc
I that would have less environmental impact; and I. the
(2) that the public need for the project rules out the no-build management p
alternative; such plans and
I G. filling of posted fish spawning areas is prohibited. Statutory !
G.
4. No permit required. No permit shall be required for the following History: 8
activities unless prohibited under subpart 3: 6115.0191 SPI
Ij A.To install a beach sand blanket provided the sand or gravel layer does
I. not exceed six inches in thickness,50 feet in width along the shoreline,or one-half Subpart 1.
I;i the width of the lot, whichever is less, and does not extend more than ten feet in part 6115.0
'' waterward of the ordinary high water mark,provided local watershed district and shall be met as
I a;i local zoning officials are given at least seven days notice by the landowner. Subp.2.R
I! B. For one additional installation of a sand or gravel layer subsequent erosion by pia(
provided:
{ to an initial installation at the same location and not exceeding the same amounts A. Th
and dimensions allowed under item A.
I I
C. To install riprap shore protection, except along the shores of Lake withstand ice
Superior and officially designated trout streams, provided the riprap materials be wof ith spas
t of natural rock having an average size of 12 inches or larger in its smallest be filled with fi
11 surface.
consis o g g r8
I .I dimension, and conform with the natural alignment of the shoreline, with a B.Th
minimum finished slope not steeper than 3:1 horizontal:vertical,no materials are of well-graded
placed more than five feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark, and the of the riprap.
material does not obstruct the flow of water. C.Th
I .To place fill in a protected watercourse having a total drainage area, to provide pro
at its mouth,of five square miles or less,provided that the watercourse is not an Subp. 3. t
officially designated trout stream and the placement of fill shall not result in: shall be permi•
(1)any diversions of water from the drainage area; attained by util
14 (2) any impoundment of waters by damming the watercourse; alternatives wl
(3)any actions which would result in erosion and cause sediments- Fill for na
Lion of downstream waters as determined by the county or local soil and water shall not excee
I conservation district. a maximum wi
Subp. 5.Permits required.Permits shall be required for the placement of fill depth greater t
in protected waters, except as provided under subparts 3 and 4, and shall meet Subp. 4. S
all of the following requirements: land lost by er
I ! A. the project will involve a minimum of encroachment, change, or A. tht
damage to the environment,including but not limited to fish and wildlife habitat, impending los.
navigation, water supply, and storm water retention; B.the
B. the fill consists of clean inorganic material that is free of pollutants or flow condit
and nutrients; waters involve
C. the existence of a stable, supporting foundation is established by an application
:II
I
1
i.
I
I
A
DES 6115.0190 6115.0190 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 5368
appropriate means, including soil boring data where deemed necessary by the
ied herein; commissioner,
port fill materi- D. where erosion protection is deemed necessary by the commissioner,
or other ateri- the site conditions and fill material are capable of being stabilized by an approved
erosion control method such as riprap, retaining wall, or other method which is
consistent with existing land uses on the affected protected water,
E. the proposed project must represent the minimal impact solution to i
aerial resulting a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives;
F. the size,shape, depths,shoreline,and bottom character and topogra-
-e land accesses phy,and susceptibility of the beds of protected waters to actions of wind,waves, i
ortation across and currents are such that the fill will be stable;
state, or local — G. adverse effects on the physical or biological character of the waters , .
the project, or shall be subject to feasible and practical measures to mitigate the effects;
commissioner H. the proposed filling must be consistent with applicable floodplain,
shoreland, and wild and scenic ravers management standards and ordinances for
to the project the waters involved;
I. the proposed filling must be consistent with water and related land j
. the no-build management plans and programs of local and regional governments provided '
such plans and programs are consistent with state plans and programs. I '
Statutory Authority:MS s 105.415
�,i
-the following History: 8 SR 533 i
we!Iayer does 6115.0191 SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
ne,or one-half Subpart 1. In general.In addition to compliance with the general standards
than ten feet in part 6115.0190, subparts 2 to 5, specific requirements for certain activities
•
.d district and shall be met as follows. _
ndowner. Subp. 2.Riprap shore protection.The protection of shoreline from continued
er subsequent erosion by placement of natural rock riprap along the shore shall be permitted ,
,ame amounts provided: j
A. The riprap materials are of sufficient size, quality, and thickness to I'
'tares of Lake withstand ice and wave action. The riprap shall be placed with a minimum
rap materials amount of space between the larger materials and the space between them shall
in its smallest be filled with firmly seated smaller rocks or gabion baskets to procure a uniform
-eline, with a surface.
materials are B. The site soils are capable of supporting riprap and a filter consisting
nark, and the of well-graded gravel,crushed stone,or fabric is installed to prevent undercutting
of the riprap.
(rainage area, C. The encroachment into the water is the minimum amount necessary
arse is not an to provide protection and does not unduly interfere with the flow of water. i
t result in: Subp. 3. Navigational access. Filling to gain navigational access to waters
shall be permitted only where access to navigable depths cannot be reasonably
attained by utilizing a dock,the excavation of an offshore access channel,or other
ercourse; alternatives which would result in less environmental impact. j
e sedimenta- Fill for navigational access shall not extend beyond the edge of open water,
iil and water shall not exceed side slopes greater than 2:1 horizontal:vertical, shall not exceed
a maximum width of 15 feet at the base of the fill,and shall not extend to a water
ement of fill depth greater than four feet. I
d shall meet Subp. 4. Shoreline lost by erosion.Applications for filling to recover shore-
land lost by erosion or other natural forces shall be permitted only where:
, change, or A. the loss of shoreline is a threat to health and safety through the
life habitat, impending loss or damage to existing shoreline developments; 1-
B.the loss of shoreline has occurred as a result of changes in water level
1f pollutants or flow conditions caused by artificial manipulation of flows or levels of the
waters involved within a period of not more than five years prior to the date when 1
tablished by an application for filling is submitted.
fit*: . , ..._ ,. . .. <`� [? me
i ( ..-...
: ! '
5369 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 6115.0200 6115.0200 P1
IThe requirements of items A and B shall not preclude the issuance of permits . lands,in orde
to place riprap materials or use other structural means for protection of the particularly t
shoreline to prevent continuous erosion. B. r
ISubp. 5. Port development or improvement. Filling necessary for port devel- excavations v
opment or improvement shall be allowed only on those waters which are under excavation; a
the jurisdiction of established port authorities subject to the following: C. a
IA. no filling shall be allowed to extend beyond the limits of federally and protect a
established harbor lines, or where no harbor line has been established. beyond other adverse
the maximum distance waterward which could be attained without obstructing Subp. 2.
navigational use of the waters; results in the
I B. the proposed development must be part of a comprehensive port deepening, st
development plan which has been approved by the commissioner; and i involve propc
.
ii
C. adverse effects of the proposed filling on the physical and biological water mark.
I character of the area shall be subject to mitigation measures approved by the Subp. 3.
commissioner. following case
`I Subp. 6. Fish and wildlife habitat. Filling to restore or improve fish and A. w
wildlife habitat, except for filling in designated trout streams, shall be permitted such access cz
Iprovided plans are submitted showing the nature and degree of habitat to be in less enviro
!I benefited, and the project will not create other adverse effects such as flooding, B. w
'i erosion, sedimentation, or navigational obstructions. nonriparian lz
Subp. 7. Trout streams. Filling in trout streams officially designated by the ian lands;
I I commissioner shall be allowed only if
1111 I A. the amount, method of placement, and location of the fill will not and wildlife h
result in increased water temperatures,excessive sedimentation in the stream,or
destruction of fish habitat; and or ecologically
I D. tc
`l B. there is no other feasible or practical alternative other than filling. areas;
I Subp.8.Other purposes.Filling for other purposes not specifically listed shall
E. �,
I be subject to the general standards in part 6115.0190, subparts 2 to 5 and poses except l
I submission of information to show that: F wl
A.the intended purpose of the fill is reasonable with respect to all other
P problem becat
alternatives and there are no feasible and practical means to attain the intended alternative sol
purpose without filling; and G. u:
I public welf B.are.the proposal will adequately protect public safety and promote the disposal of exc
H. wl
;i Statutory Authority: MS s 105.415 would lower th
History: 8 SR 533 Subp. 4. r
6115.0192 RELATIONSHIP TO STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR OTHER the following
i ACTIVITIES INVOLVING CHANGES IN COURSE,CURRENT,OR CROSS- A. for
SECTION. area at its mo
Unless otherwise specified in other parts, not an ofliciall
P p , parts 6115.0190 and 6115.0191 � �1
shall apply to filling proposed as part of any other activity or activities including
but not limited to: Excavations parts 6115.0200 to 6115.0202, Structures parts (:
6115.0210 to 6115.0212, Water level controls parts 6115.0220 to 6115.0222,
Bridges and culverts parts 6115.0230 to 6115.0232,Drainage of protected waters tion of downst
parts 6115.0270 to 6115.0272, and Alterations of protected waters for mining conservation d
part 6115.0280.
B.to r
Statutory Authority: MS s 105.415 removal does
- 1
History: 8 SR 533 waters;
C. for
6115.0200 EXCAVATION OF PROTECTED WATERS. to Minnesota S
Subpart 1. Goals. It is the goal of the department to limit the excavation of "repair" set for
materials from the beds of protected waters in order. to: Subp. 5. P‘
A. preserve the natural character of protected waters and their shore- removal of and
— --
.� 6115.0200 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 5370 I.
its lands,in order to minimize encroachment,change,or damage to the environment,
he particularly the ecosystem of the waters; A
B. regulate the nature, degree, and purpose of excavations so that -
el- excavations will be compatible with the capability of the waters to assimilate the
ler excavation; and
C. control the deposition of materials excavated from protected waters
I "
Ily and protect and preserve the waters and adjacent lands from sedimentation and
nd other adverse physical and biological effects. •
ng Subp. 2. Scope. Excavation as used in this rule includes any activity which
I
results in the displacement or removal of bottom materials or the widening,
,ri deepening, straightening, realigning, or extending of protected waters. It may
involve proposals for excavations landward or waterward from the ordinary high -
:al water mark.
ne Subp. 3. Nonpermitted excavation.Excavation shall not be permitted in the
following cases:
nd A. where it is intended to gain access to navigable water depths when
ed - such access can be reasonably attained by alternative means which would result
I
be in less environmental impact;
ig. B. where inland excavation is intended to extend riparian rights to
nonriparian lands, or to promote the subdivision and development of nonripar-
I
ae ian lands;
C. where the proposed excavation will be detrimental to significant fish
of and wildlife habitat, or protected vegetation and there are no feasible, practical,
or or ecologically acceptable means to mitigate the effects;
I
D. to control or eliminate vegetation for the development of beach
areas;
all E. where it is intended to provide fill materials for development pur-
nd poses except as provided under part 6115.0280;
I
F. where the excavation would not provide an effective solution to a
er problem because of recurrent sedimentation and there are feasible and practical
ed alternative solutions which do not require excavation; I
G. unless the excavation project includes provisions for acceptable
ze disposal of excavated materials as provided in these rules; or
H. where the excavation would cause increased seepage of water which
I
would lower the water level of protected waters and result in subsurface drainage.
Subp. 4. No permit required.No permit for excavation shall be required for
the following activities unless prohibited in subpart 3:
R A. for excavations in a protected watercourse having a total drainage
I
'- area, at its mouth, of five square miles or less, provided that the watercourse is
not an officially designated trout stream and the excavation will not result in:
11
ig (1) any diversions of water from the drainage area; I
is (2) any impoundment of waters by damming the watercourse;
2 (3)any actions which would result in erosion and cause sedimenta-
ry • tion of downstream waters as determined by the county or local soil and water
3g conservation district; I
B.to remove debris such as trees,logs,stumps,and trash provided such
removal does not alter the original alignment, slope, or cross-section of the •
waters;
I
C. for repair of a public drainage system lawfully established pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, chapters 106A and 112 consistent with the definition of
af "repair" set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 106A.701, subdivision 1.
Subp. 5. Permits required. Permits shall be required for the excavation and
I
e- removal of any materials from protected waters or any excavations extending
I
.
5371 PUBLIC WATER RESOURCES 6115.0200 6115.0211 PUBLIC
into or out of protected waters,except as provided in subparts 3 and 4,and shall consistent with all a
be subject to the following general criteria: programs for the wa.
' A. The project must be reasonable and practical based upon geologic E. Encroact
and hydrologic conditions including but not limited to: the absolute minimu
I � (1) quantity and quality of local drainage at the site; Subp.6.Boat lar
(2)type of sediment/soil strata and underground formations in the or reconstruction of<
vicinity; subpart 4, item C, al
(3)life expectancy of the excavation with respect to bedload, long- A. the apple
I shore drift, and siltation patterns in the project vicinity; and B.the prop(
(4)protection of the water body from increased seepage,pollution, launching of waterer
and other hydrologic impacts. C. the prop
I requiremeBe.n ti-sh: e disposal of excavated materials shall be subject to the following D.construc
result in substantial
(1) The disposal of any excavated materials containing pollutants Subp. 7. Other
shall be subject to requirements of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 115. reconstruction.reloc
I (2)The most acceptable means of disposing of clean materials,free 1 structures, cables o
from pollutants, which are excavated from protected waters listed in order of j covered by specific t
preference are: - 1 A. Permits
(a) Complete removal of excavated materials from the waters minor maintenance
and disposal or reuse for other purposes outside of the floodplain. work, shall be issue(
(b) Deposition in stable on-land disposal sites located above (1) the
the ordinary high water mark and outside of floodway districts established under (2) the
' € local ordinance. Provisions must be included for sodding, seeding, or otherwise ment cost of the str;
i properly stabilizing these materials. (3)the
(c) Temporary deposition along shorelines or within flood- increased by virtue
' i plains by stockpiling materials for subsequent removal to areas outside of any of the structure abo
protected waters and outside of established floodplain districts provided that: (4) the
1 any y stockpile materials are removed within one year of stockpiling; and the local land use or sai
stockpile is constructed so that any materials or waters entering or leaving the (S) the
stockpile are controlled to prevent any introduction of sediment into the environ- B. Permits
i ment surrounding the stockpile. owned structures sh
1 (d)Redeposition of excavated materials,consisting of inorgan- (1)put
is materials free from pollutants, into protected waters shall only be permitted
! when it will result in improvement of natural conditions of protected waters for tal impact;
'`1 the public benefit and will not result in sedimentation,obstruction of navigation, (2)the
: or a loss of fish or wildlife habitat. Separate permit provisions shall be required pressures; and
IF
for redeposition of excavated materials subject to the standards and criteria of (3)the
i
1 i subparts 2 to 5. ily obtrusive or vise.
� (e)Determination of the public benefit served by redeposition C. The cor
of excavated materials shall be based on the value to the public of redeposited structures shall be p
materials in order to protect shorelines from the damaging effects of erosion due mental unit accepts
1 to winds and waves when there are no other feasible,practical, and ecologically removal.
! acceptable means to protect the shoreline;or create or improve habitat areas for Subp.8.Remov
fish and wildlife;or mitigate or enhance the physical and biological environment a structure is no for
!' within protected waters when mitigative or enhancement measures are required navigation, or pose
as a condition of a permitted activity within the waters involved and there are removed from prot
no other feasible, practical, and ecologically acceptable mitigative measures. Except as provided
C.The proposed project must represent the"minimal impact"solution for the removal or
to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives. boathouses, bridges
D.The excavation must be limited to the minimum dimensions neces- provided:
1 sary for achieving the desired purpose. A.the orig
i' E.Where excavation is proposed in a protected water that is perched on as practicable;
l'
an impervious stratum,soil borings must show that the proposed excavation will B. adequai
not rupture the impervious stratum. from removal, such
1 Iii
1
II
WAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION _ -
CITY OF CHANHASSSEN _
t 690 Coulter Drive li
Chanhassen, MN 55317
• (612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: (2//, / J 6 LL. OWNER: .47 ‘4I E RE77-te,er�✓r Ass.e,,
ADDRESS 70/6 SA.J,o 7 A4,r Om'. ADDRESS 70/6 S4P. 7 1r e1oe; " '
e l624../ASr14) AV.. 5S3/7 _ .e.4 4,✓A4Sre , /1/a/ Ss3i 7
Zip Code Zip Code I
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 93'/ 72s8 TELEPHONE 93`/ 7258
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change _ Planned Unit Development I
Zoning Appeal _ Sketch Plan .
Preliminary Plan ~ ,
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
I
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Metes and Bounds
I
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review I
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME 4.47z.e�� ec•lr7-- #r -o✓-Lordr 'Ake £r77441,05iJT Asoc.A7-,
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION f
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION CCce
iPr- Ca.c..✓�. G•eo✓c
PRESENT ZONING PrFv,,orA TEAL
REQUESTED ZONING IP£s idoro `JrjAL
I
USES PROPOSED noigese To a..usrower ,O a et r..ez• dec,c e« 4?-,..., ryw tip
l4.r ,o)
SIZE OP PROPERTY 4/ .4/, /ge _- _ /,._ 2 ' ✓ _ . / y
LOCATION SEE i417- CAI/a,CA/T
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST :s - II acs. .v
- T- -_ c �-,�
j tM ,QwO 0,77 0ROBoes Tc �ls7br c / CCR Q. * C. eorea• ,At sr.+rC; As 4.,os
00,si4✓44cai
4
4
07.✓0u ,z€d 7'./C Assec404'roo.✓ £J L, Ice Tb GsowiT.euer 0 3 % - se' t.., iot w,.taA-o.*
et Aro Ago trAzrr T'bra 7'NE tag>1..4.vo .4.eC4f 710 /Pecsr a4/,e a...w.a„� 4)c a. WE wes,t A
4,1C TO CoMr+e.+e r TN.0 eJ. .t&.NAy °err- e..' Ceur A'to •4C k. QTR +/.to✓•c s, A14tr ACCw/ 6,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Foe s
/OTas L.4KE /3CTTE,C•df.c.g./7- Assoc #AT/o,J 0 vTL0T /4
ScZ /4-7-r-.4e Nr4 ,
I
II . City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application •
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
II .N-s '''
_- This application -must be completed -in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by,all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before
I filing this application, you should -confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application. rv... ... N, c,
I FILIN
G CERTIFICATION:
I The undersigned representative of the applicant' hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances. •
Signed By Date i•S Z 90
II li/9te - e.,4 eza*•eu.4.,:
I
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
I authorized to make this application for the property herein
described. '
Signed ,
II .Si
g By Date
Fee Owner
I , -
Date Application Received
IApplication Fee Paid
ICity Receipt No. -
.
I * This Application will be considered .b the Plana
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their Planning Commission/
Imeeting.
I
. ..
...
I
...
• c_ \4- ....-..,,, ---\\N, I
..
. \
I
- •1.. ,.,.
• ' .
"%NZ:4.44/slit\
L.. 0 ras
.
'Ate
reo fise° ,(4.)11(1.:(46:)141Y CO 1--c'k 4 I AL-
'call, f 1( 4z- . kr LC711,1 1--Y-1
- - 211-
I
Jr 's LA K C. g t—rr c en- Ars so c/64,7-,...I
- P
111 ,,,) - '
I
0 Lir ho'r /4
. 5.5,
Z i"• .-... -e"'S
/
N 1
-.L''''":77
.. ..,.. s..
41 1
■ ...\ 3 'N.,
e -rt:$1.7—;:rjeA4,10Ki '
.." )
)) q \:.?? ,... ... , , e----• \-. -rer4t4 4.5
t‘-.. 1 * Y1/4, 1
4.... ,...• .., ..... 47 I
% ,.. •• ■...,
) .'.... . .t.. • f .is :r s'........7
'
0 • i.,1.,;' • 1 /4, 1
- .) • ..
t: . ,.4 -i....i_ ! 7C...........,:; i .1 7 -,-.4.:" •' I
NOVEU-1*Ai • '. -ri.e-/ tr, -,,,..
0 , -
.,..........sa
.,-03.::' Ns / f'• ip,._ - ! I
a
'4€ ,
.....t.. ,:r,......A
, • 4;. o\ . ,c-)-F-----' -— A
'(Cr 4A - BO g 4'4,,,...,.../ .,,, ,.--.
A;ekin•PN--1'4,1,42:4,4,_ , ..S., ' 1 ,c4. „...----,.. 7..-.-..,,,-,gi,,,tii--%,- , kir- -' t 7
,t,'-..., "-TA. .-1 .47", -1.,-• •-- 4...,,e',•,:.,.,t.:?:bzel:44,,,fin.7;(,.,,, - ■ t. ..''YY 1:43.1. ' 1
- v ,-;• 'Af,:.?‘`....-- i..,0,....-:-,4A:::,:-.1-,t;..- ,:!-!:,,,.-...:-..., :.,...- .•.. - • 0 s ..,,,, L. •-
.,, .,tri00,,,..:-7.• - .c'T''. ,:...'•'''. - ..:. -....;-::,- -4:.,-.4. ' . ..,/..4 ,,
. .,...
-..-
,;%--,„4,.. iir,9,---"'N&4.-.. ic• ...-1.-1-...,, , ,- . -.- :.1-,.....
..:-.• - A•I _...,:.?.-,-..-.,"...;;......"2.A„,\ . I t.::.--01...e.i
..,••'''-'. -141. -•i.,..•4:1:?,,c-...., V MI' IV'---.'* ,,f;."'<C7'.4-ii,:, ... s. ' '4"
LO .. - Li k VON':,,..,- \01 -' . :•• '--, ( I fl. 1. 1
V' - ...,O..... .• ■
• .i.' 'S; -.4,1 '•:!;..F..1...kti'7.1 6.---.,,,
- I 0 : -, 'it.:1,. /ii.ji.,- '''•f`7/
'''4* --0 S•- --- ,, ;C.:,.,--:: 0 ,..; .,
re,....r., • 1,1,, 0:,
0■ s% -. 47::::.:.?0 .
... _:. ..:7.. 7,:. • . ......4. _, ,.,i,.,. 3.4
' `3. .' .,"! Vr. - • -- \ .14":1,...;cle\w-
iS• - •.s.-:..':,
,,,4•4, IS ' ‘,.4. k ....... ;\ '.1
, rAe7NN Olt, . 1. - et - r- , ••
•- ., . 4-7 115.‘......_ ,■C'
fT„., 0 ..e'Z.%i • ..-
V. . .."--. 1• . 0 ,•
..• '- .V. ..
r.e'c''' - • r i
(Dtr . 7
2 i\----- ..--,
......-_. . - ii .
. ... - ‘,,,....,43.3 ......34 \..„).\
. .. . 1 ri
i....• :
—• c0 --- - ...-• .--:,.., ‘
•-:. 1.1
....... • . .. ‘4, 0
\:;. ......
•.
..„ -,..-,,..: , • . .. .".•-x.:.,-...,::..4.-.„..... ... ,....0,. • _.4 ...t....L4.4,
• . 1p) • 5(0. \IA7:-474!i•fl„, s. Pc
,.. .' •
L s•ii_
c..... .„..„.......\ et 0
.. ..-... tv,,..,A",, t, -04,--:••••:---- - e
,• : 4 ■
.,-, ,-. •:, .-
I
-, ......;,..., 4,-.„, ,)-- -_-_-•:
_..,
",o, .• -,A-L--1-.) ••,. . , - \ vh.,-H..i ‘, (A,
•,,,,..,,,.: w- 5....
k:,..1 tCV• .•
...:v'f\Vis t••.'
•
\— .
7r \ .P\to . . 4
1 Cti,.5i... ;•1/41\ .1...)::".■ .... '''1(;.-i)r
n c
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 1990
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings , Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart , Annette Ellson and Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner ; Sharmin Al-Jeff , Planner One; Gary Warren, City Engineer ;
and Mark Koegler ,, Consultant
PUBLIC HEARING:
' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY PATH THROUGH A CLASS A
WETLAND TO ACCESS A DOCK LOCATED AT 7016 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE, CHRIS ENGEL FOR
LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION.
1
r`; ADDRESS
Chris Fngel 7016 Sandy Hook Circle
Dick Herr
Jo Ann C') ner; presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order .
' Chris Cnc;F>1 - My name is Chris Engel . For the record , Engel at 7016 Sandy
Hoo; Circle . That 's my residence . I don 't live on the tennis courts
'
there . Put I 'm presently acting as President of the Lotus Lake Betterment
Association . That 's why I 'm here tonight in regard to this issue . I 'm
sure most of the Council or the Commission members are aware of the process
' that is taking place on this piece of land over some 18 months now . I 'd
like to make a statement regarding the staff report . First off, concerning
there 's numerous indications , numerous notations in here as to fill and the
property it says , in various sections of property was filled. I 'd just
' like to clarify that point because in essence the proposed or the intention
of the board at the Betterment Association was not necessarily to fill the
wetland and we did not maliciously try to alter the wetland. We simply
' came down and laid a truckload of rock so that we could access more easily
our lakeshore property at 25 feet there. It allows us also to bring our
boats across there. Not necessarily our outboards but our canoes. The
rafts, some paddle boats , etc . and the reason also I bring that point up is
in my conversations with the DNR, specifically Pat Lynch, our greatest
error that I can see with what we did at that property is that we simply
made our pathway too wide initially. We made it 25 feet approximatley wide
' by approximately 42 feet long up from the lakeshore. The DNR regulations
specifically state that there is not even a DNR requirement for 'a property
owner or a private landowner to seek a permit from the DNR regarding access
to a lake for private boat launching and that is, we do yes have a dock
there but we also launch boats there . And we felt that our position was
pretty squared away with the DNR and like I say , I do have a copy of the
DNR regulations in front of me and I don't know if you have that but under
6`1115.0210, Structures in Protected Waters, subparagraph C( 1 ) is what I 'm
referring , it states that privately owned ramps shall not exceed 12 feet in
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June- 20, 1990 - Page 2
width and extend more than 10 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark and '
I note ordinary high water mark also would indicate , this paragraph is
referring to property that would be in wetland area or into water of more II
than 4 feet in depth , whichever is less . Excavations , 5 cubic yards or
less and placement of up to 5 cubic yards of crushed rock, gravel , clean
sand or small stones shall be allowed in order to provide a stable base an
maintain use of the ramp . Again, this paragraph refers to something that
the DNR has condoned as a natural process for allowing access to the lake .
This is a private property and we felt that since the DNR did come down
along with the time last summer when I met with Jo Ann and some of the
other staff people , we agreed that we were in violation of the width of
this property and we felt then that we still would be allowed some type of
a boardwalk , pathway , whatever . Quite honestly , the 12 feet was something
that. we would have preferred because it would give us better accessibility`
and the reason that I proposed or we proposed simply a pathway was simply
r.oth: r,s more than a compromise between us and the City along with trying t
comply with the DNR so that we could in fact have accessibilty to this are
and granted t a lesser cost to the Association since the gravel is alread
in place . 7 refer back to also the fill statement that I made at the
ona=t . We did not fill this property . We did not bring dirt down . We dill
not pull out Purple Loosestrife by any illegal means . We simply brought
the rock down and laid it on top of the muck that was already there . I
would also like to make one comment , final comment regarding past practice'
because it was also mentioned in the staff report about past practice . I
have lived on the lake or near the lake for about 4 years now and have '
noticed that in the last year , specifically on the west side of Lotus Lake
there are 3 properties that are relatively new I would say within the last'
S month:; that have pathways to the lake and I was over at those properties
yesterday . Their addresses are 490 Bighorn Drive , 480 Bighorn Drive , and
471 Bic:horn Drive . All of which have highly developed lakeshore property .
490 Eighorn Drive has a rockway path to the lake with pavers that they use•
as stepping stones . 480 has a boulder edging along the lakeshore with sod
up to the waterfront . And 471 has developed lakeshore with sod and a sand
beach which obviously they dumped sand there. I guess I only bring up thi�
point as to discuss and to point out the past practice. I question the
staff comment about the consistency and the recommendations because in fac
these properties have far extensive, more extensive development of their
lakeshore than we 're proposing here. I would ask the Commission as well a
the City and the staff to reconsider on their recommendation to the Lotus
Lake Betterment Association and as a compromise, if you will , allow us a I
rock pathway to our dock. It would be the upside of that for us, as I
mentioned earlier , would be we 're talking about an area that is thru
wetland. However , the cost of us putting dock in as opposed to leaving it '
as it is and removing the rock that's in violation would be in the
neighborhood of $7,800.00 just to buy sections of dock. My conversation
with Pat Lynch yesterday , one final note . I do not have written
documentation of this but Pat Lynch quite honestly I talked to him and
asked him what his feeling was again about the rock as opposed to the dock
or boards because I would refer also to Jo Ann's comment about a boardwalk
because there 's no specification as to how the boardwalk would be
constructed. If in fact we were to put a boardwalk down by simply bringinji
2 x 8 boards and butting them up side by side and laying them down onto the
muck , I would question the amount of vegetation that would grow up through "
Planning Commission Meeting
June 20, 1990 - Page 3
Ithose boards . I asked Pat Lynch about that fact and he said you 're exactly
right . The point being , the DNR would actually prefer rock be used for the
pathway as opposed to boards simply because rock is more ecologically sound
I than a board path . Like I say , I don't have written statements from him to
that fact but that is in fact what he told me yesterday . Thank you .
I Conrad: Thanks for your comments Chris . Are there any comments? Other
comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Batzli moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
Ifavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Jo Ann , before we go around the Planning Commission why don 't you
talk to us E little bit about rock path versus boardwalk .
Olsen: Agin we 're getting different , and I don 't want to pit different
people r.r. the CNr against one another , whatever but who I used to work with
I
is Cell Strauss and she 's our district person and again speaking with her ,
they prefer the boardwalks over stores so we 're getting different opinions
and that happens in any department so I don 't know how to argue different
II people 's cp_ nionE. on that . As far as the boardwalk and our reasoning for
that , and yes we don 't have specific dimensions on that and how it should
be constructed but the reasoning as Cel has said and then also the Fish and
I Wildlife and the Corps is that that 's there . The boardwalk is there and
then you 're not putting in more rock or putting in more dirt when it erodes
away or woodchips or whatever and that 's one of our reasons for supporting
that . He also brought up Bighorn. I know of one lot that I did go visit
Ithere that already had a clearing there . It was a natural clearing that we
allowed them to access the water . I haven't been to those other lots so we
can cheer, it out .
IConrad: I think we have to .
-f Olsen: But the difference there is wetland versus just not wetland so.
-- Conrad: Okay . On Bighorn, were those wetlands?
IIOlsen: The one lot that I looked at was not wetland.
Conrad: Joan, questions?
IAhrens: I see Steve looking up the ordinance there. I was wondering what
the ordinance said about the boardwalks. Is there anything specific about
Ithat?
Emmings: I don't know and I 'm not looking for that but I can tell you that
it 's been what we 've done in the past but I don 't know that it 's in the
Iordinance .
Olsen: No , it 's not .
IAhrens: Is the intent to lay the boardwalks down on the ground or to have
it elevated?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 20, 1990 - Page 4
1
Olsen: Usually what we 've done, what has been done is they 've been
elevated because a lot of times you 're through water . A lot of times the
wetland is within the water so it is up . Posts into the water and wetland
Ahrens: So if someone came in and wanted to build a boardwalk and asked
for a permit .
Olsen: We have almost always given those, yes.
Ahrens: An elevated boardwalk? So it would be elevated over the wetland?'
It wouldn 't be sitting on the ground? How did the rock path get put in
place to begin with? Was there a permit for that? There was none? So I '
sorry, I forgot your name .
Chris Er_.1 : Chris .
Ahr: ne : Chris . '
Chri: To the best of our knowlege , again , between us and the I
contractors who did the work , there was a permit obtained . And you did
not , someL ody didn 't just come down there and dump a load of rock . There
w_- a permit obtained to the best of our knowledge .
A:hieTie : Was that part of the whole permit process of the filling?
Olsen: Well I don 't know if you remember , we went through the whole
wetland alteration for these lots and that 's where there was a permit that
was filled out .
Ahrens : But the City maintains it wasn't approved?
Olsen: No . There was a letter sent out by the previous planner , Barb Oacy
stating that they did receive the permit application but that there may be'
a wetland on the property and a wetland alteration permit might be
required . At that time though I think we were only working with Pfankuch
and Frost and then when we got to that process, that 's when we got into till
Lotus Lake Betterment Association.
Chris Engel : Well they had used our land to access the properties to the
south of us to do their lakeshore work and damaged our property so that wel
basically had to bring something in . It was so dug up from the Bobcat and
so forth and just dump some rock there to make it possible to. get onto your
dock or. in your boat or walk through there without walking into any muck. I
Ahrens: I guess what's really key here for me is that it is a Class A
wetland there . Your quotation of the DNR regulations , I didn't hear
anything that mentioned access to the lake through a wetland and what woulli
be okay with the DNR .
Chris Engel : Well that's not really true because if you read, I can give I
these copies , because if you study the DNR regulations, they would not
refer to the regulations as over the ordinary high water mark unless they
were discussing a wetland. That does denote wetland.
1 • .
Planninj Commission Meeting
June 20 , 1S'90 - Page E,
' Olsen: We should point out that the DNR has jurisdiction only at the
ordinary high water mark and below .
Chris Engel : I think it 's important for the commission and all of us to
bear 1°i mind that you know , we try to entrust the Fish and Wildlife , the
DNR with protecting our natural resources and I 'm just wondering if any of
u:= in th•" room feels more qualified than the DNR I guess to make the
decision or to override what the DNR says or would allow it in this case .
Conrad: Well we do have an ordinance and we spent over the last 10 years a
whole lot of time .
Chris Engel : The point is your ordinance doesn't discuss , doesn't dictate
whst
Corn-Pe No it doesn't but it does protect Type A and Type E wetlands: .
71N^ doesn 't have restrictions for everything .
Conrad: So it 's not that the City hasn 't , the City has spent a whole lot
of tir.=_ , juct a whole lot of time over the past 10 years protecting the
wetland: and that 's why you 're here . That 's why there 's a wetland
alteration prcc=ss . To try and keep the lakes a little bit cleaner than
' the, are and unfortunately those of us on the Planning Commission have
spent far more time than we 'd ever want to listening to wetland issues but
we do .
' Chris Engel : I think it should be . . .again like I say, Pat Lynch as opposed
to C-ell Strauss: was the district representative for the DNR up until very
' recently . In fact Pat Lynch probably has more experience with this area "
than Cell Strauss who 's also quoted in the staff report .
Ahrens: Well I think the City position of requiring boardwalks over the
' wetlands is based on good public policy and I think there 's a lot of
wetlands in the City of Chanhassen that we seek to protect that are not
under the jurisdiction of the DNR at all . I mean it 's not that the DNR , I
' just wanted to finish my statement. I will go along with staff
recommendation on this. I think it 's good that we require boardwalks and
that we have a consistent policy . I think we need to have a consistent
policy rather than having some people have boardwalks and other people
' feeling free to just do, build anything through a wetland area. I 'll go
along with the staff recommendation.
' Chris Engel : Are we more concerned with upholding the ordinance or are we
more concerned with . . .actually proper with those agencies . The fact of the
matter is , ilow you're telling me that we construct a boardwalk because , out
' of wood, because in fact the wood is what we 've done i.n the past . Does
that mean it 's better? No. Does that mean we have to do it out of wood?
No . But which really is better for Lotus Lake? You tell me on one hand
that you 're concerned about ecology and the survival of Lotus Lake . I just
' explained to you that the DNR in fact told me that and also by the
regulations it doesn't state constructing boat ramps out of wood. It talks
about constructing boat ramps out of rock and sand. Those are providing
•
Planning Commission Meeting I
June 20 , 1990 - Page 6
natural filtration to the lake . Boards do not and yet you . . .anymore
vegetation to grow up around those boards than you do through that rock .
. .in the process of the betterment of the lake . Not whether we want to b
proper according to the ordinance . Do what's right for the lake .
Conrad: I think we agree with you that we should do what 's right with the
lake for two reasons . One , we are concerned with water quality. Whether
it 's Lotus or any other lake . Two , consistency of our interpretation of
the ordinance is real important because you quoted or your referenced some
other lots that may not have been doing things properly and what we've
found here is when we are inconsistent , then the policy becomes
inconsistent and then everybody has a very legal way to go back to the Cit
of Chanhassen to say you 've allowed it over here and you didn't here .
Therefcve , from a suit standpoint , from a lawsuit , we don 't have an
ordinance . Once you break the ordinance you 've basically , in terms of how
you rule c r: ft , you basically don 't have one anymore . I think your point '
that yoJ 'rc bringing up Chris is a valid one . If rock is a better
tluhstitute than boardwalk , we should know about it and we should change ,
wa should put that into our policy if that 's the case . What we have heard
an 7 ' !_ een involved , I hate to keep saying I 've been here , but I 've bee'
here and I 've heard a whole lot of experts tell us what was ecologically
better and we didn 't say prove it and we didn't have technical evidence bu
we did have DN come in and say , and it was probably a different person an
they c'id say that boardwalks were ecologically superior . You could get
into acme other issues too . How are the boards treated? And you know ; we
get into those things . If the boards are treated with something that 's '
ecologically poor , we may be damaging the situation so I understand what
you 're saying . I think right now we don't have evidence to say that our
policy is not right . I think we 'll challenge staff tonight to come back t
us end talk a little bit about that to make sure we are enforcing a policy
r
that 's the right one . We 're obviously getting some different information .
Sorry Joan.
Ahrens: I was just going to say, some rocks are also treated with
petroleum products and all sorts of other things.
Chris Engel : There was also no mention in any of the previous testimony o'
documentation . Quite frankly the first time I 've ever heard or read
anything about an elevated, now we're into elevated boardwalks, was
tonight. Somehow that 's an issue that just all of a sudden's been raised
since I guess , I guess maybe since I brought up the point of how vegetatio
would, when I visited with Jo Ann, how the vegetation is going to grow
through boards. '
Conrad: Well they should be elevated. Absolutely.
Chris Engel : That 's never been mentioned. . . The commission report from
March and City Council , they never , ever gave us a directive to make that
pathway out of elevated boardwalks.
Conrad: It 's probably assumed that people would because they didn't want
to get wet but again, it's one of those things . I don't want to get too
technical but basically a wetland operates all together . If you make one I
I . .
Planning Commission Meeting
June 20 , 19 5'0 - Page 7
•
break in it , it 's no longer a wetland that 's serving a function so as soon
as you put in potentially a barrier through there , that kills that wetland
if it 's 100 feet wide they would say and you put in a 3 foot strip ,- that
contaminates the wetland . The wetland basically doesn 't function properly
anymore . That 's what the experts have told us and I guess I don't want to
explore that any further but that's my understanding . Brian , questions"
Batzli : No . I agree with Joan 's comments for the most part . I guess I 've
been on the commission long enough to , unfortunately at least from the
' applicant 's perspective, that a boardwalk is elevated so the argument
that . . .won 't grow I think is diminished by the fact that we 're all assuming
that it 's elevated. There's a free flow of water underneath it and it 's
feet for _ro,,th of . . .
Herr : There 's never been any water under that area there . I 've lived
th. rz :0 > ers . My name is Dick Herr . I live right next door to the
'
tennis courts and I 'm down there all the time . Over the 10 years I 've
there , there 's never been water there under it . Before there were
some old boards going out there to the dock . They were just laying on the
mud. It 'c r.ct a free flowing water . I mean , I think this whole thing is
getting kind of assanine . I 've lived there 10 years . Our whole
neigh:borheoc' hac a little strip of property . New neighborhoods have come
in and put in 3 docks for their neighborhood. A sand beach. People are
' building houses across the lake from us putting in 25 foot beach area for
pri°.' to residences . We 've got a little bit of gravel there to get to our
dock 4,.ithout getting our shoes muddy to get into our boat . I think it 's
getting pretty darn assanine to ask us to spend all kinds of money buying
dock area to lay down on gravel or raise above the gravel or take the
t.h i n g s . . .
Conrad: Thanks for your comments . We had a public discussion earlier .
Brian . More comments .
' Batzli : Just out of curiousity based on that comment Jo Ann, for my
purposes of clarification, is the permit then, is it not going over a Class
A wetland? Where is the Class A wetland then?
Olsen: If you recall , what we did was to use the aerials before any
development had occurred there where there was vegetation. It was a Class
A wetland all along that strip.
' Batzli : So the dock section, regardless of whether there's flowing or not
flowing water is still considered a Class A wetland?
Olsen: By vegetation, yes. It would be allowed to come back. It would
come back as wetland vegetation.
Batzli : Isn't it typically. . .for a Class A wetland though that there 's
open water?
' Olsen: It 's just the type of vegetation. Again there's the three . The
soils , the water and vegetation. Typically what's adjacent to the open
water is usually. . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
June 20 , 1990 - Page S
1
Chris Engle : One point of clarification .
•
Conrad: Sir , thanks. We had the , I 'll give you another chance but I 'm II
trying to keep some continuity up here . Thanks Chris . Comments Steve .
Emrrings: Well , I was looking for the beachlot ordinance here . You haven'
been, have you been putting boats in over this area into the lake?
Chris Engel : No . Canoes. You know, and rowboats . Not power boats . 1
Ernmings: Okay , fine . That was what I was wondering about . I 've got just
a couple of comments and I guess that would be that what the DNR has to as
i s o' ir:t r est but we define what 's a wetland. The City defines it . Ue 'v�
p:rcc.c l 'sec' what will be done to wetlands. Our ordinance is more strict
then the DNP regulations so what they have to say is of course of interest
but it `Er.'t determinative of what we do . We 've always required elevated "
boErdvB1As through wetlands in this situation where you 're getting from th
land ; cu h-.avc to go over a wetland to get to the lake . In every case
sinc.B I 've a: en here we 've required boardwalks in that situation . Elevate
Logy :&lks . I agree completely with Ladd . If there 's something , we 've
n . r Izerd ;_:bout having a gravel path before and I don 't feel like it 's
cam:; rc.l : Et all to punish , I 'm not interested in punishing you people for
ha. :ng there rocks down there by making you remove them just to have you d
it . If 1 eve. to vote on this tonight , I have to go for the elevated
ta•= L�.::.1 �. because that 's what we 've always done in the past and I guarantee
you , your two neighbors to the other side may be here asking to put rocks III
cr boardwalks when we 've already , or someone else is going t011
cor:c in and say , now you 've granted boardwalks and you 've granted rocks , we
wz nt s:.r, : t'-;i n3 else . So it may be a situation where the thing to do here 11
is to get some testimony and find out if a rock path is just as good .
Because if it is, I 'd be for it . For leaving it . But if I have to vote on
it tonight , I have no choice but to follow the staff 's recommendation .
Conrad: Jo Ann , what do you think? What do you want to do in terms of . . .'
Olsen: Well I can get documentation, if you would like , from the DNR and
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps. That will take some time . I'
guess it's up to the applicant what they would like to do but no matter
what I 'll look into it.
Conrad: Well tell me , you're comfortable with, we've got a policy out
there requiring boardwalks . Now Mr . Engel is telling us that ONR is sayin
that rocks are just es good or maybe better than a boardwalk. That's
inconsistent with what I 've been told in the past but that's just hearsay
or that 's just , maybe not hearsay but that's what the experts have told us
when we 've asked a subject . So I guess I 'm curious about how much we want i
to challenge what we 've heard in the past .
Ahrens: Well I think what the DNR said was, they were comparing crushed
rock walkways with boards that were on the ground. They weren't talking I
about elevated boardwalks versus crushed rock walkways. You were
comparing. . .
t
1
Planning Commission Meeting
3une 20, 1990 - Page 9
Cor;rad: Cood point . Any other comments here? Chris , do you want to say
something?
Chris Engel : Well again, I 'd ask to reiterate one point on this. I mean
this discussion of elevated boardwalk is just amusing to me because the
' gentleman in here mentions that all the time that he 's been around or e.at
on the commission that they 've discussed elevated boardwalks. I 've heard
every one of you talk about elevated boardwalks. This process has been
going on for over a year . I have read every document that you people have.
' written. I have not seen the word elevated boardwalk . Now all of a sudden
boom . You attach yourself to a word that fits the cause . Elevated
boerd4,elk . No , if it was such a concrete issue to this commission of an
elevate :! boardwalk I submit to you that you would have put it in these
docL:`;!= njs Lut now it 's an issue that Well , it 's some way that we car (Take
thi . : zh-,t _ Somehow we think we can make it right . How high elevated? 2
' ir!•c`m:.? E'.n inch and a- half above the soil? What are we going to silt into
-'
' ' r total , I mean Mr . Herr has got a point . I mean we
ha.' bec r! :.:estir!g taxpayers ' dollars for months over t150 .00 worth of rock
and it 's going to cost us $150 .00 to pull it out and it 's all that we
.' simply ask the commission and the Council that we want a path . Bic deal .
And r :21 of a sudden we 're talking about , we 're going to argue over
elevator' boardwalks . We 're going to spend more money ,of the DNR 's f: derel
c: : r-=: _,:- : 'tin$ it . We 're going to get more testimony . I question
the c•verel l responsibility of this whole process .
C_•r.r_ . don 't think you should .
' 7.7rr :i r•_ - Cc-nit either .
Cc-.ra_': I thirtF; that 's a. real insane comment that you just made . We 're
here trying to do some protecting of the environment and you 're telling us
we 're woe tirig taxpayer money which is real , thanks for your comments . I
' cor.'t need any more .
Mrs . Herr : But he 's from the DNR.
Dick Herr : That 's what the ONR said.
Conrad: That 's good. You can keep talking to the DNR and you found
' somebody that wants to talk to you but we do have our own ordinance .
Mrs .- Herr : He 's been there. Pat Lynch has been to this property. Has
Lucille Strauss. None of you have been there. You don't even know what
we're talking about.
Conrad: I have .
UMrs . Herr : Yeah, you have .
' Emmings: Did Pat Lynch say we were being irresponsible because if he did,
I 'd like to know . I 'd like to follow up on that . I think we should follow
up with the DNR on that . I think Pat Lynch should come here and talk to us
about this .
Plani r:g Commission Meeting I
:Tune 20 , 1990 - Page 10
1
Olsen: Okay . And Cell Strauss has been there. We 've surveyed the
property. t
Conrad: Is there a motion?
Emmings: Well I wonder if they 're interested in our looking into it '
because I 'm interested in our looking into it but maybe nobody else. is .
Batzli : Well no . I agree with the applicant's earlier comment that our I
first concern is with the wetland and I don't agree with his last comment
because I think that was contradictory to what he said earlier but if our
concern is for the wetland , I think we should look into it . If the gravel
path is a viable alternative , we should know about it before we make them
spc7.d S ,Ooo .co to take it out if it 's not harming the wetland.
T- - inc: - T}-,at 's the way I feel . I 'd like to , but I don 't know . If
wont UE to vote on it , we can but I 'd like to table it . Get Pat Lync
in here to talk to us about this kind of a thing . The other thin; that
fathered me about what he 's saying is that apparently there 's never been ,
ir. the case:, in which we 've required elevated boardwalks in the past , them
`a L- een water and here they 're saying that there's never been water there
fur a substantial period of time . That may be relevant and it may not .
Eatzli : But se€ I don't remember putting in a boardwalk over a dry spot
bcfc e . It seemed that there was always water .
Olsen: No , we 've done it over dry areas .
Cat.z1 i : Have we? '
Olsen: You know mucky areas .
Chris Encel : We 're willing to wait . '
Dick Herr : I could certainly see an elevated walkway if water was passing .
It's built up and then put rocks on it. You're changing it . The only
water that would come in is stronger waves and then wash right back out
again. There isn't anything passing under this. The only time there 's
standing water is when Lotus Creek, there's a creek behind my house is
flowing real strong and the lake is in excess. . .
Emmings: How about right now? Is your lake back up? Minnewashta 's higher,
than I 've ever seen it . How about Lotus?
Conrad: Yeah, it's not as high as it's ever been but it's. . .
Dick Herr : It 's gotten over our dock on that 12 inch rail a couple years I
agcy and it got over most people's, a lot of people's docks and 2 days later
with the egress of the creek, it was back to it's normal level .
Emmings: What about right now? Things are pretty high right now. What
about right now?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 20 , 1990 - Page 11
' Dick F'€ :-r : Right now there 's water is coming up on the shoreline about 6
inches . Cr I mean about 2 feet into the shoreline .
Emmings: Is it up to this area where you've got this rock path?
Chris Engel : No .
Conrad: But see the issue is not really water . It's not a water issue .
The issue is preserving that wetland . To let the wetland survive and once
' you break it , as the experts have said, that once you break it , you break
it with something that kills the vegetation then you no longer have that
sponge .
Er.r= inz_ : No , that 's my recollection too . That everything we 've heard in
t!-,a past 'o:.t they 've got somebody who apparently is knowledgeable who I 'd
..
j '
i • . talk to .
Conrad: :•'e 11 : sure think they should be out here . If they're telling us
contradictory things , I 'd sure like to talk to maybe that person's
sLpe.rvia.c:r to gat . If we 're talking to one person and somebody else is
talking to another , I think we need a supervisor to help in the dispute .
Not necessarily bring that one person here . I think we need some good
advice . Is thore a motion?
Emr„i ngs: Is :t likely that we could get somebody out here at the next
meetirg to talk to us?
' Olsen: I 'll try . Sure .
' Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission table this wetland alteration
permit pending more testimony by the appropriate people on whether the
gravel path is the proper alternative to an elevated boardwalk .
' En.mings Second .
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to table Wetland Alteration Permit #89-1 for
' the Lotus Lake Betterment Association to get more testimony regarding a
gravel path versus an elevated boardwalk. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
' Conrad: So that will more than likely come back in 2 weeks but we'll
notify you and let you know .
' Olsen: July 18th.
Emmings: And I guess I would say too to these applicants so they don't
' have false hopes , it may well be that if Pat Lynch comes in here or someone
from DNS and says that a rock path is equivalent, the City may well decide
to go with elevated boardwalks in situations anyway .
1 Chris Engel : Thank you.
I
I•
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 18
Wildermuth: Did they get variances? '
Emmings: No. They 're operating illegally. But anyway , if anything 's
going to happen on it , it ought to be done as a zoning ordinance amendment'
to me and I 'm certainly interested in enough in it so I wouldn 't mind
working on it .
Krauss: Well we can make that sentiment clear at the Board . That there
some desire to consider it as an ordinance and we 'll make them aware of
that .
Conrad: Make sure the word is some desire . '
Emmings : Because if they make it a variance they can put it anyplace they
want to . Where are the controls then? I don 't like this .
Conrad: The controls would be imposed based on the stipulations of that
variance . '
Ellson: It would be done case by case .
Conrad: It would be done case by case . See I 'm of the position that I I
really have a tough time with it period. I 'm not sure that I find it
acceptable but I haven 't looked at all the unique circumstances. A whole
lot of beachlots have survived for a whole long time with a whole lot of
kids and haven 't created any controversy and it hasn 't brought any issues
up in the neighborhood .
Wildermuth: What has it done to the lake?
Emmings: Yeah . '
•
Conrad: I just don 't see that as a problem .
Ellson: It 's something that could be looked into I guess. '
Conrad: Can look into it and I think we should put it on the work agenda
for us as obviously Paul a low priority. No, I don't mean that. '
Emmings: Even though it's deleted , sorry.
(Tim Erhart arrived for the meeting at this point. ) '
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY PATH THROUGH A CLASS A II
WETLAND TO ACCESS A DOCK LOCATED AT 7016 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE, CHRIS ENGEL FO
LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Pat Lynch 1200 Warner Road , DNR Representative
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 19
Mr ./Mrs . Robert Pfankuch 100 Sandy Hook Road
Debbie Engel 7016 Sandy Hook Circle
Conrad.: Is this a public hearing or not?
Olsen: You closed the public hearing last time . -
Conrad: Okay , so now tonight was really a time to discuss it with .
' Olsen: Right . It was tabled because there were a lot of different
opinions brought up . So what I did was to have some of the other governing
' bodies submit letters on their opinions and one was just verbally over the
phone and then also Pat Lynch is here from the DNR to kind of get his side
of the story . We 're still recommending that the boardwalk be what is
' pursued as our policy and even go as far as amending the ordinance to make
that clear and that we are still recommending that the boardwalk be what is
permitted on this recreational beachlot versus the fill . But Pat Lynch is
here to have him speak .
Conrad: We sure would .
' Pat Lynch: My name is Pat Lynch. I 'm the Area Hydrologist with the DNR
for Dakota and Scott Counties . I was helping out in Carver County for a
while . A year and a half ago I guess it is already . I guess this whole
matter came before me in January of 1989 when I received 3 applications for
wetland alteration from the City and I responded to those with some written
comments that it appeared to me some of the fill proposed was below what we
call our ordinary high water elevation out at Lotus Lake. What I had heard
back then from the City was that in fact these applications where after the
fact or the work had already been done . From there I met on the site that
spring with 3 contiguous property owners there . Mr . Frost , Mr . Pfankuch
' and Chris Engel from the Colonial Grove Association. I also had been out
there with the representative from the Army Corps of Engineers. An
enforcement individual and after a lot of discussion and time we determined
' where the DNR 's area of jurisdiction was out there on all 3 of those
properties and I staked that line on the properties and there was
commitment by the property owners to comply with the removal of the
material that was filled waterward of that ordinary high water mark that I
' established and staked . All three property owners again had expressed
willingness to restore to those dimensions. I guess I made it clear that
in addition to the DNR 's approval , there were other approvals that may have
' to be met namely the Corps of Engineers , Watershed District and any local
approval . In this case the City of Chanhassen. I know the Corps didn't
have a problem with what the DNR had proposed for restoration and they
pretty much stayed out of it . From there I guess if I can just jump ahead
several months , from what we had originally proposed for restoration, there
were some changes . Some slight modification on the two properties . I
don 't know if that 's west of the Colonial Grove properties but on the Frost
' and Pfankuch properties we adjusted the stakes so that there wasn't an
obtrusive pipe sticking out into the lake waterward of the fill to be
removed . We thought that that was a reasonable approach so that that would
blend a little more naturally. Have a little curve around that pipe. I
think that was reasonable and a good idea . Also in that timeframe I had
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 20
some discussion with a Dr . Charles Hirt and Chris Engel regarding leaving
small access strip to the docking facility so that they could access their
dock . I had written a letter saying that the DNR didn't have a problem
with that and that I would allow that to remain provided the rest of the 11
material was removed from the site and I stressed again that that was
contingent upon any other local , state, and federal or local approvals .
That 's about where we 're at now. I just as soon open it up to questions
from you folks . I guess the impetus behind allowing them to leave a path II
was that our permit rules would actually allow that lot to have a 12 foot
wide concrete ramp poured down there without a permit from us if that 's
what they would choose to pursue . My contention was that yeah , they fille
in violation . Yeah , they had cooperated without any problems and were
willing to remove the stuff and that I thought it was reasonable and
practical to leave a strip in to access the dock given the fact that it 's
multiple use area . The activities are consolidated on one small area . In
my professional judgment , the impacts to the wetland area will be nominal
once it 's restored by leaving that strip in . 80% of that lot will still go
back to a natural state over time with the re-establishment of the
vegetation in there . Like I say , the impacts to that particular area I
didn 't feel were that severe given the fact that there 's a rather intense
infestation of purple loosestrife there . Like I say , as far as the DNR
rules are concerned and I 'm not saying that they're the best but they cowl#
have had a 12 foot wide ramp and 12 feet of sand across there without a
permit from us anyway so I think what they 're doing is again , in the ONR's
perspective is reasonable and practical . '
Emmings: Can I ask you a question?
Pat Lynch: Certainly . '
Emmings: When you say they could have had a 12 foot wide ramp, concrete
ramp or whatever , and it wouldn 't have gone against any of the ONR 's
regulations , are we talking about that ramp being in a place that 's
landward of the ordinary high water mark?
Pat Lynch: Waterward of . I
Emmings: Waterward of?
Pat Lynch: 10 or 12 feet waterward. I don't have that. 10 feet waterwar
of the ordinary high water elevation . It could be concrete , crushed
gravel , an earthen ramp, planks.
Emmings: Now just so I get my thinking straight on this, the path that
we're talking about whether or not they're going to leave it or remove it , I1
is that all landward of the ordinary high water mark?
Pat Lynch: No. •
Emmings: It 's all waterward from the ordinary high water mark?
Olsen: No . There 's a portion that goes just above the ordinary high wate
mark .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 21
Emmings: Okay . How much of it is above and how much of it is below the
ordinary high water mark?
Pat Lynch: We guessed roughly 40 feet below as a guess .
' Olsen: Well that included the waterward part so I think it was about 10
feet that you had them remove so it 's about 30. Rough estimat .
' Emmings: Alright , now what 's 30?
Olsen: About 30 feet landward.
' Emmings : Okay . So there 's 30 , approximately and I think 25 is the number
I remember us talking about last time but we 're saying there 's 25 or 30
feet of this walkway that 's above the ordinary high water mark going down
to the ordinary high water mark , correct?
Olsen: Yeah , approximately that .
Emmings: And then part of it is beyond and you told them that , at least
with regard to what 's below the ordinary high water mark , that was okay
with the DNR in this case?
' Pat Lynch: Well the only , the DNR jurisdiction begins at the ordinary high
water elevation and is waterward .
' Emmings: Exactly , but as far as what was there under your jurisdiction it
was okay with you? Is that what I understood?
1 Pat Lynch: Not what 's there today . What they proposed to leave the 5 foot
wide path .
' Emmings: So as long as they removed everything except that 5 foot wide
path , you were satisfied?
' Pat Lynch: Correct . That would mean removing about 80% of the material
below the ordinary high water elevation.
' Emmings: Apart from the fact that we 're also looking at the part that's
above the ordinary high water mark and aside from the fact that I recognize
that that 's not an area where you have jurisdiction, do you feel that
there 's any impact to that area? If we assume it's a wetland, do you think
' there 's any impact, adverse impact to that from this walkway that would be
alleviated by removing it and requiring a boardwalk? Can you shed any
light on that for us?
' Pat Lynch: I 'm sorry , I 'm not sure I follow the question. I 'm sorry .
Emmings: Right now there 's a rock path that leads from 25 or 30 feet above
the ordinary high water mark down to the ordinary high water mark and a
little bit beyond . In that situation in the past we have always required
elevated boardwalks through a wetland to get to the ordinary high water
Imark so people could have access to the lake . In this case , there 's an
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 22
1
existing rock trail and the question was , the question that came up was , i
that just , is that as good? Is that alright in terms of it's impact on
that wetland? That 's what we 're struggling with and we don't have any
expertise up here to know and that 's the question I 'm asking .
Pat Lynch: I won't argue that . If you compare the two , a boardwalk will I
have less impact . I don't think anybody could argue with that as far as
the impacts . I mean if you're not placing any foreign material , and I 've
read through the Minutes that Jo Ann had faxed to me . Someone , I think Mr I
Engel said that he hadn 't placed fill but he had placed rock. Well , that
is fill . Fill , whether it 's sand, rock, what have you is fill . Sod. So
yeah , a boardwalk has less impact . I wouldn't argue that but the '
significance on a site like that , I don 't know if it 's what I would
consider a measureable impact .
Emmings: Okay , so in this particular case you think it 's probably pretty I
negligible?
Pat Lynch: I would say so, yeah. I mean there are ways to lessen the
impact of leaving the strip down there by , if I remember right I think it '
gravel or unvegetated clay path down to the existing dock . If that were
revegetated to grass and it just had a grass hill walking down to the lake,
that would offset some of the impacts of having a gravel strip out there
and what that would tend to do would be to filter any kind of runoff that
comes from the upper reaches by the tennis courts , etc . so there are ways
to somewhat offset the shortfalls that a gravel path has over a boardwalk . ,
And again I stress , that although our rules would allow it and deem it a
reasonable access option , they 've got to get your approval too and if you
don 't like it .
Emmings: No, we understand. I think we finally understand that .
Pat Lynch: Okay . There 's nothing wrong with being more restrictive .
not knocking that .
Conrad: Did we get two conflicting opinions Jo Ann from the DNR? Was that
one of our concerns or not?
Olsen: No , I think what was happening was that the applicants were
stating , possibly misquoting Pat in saying that fill would even be
preferred over a boardwalk and that the City didn't have the right to go
that far and then it just got out of hand. So no, we really didn't get
conflicting quotes from the DNR.
Pat Lynch: There are some benefits to be had by gravel and again I 'm not
trying to sell the idea of a gravel path. I 'm just stating that when that I
gravel , I 've seen the water level today and it 's up quite a bit from the
last few times I 've been out but when the water 's up over that gravel ,
there are some benefits to it as far as runoff coming down that hill .
Gravel would tend to filter some of the more course grain material and
granted, if you had vegetation in there it would be a better job but
there 's also a lot of benthic organisms and what not that inhabit the nook
and crannies of a gravel area and you'll find wading birds pecking through
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 23
gravel . So it 's not as bad as it may appear is all .
Emmings: Where is the water today in relation to the line you staked as
the ordinary high water mark?
Pat Lynch: Oh geez . Boy, I 'm sorry. I didn 't walk to the corner of the
property where the stake was . I was over on Mr . Frost 's property .
Emmings: Okay. Have you got a feel at all for whether it 's about there?
Pat Lynch: It 's got to be close because it was soggy down on the fill area
on the adjacent property. I suspect it 's real close .
Erhart: Pat , isn 't your rules that you apply essentially intended to be
used as a statewide rules and applied generally to lakes throughout the
state whether they be in an urban area or whether they be in a rural area
and that the reason why there 's local jurisdiction is that you don't intend
to micromanage the environmental controls on the lake . You tend to have a
broad, statewide point of view. Would you say that 's accurate?
Pat Lynch: Yeah, I 'd agree with that . Our standards are statewide
standards .
Erhart : Yeah , and that it really works in a case where someone owns 25
acres . It works best when someone owns 25 acres and several hundred feet
of lakeshore and he wants to put his own boat launch in. Isn't that what
that concrete pad allowance is?
Pat Lynch: No , no . Not at all . If you go out , there 's plenty of lakes in
the cities where an individual lot owner , several on the lake will have an
access pad in his backyard.
Erhart: Not in Chanhassen .
Pat Lynch: Well I don't work in Chanhassen. I 'm in Scott and Dakota
County. If you go out on Prior Lake , you 'll see them.
Erhart: You 'll see them in Prior Lake? When were those put in?
Pat Lynch: I don 't know . That predates me.
Erhart: You find actually every lot's got?
Pat Lynch: No, not every lot , no. I 'm saying that , I wouldn't say that
that 's more so for the out greater Minnesota than it is in the cities.
I guess I wouldn 't agree with that statement .
Erhart: You wouldn 't agree with that?
IPat Lynch: Not in terms of the access ramp, no . As a matter of fact , I 'd
almost go the other way and say that on new construction on lake lots in
the cities , you 'd probably see an increase in that.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 26
Emmings: I 'd like to ask Paul . If a landowner , we 've heard Mr . Lynch say
that if a landowner , on any individual lot in Chanhassen wanted to
construct a concrete and let's take a worse case , a concrete ramp to put
boats in and out on his property . If he started that at the ordinary high
water mark and just went waterward with it would he , he'd obviously be I
building a structure . Would he have to come to the City for a permit for
that?
Krauss: Not unless he 's crossing a wetland to do it .
Emmings: Well I think he should have to. I think we should find out if
our ordinance covers it . It would seem to me that the building of any
structure in the water ought to require a city permit if we can have
stricter standards than the DNR has . If our ordinance doesn't provide that
now , it ought to .
Krauss: That would put you in the position of having to review every dock.
Emmings: No , it does not . We have an ordinance that tells what you can I
have for a dock and so does the DNR so docks are not an issue .
Conrad: You 're talking about a permanent structure?
Emmings: Permanent structure , yeah .
Conrad: I think we could regulate a permanent structure . I thought we
already did .
Olsen: Again , we use the DNR. We 've adopted word for word the DNR
regulations .
Emmings: I don't care if we adopt their regulations but all we 've got to I
do is say if you 're going to build a structure in the water , in any water
in Chanhassen, you 've got to come to the City for a permit. I don't think
frankly that it 's that many . I don't know of any on my lake . On
Minnewashta . There might be some but I don't know. I think that's a hole I
that ought to be plugged.
Conrad: We 've got to get back into this thing. Is there confusions and
maybe some wording problems with the ordinance and I think we spend 2 hour:.
every other Wednesday night talking about this. We better revisit it
quickly . Actually we don't need to revisit it in time for this year but I
think in time for next year we really should have, we should really monito' I
and see what we're doing with our wetland protection ordinances because
there seem to be exceptions and confusions . I
Emmings: Well , maybe you throw lakeshore in there too as well as wetland .
Conrad: It becomes a big process. It 's not easy to get your hands around I
because you obviously affect people . There 's a lot of different
circumstances that have to be incorporated into the ordinance and tough to
do . Tim , any other comments on tonight's , Pat Lynch's conversation?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 27
Erhart: No , not on that specific although I agree with Steve . You know,
and I don 't know if we should be regulating land but when you weigh it
against everything else that we regulate in this city regarding wetlands
' and lakes and what not , it does seem like a loophole in the context of how
everything else we '-re so rigid on so I agree that we ought to be throwing
in that too because it kind of pretty much lies in the face of what we 're
talking about here tonight . Somebody could do that and yet we 're worrying
about a 4 foot wide strip of gravel so it doesn 't make a lot of sense . Are
you looking for some direction on this thing at this point?
' Conrad: Just comments . You know I think we brought this back because one ,
the applicants , the Engel 's were concerned that we may not have the right
standard and from what I 'm hearing , it may not be the right standard but
it 's a standard that 's more acceptable based on what we heard than maybe
what has been done with the applicant 's wetland permit .
Erhart: Let me throw something out that 's been haunting me I guess in the
' last year since I heard a speech by someone over at the Fresh Water
Institute at a meeting I attended and then I was intrigued by it and
discussed it with him later and I can't remember the name of the gentleman
' but he felt strongly that a community should essentially decide what a
lake 's purpose is . I 'm really opening this up so stop me if you think I 'm
getting dangerous .
Emmings: It 's to hold water isn 't it?
Erhart: Well you know we get into this environmental thing and wetland
preservation and trying to filter water and like that but then you say when
you go onto Lake Minnetonka and they 're constantly dredging and doing
everything that we wouldn 't allow in this city . That 's how the discussion
' got going and his basic feeling was you 've got to decide what the lake 's
for . If it 's a recreational lake , then maybe you have different rules on a
recreational lake than you do on a lake that you might designate a wild
lake or wilderness lake or something like that . Because on one hand I 'm
probably the most pro environmental and wetland preservation and creation
guy here but on the other hand , I can see where if I owned a lot on the
lake and I had some , what we term as wetland and what is that? Is it 2
foot wide? How do you know that a guy, what 's the difference between the
guy that 's got a 2 foot strip of wetland and can't build a dock through it
or the next guy who 's got 40 foot. Where do we draw the line? Well , we
' don 't really draw the line here. You know you look at the types of growth
you 've got there but there 's I 'll bet you half the lots in this city , if
you really were to look , really cut it fine , that there's a wetland between
his lot and the water . I don't know if you want to start, I mean some
people have sandy beaches but other people have weeds growing out on the
lake and so if you 're going to open, for a future meeting discuss whether
we have outhouses and Satellites and docks and landings and things , maybe
that 's something to think about . Whether we ought to have two different
types of lakes and two different standards depending on what we designate a
lake .
' Conrad: There are different classifications of lakes. In fact , I think
your point is well taken Tim but there are designations . Different
1
•
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 28 1.
designations of lakes based on DNR standards I believe which the City has
classified certain things in. A lot of the things that you find , and I 'm
playing with really old memory here is the DNR has a whole bunch of control
that I don 't know that we can get into . Yet those , I 'm not sure that we II
have the power in some cases to do some of the regulating that we may want
to and that 's frustrated a lot of people who were on the committees that we
formed, I don't know 7 years ago or whenever . H'ow many years ago it was .
lot of different circumstances and you listed a couple . A 2 foot strip
versus a 40 foot strip and it 's really arbitrary. There's so many
arbitrary things that , that 's why we bring the ONR in and some of the
experts in to take a look at certain lots on a site specific basis . I
think what Pat 's telling us in the particular case that brought him in here"
is probably that wetland over there and probably the issue is not a big one
as compared to some other major ones that we 're probably letting it go or I
haven't addressed in terms of water quality . Yet on the other hand we
just , you know you 've just got to have a standard and kind of live up to
that standard as arbitrary as that is . So I guess I 'm not answering it II very specifically but if we want to get back into this Tim , it 's almost a
separate committee where do we want to bring back the lake study committee
or the environmental protection committee and have them take a look at 5
years later . What 's happened? What was the intent? What were the
problems? Take a look at the variances. Not the variances but wetland
alteration permits that were processed . Take a good look at it and see if
there are interested people in the city and therefore try to update the
ordinance and incorporate some .
Erhart: Are you suggesting we should? II Conrad: It may not be a bad idea . It's like anything. You put any laws
in or you put any regulations or you have any kind of plan, it 's always
kind of fun to go back , especially because there 's nothing magic about whall
that ordinance . That ordinance was a mish mash. It was a politically
derived, I 'm not going to say it was a mish mash. The people on the
committee were not happy with it because it was watered down significantly
It was watered down to , it was simply not as strong as what they wished an
c�
I think it would be interesting to go back and see if we 've accomplished
anything with it other than making more paperwork.
Erhart: Your response to my discussion was that yeah, we have different II
categories of lakes. What I was trying to point out, even though there's
different categories of lakes , we treat them all the same in terms of our
standards and that's what I 'm saying is that maybe life isn't that simple. II
I 'm not suggesting that we open up this thing to review again. That's a
lot of work.
Conrad: You know I really buy what you're saying. As you know I live on
Lotus and Lotus is long and narrow and the ONR has certain restrictions in
terms of safety. Safety is 11 boats can be out on that lake at one time II
and I 'll guarantee you that on a long narrow lake, that 's not an effective
restriction or guideline . I think in a round lake that's big, 40 acres per
boat and whatever , may be an acceptable standard but I think there are justi
exceptions all over the board and I agree with you Tim. I just think it's
just something that we probably as a smaller city can't get our hands
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 29
I
around. I think it 's bigger than we are . But you know , I think in terms
of reviewing what we 've got , I think City staff has some concerns with the
ordinance . I think they can improve it . I think we can make it easier for
citizens to understand it . I think there 's a lot of things we can do with
' the ordinance and wouldn't mind figuring out how to bring it back and look
at it .
' Erhart: What is the staff looking for here tonight? Anything?
Olsen: You have to take action on the wetland alteration permit . They're
' requesting permission for the stone path. Action needs to be taken on
that.
Erhart: Are you opening that discussion?
' Conrad: Well , any other questions of Pat while he 's here or on the
ordinance in general? If not , then we should talk specifically about that
permit that we tabled and did not take action on . Jim , start at your end
in terms of the request .
Wildermuth: Well , the issue is how are we going to interpret our
' ordinance . Are we going to confine it to boardwalks or are we going to a
boardwalk and a gravel pad or a bark pad? Or are we going to require
adjacent lots to combine a path , whether it 's a board or a gravel path? I
guess that 's the decision we have to make . In terms of what is already
existing on this beachiot , I think I probably would have to abstain because
I belong to that association. That might be a hard decision that we have
to make for this situation .
Ellson: I 'm more worried about the precedence . We don't have gravel
anywhere and I 've seen it before and we 've already, you know have been
getting more and more of these issues lately. Thank God the Council 's
going to make the final decision and not me but I would go with the
boardwalk because of consistency and the way we 've treated everybody
' equally . I don 't want to make it case by case because we 'll turn the whole
thing into a mess. Everybody will come by, will say well my case is
special . Remember the one you did here . You allowed woodchips and I think
I 'm like that one or I think I 'm like the gravel one and I want. People
II will be designing theirs because we 're handling them case by case so I 'd
prefer to be consistent and again I 'm glad it will be the Council 's final
decision but .I 'm for the boardwalk.
' Emmings: My feeling is this. We tabled this because we had some
information given to us that a rock walkway was as good as an elevated
I boardwalk . We wondered whether or not that was in fact accurate. Fish and
Wildlife has written a letter that says that's not so. That a boardwalk is
preferred . The Corps of Engineers has said they would encourage boardwalks
and Pat Lynch told us tonight that in this particular situation, this
I particular lot, that the difference was negligible but that a boardwalk is
better . And so for all those reasons , I think we should stick with what
we 've done in the past and stick with the elevated boardwalk.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 30
Erhart: I would favor denial of the request to leave rock in there . Just
again to repeat everybody 's statement . I think I need to be consistent in "'
how we apply the ordinance and just because this has been put in here
illegally , I don 't think this is the least of reasons why we should allow '
it. Secondly, I guess in a practical sense, by the time you get the
equipment in to remove the stuff you 're going to remove , if you 're looking
at saving dollars , it 's a very small amount. I 'd like to be sensitive but
I just don't think there's that much difference between a 4 x 10 foot stria
by the time you start moving that stuff back out of there .
Conrad: Okay, thanks Tim. I. have nothing new to add. I think that those "
comments summarize my opinion. I think the only thing I would add, now
that I think about it is that we discuss the future of the wetland . Of our
permit process . I think we have to make that an agenda item and start 11 cleaning , maybe it 's not cleaning it up . Maybe it 's improving it . Maybe
it 's making it more understandable . Is there a motion?
Erhart: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Wetlanoll
Alteration Permit Request to allow a 4 ' wide by 42 ' long crushed rock pathll
through the Class A wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake .
Conrad: Is there a second? '
Emmings: Second .
Conrad: Any discussion?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
denial of Wetland Alteration Permit Request to allow a 4 foot side by 42
foot long crushed rock path through the Class A wetland adjacent to
Lotus Lake. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who abstained and the
motion carried.
Wildermuth: I would like to make one comment. I think if this is the way
we 're going to interpret the ordinance , we ought to have some kind of II length provision involved there because maintaining a log boardwalk is an
expensive proposition. A boardwalk is going to be relatively short lived
compared to a pathway . A specified pathway or a pathway built to
specifications and it 's going to require a lot of maintenance over time
compared with a path. I think there ought to be some kind of length
provision factored into the interpretation of the existing ordinance . Or
if the ordinance changes, then that could also be incorporated into that .
Erhart.: Right now Jim we have no reference to a boardwalk in the ordinance
at all . This is something that we 've just kind of conjured up as we've I
gone along here . We have precedence but it's not really in the ordinance
is it?
Olsen: Right . '
Emmings: Right now they just can't alter the wetland. They can't put
anything . '
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 31
Erhart: Yeah , but we 've allowed boardwalks .
Conrad: I think they 've gone over 100 feet haven 't they?
' Erhart: What we ought to do , if that 's where we 're going , then we ought to
reference boardwalks perhaps in our ordinance and suggest that that 's
what . . .
' Wildermuth: Haven't we allowed a . . .pathway at times?
' Conrad: Not to my knowledge . When it was grandfathered in , we allowed it .
But to my knowledge Jim, we 've never created one since the ordinance has
been in there . And you know , it 's one of those I 'm more concerned on the
' precedent than anything else because I really don't think , in this
particular case we 're talking about as we 've been saying . I don 't think
that 's a major impact on this . It 's just that I don 't know what the
precedent means . I think it would really open us up for a lot of legal
' hassles on any future wetland alteration permit process . And therefore we
wouldn 't have an ordinance anymore and that 's my biggest concern . That 's
one of those things where you say geez , I wish we could interpret some of
these things in different ways and unfortunately the ordinance is the
ordinance in this one. This will go to City Council August 27th . Thank
you for coming in . Thank you for attending .
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA WEST OF LOTUS GARDEN
CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET, REDMOND
' PRODUCTS.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item .
' Conrad: Okay , thanks Jo Ann . The applicant is here and would like to make
some comments , we would entertain that.
' Bob Cordell : I 'm Bob Cordell from Redmond Products . I just want to clear
up one slight bit of confusion on it . I think both Jay and for our
purposes we would prefer the gravel . That's where we came from the
beginning because it's a temporary situation. It is less expensive for us
to put in in a temporary situation and it is the type of surface that Jay
would prefer . Going to a blacktop surface of course would cost quite a bit
' more to put in and then we have to incur the additional cost of removing
the blacktop to restore it back to the situation that Jay would prefer to
have . He wants the property for plantings and not for parking so we felt
that in our original plan, that if we had an adequate graveled surface ,
rolled gravel surface that it would suffice for our purposes. Our short
term purposes and also provide a space when we left that is adequate for
Jay 's expansion .
•
' Conrad: Jo Ann , how does that?
Olsen: Well we understand you know why they would prefer gravel but we
have to look at it from the maintenance point and we have to look at the
long term . What it does with the wetland nearby. I guess I 'll have
•
'�•∎•• Q, ,y,,., ?AI�__�
%\1 United States Department of the Interior Ate: 1
,. immii
. Q mommommumm
7 -0'
F
immommummil
ISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE = ; I
4,..3 .' ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES)
50 Park Square Court
IN REPLY REFER TO 400 Sibley Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
II
SPFO
July 16, 1990
I
Mr. Don Chmiel , Mayor
II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I
Dear Mr. Chmiel :
This letter responds to a inquiry for your planning staff regarding I
recommendations for access across wetlands and shallow water habitats to boat
docks and related facilities.
There are three basic methods for crossing such sites, and these include II
boardwalks supported on piles, floating boardwalks, and gravel filled pads or
berms. Of these, the method most preferred is the boardwalk on piles. While
II
this method will partially shade-out dense vegetation underneath, the area
covered is still providing basic wetland values and it does not adversely
•
affect the hydrology at the site. Floating boardwalks completely eliminate
vegetation underneath and cause the loss of related wetland values, but do not
II
impact other wetland values such as storm water storage and nutrient
assimilation. Further, floating boardwalks do not normally alter the
hydrology at a site. I
Walkways or other accesses constructed of gravel , sand, or earthen fill to
make a pad that remains dry and free of wetland vegetation is the least I
desirable method. The wetland values associated with the area covered by the
fill are completely lost, and such structures can alter the hydrology of the
site and thus adversely impact adjacent wetlands and waters.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide information for your planning II
purposes. If we can be of further assistance, please contact this office
directly. I
Sincerely,
- ie.
/
., 0-, o' 4.- II
James L. Smith II
le'
Acting Field Sup- isor
cc: Ted Rockwell, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, St. Paul ,
M : O iy CCv.c.) ,4___
£p41 /9.5-A4w 7 4-4L
P Ai, L kR-At-)s5 1
' Policy on Access through Wetland
July 23 , 1990
' Page 3
staff on what the City's policy on wetland alteration should be,
how strongly should it be enforced and when, if ever, is compromise
acceptable. In light of the City's past background on matters of
this sort and reluctance to establish a new precedent in advance of
completing a comprehensive wetland study, staff is recommending
that an elevated boardwalk be required.
1
I
i
I
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 7777
METRO REGION WATERS 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE NO. 296-7523 FILE NO.
July 12, 1990 I
Ms. JoAnn Olsen
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Olsen: ,
RE: WETLANDS REGULATION
I 've received and revised the minutes of the June 20, 1990 Planning r
Commission meeting regarding wetland alteration at Lotus Lake. As
you know, I have been involved in the wetland fill issue with the
City, Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Mr. Steve Frost, and Mr.
Robert Pfankuch since January, 1989. The Department has come to
agreement with the landowners as to reasonable restoration that
fulfills DNR requirements, although the restoration agreed upon has
not yet been completed.
In reviewing the meeting minutes, I found the issues being
considered both assorted and somewhat confusing, to the degree that
I will not attempt to address them all in writing. I 'm inclined to
accept your offer to attend the August 1 meeting and share the DNR
perspective with you and the Commission, as it appears you may be
receiving mixed signals. Wetland regulation and jurisdiction is
typically administered by federal , state, and local units of
government. Not always are the goals and regulations of all
governing bodies compatible.
I will be present at the August 1 meeting prepared to discuss our
role in shoreland regulation, and to discuss the pros and cons of
assorted water access options. Until that time, I 'm including with
this letter several copies of a DNR document which briefly explains
our role. Please distribute these to the Commission members for
review so that they can present any questions they may have.
11
I
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
' r
' JoAnn Olsen
July 12, 1990
Page Two
' As you are aware, I no longer work with the Carver County area, but
am committed to seeing this issue resolved to the satisfaction of
all parties involved. I trust many of the issues and questions can
be once and for all resolved in the very near future, and am anxious
to assist in any capacity I can. I look forward to seeing you on
the 1st. If you have questions or require additional information
prior to that, please let me know.
i
17cer ly,
�
Pat Lync
Area Hydrologist
PL125:kap
' Enclosure
cc : Steve Frost
Bob Pfankuch
Dr. Charles Hirt
I
i
I
. 1
NM = MI - M • w • • NM i ■� I • - - - - r
Er Department of Natural Resources
State of Minnesota • These projects will tot require permits from the DNR provided all listed conditions are met:
io Wa Pty flagman
Beach Sated Blankets
WORK THAT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT •Clean,Inorganic sand or gravel free of pollutants and nutrients.
ATEDATERS •No more than 6 inches thick,50 feet wide along the shore or one-half the lot width(whichever is
PERMIT •
less),and 10 feet waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark.
•Local watershed district and zoning officials given at least 7 days prior notice.
Any project constructed below the ordinary high water mark •Site is not a posted fish spawning area.
(OHW),which alters the course, •Installation of sand or gravel may only be repeated once at same location,not exceeding same amount
current,or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands,is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction and dimensions of the original sand blanket
of the Department of Natural Resources.For lakes and wetl ands,the OHW is the highest water Rock Riprap protection) •
level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of ffine to leave evidence� c P (ace shore s diameter o
•Natural rock
landscape.The OHW is commonly that point where the natural only.feet least 12 inches eiOrdina Ordinary larger.
vegetation changes from •No more than 5 feel waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark
predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.For watercourses,the 01-1W is the elevation •Conforms to natural alignment of shore and does not obstruct flow of water.
of the top of the bank of the channel.For reservoirs and llorlAtgea,the OHW s the operating •Minimum finished slope no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical).
elevation of the normal summer pool." •Site is not a posted fish spawning area,designated trout stream,nor along the shores of Lake
Superior.
Stream's With a Watershed Less Than 5 Square Miles (3,200 acres).
Fool •.� NOT TO SCALE •No permit is required to construct a bridge or culvert,or to fill or excavate the bed of a protected
��, watercourse having a total drainage area,at its mouth,of 5 square miles or less,provided:
Pr
-.: .. OHW ordinary High Water Mark)for Bonita -County zoning officials and local Soil and Water Conservation District are given at least 7 days
,r • State Jurisdiction extends waterward pros notice and determine the
%`'" of OHW The paler t not result to downstream erosion or sedimentation.
project wriU rot divert the water to a different watershed.
-The project will not impound water by damming the watercourse.
q.np.ot.atwt.wt -The watercourse is not an officially designated trout stream.
' auctu•tion win
woiarsw.t•tsrr Debris Removal
Record Ordinary High Water Level •No permit is required to remove debris such as trees,logs,stumps
water level
alignment,slope o:cross section of the lake,marsh or stream bed is not altered as the original
i i t / Average Water Level Rep, Systems
Public Drainage Systes
Cattail,Bulrush,Sedges Record low •No permit is required
and other aquatic vegetation e9 to re pair a lawfully established public drainage system(Judicial Ditch,
water level County Ditch,etc.)provided:
-The repair complies with the definition set forth in Minnesota Statutes,Section 106A.701,
Subdivision 1(Public Ditch Law).
Some projects will not require permits from the Department of Natural Resources if terrain -The repair does not affect significant fish and wildlife habitat or protected vegetation(such as
conditions are met.However,local units of government and other agencies,such as the U.S. state or federal wildlife management areas,designated scientific and natural areas,etc.)
- Corps of Engineers,may still require permits for these projects.Projects within the beds of Seasonal Docks and Floating Structures
protected waters and wetlands not listed here require permits from the Department of Natural •Removed from water on a seasonal basis(before winter freeze-up).
Resources.
•All components removable from lake or stream bed by nonmechanized means.
•Will not be a hazard to navigation or endanger public health and safety.
The information in this brochure describes work that can be donewalcrnard of(below)the ordinary high •Site is not a posted fish spawning area.
water mark without•protected waters permit. However,any wort done landward of(above)the •Will not include fuel handling or sewage facilities.
ordinary water mark is •Is not used or intended to be used for human habitation,as a boathouse or as a marina.
ry high subject to approval from the local unit of government's zoning authority. •Allows for free flow of water beneath it.
Contact the local zoning authority for the requirements for projects done landward of the ordinary high
water mark Permanent Docks (on lakes only)
BEFORE ANY PROJECT, •Dock is a single linear structure not more than 6 feet wide.
your local conservation officer or the Regional •Does not exceed 50 feet in length,or extend into water that is more than 4 feet deep,whichever
Hydrologist by writing or phoning the appropriate regional office.Any work exceeding the above is less.
conditions and/or any work in protected waters without a permit is a violation constituting a •No more than one dock per waterfront lot.
•Site not not obstruct d navigation n ng create a water safety hazard.
misdemeanor and is punishable imposition of fines up to$700 and/or 90 days in jail.If there •Site is not a posted fish spawning area.
is any question w&ther or not a particular lake,marsh,or stream is a protected water or •Will not include fuel handling or sewage facilities.
wetland,copies of the DNR Protected Waters map are available for public inspection at all DNR •Is not used or intended to be used for human habitation,as a boathouse,or as a marina.
regional and area offices,local Soil and Water Conservation District offices,and the •Allows for free flow acof res water larger if beneath it.
,p Auditor's office. County •Lake must be 500 acres or larger i(dock is built on wood pilings.
2,500 acres or larger,and site must preclude the use of a dock on wood pilings if
dock is built on filled me
••-Coot to ether aids
. i• I3� / 3 A; zE.0 ") (1.1002 a tiEi Z S' cntnn if -ag—i Pe
R-re5 gauss .. -#. � � 3 2.3 ~ g_ g rim ; 5-gx re - or,y, ! I
EN t� � I gg 0 �
E ai 1iiF st • lif TAN l fA 23 ^ lA i nil. iIr- ; n et d1Vd �-c t it
o ;. if ! _ 3 fl3 gm b i a s ' i> > 1, g
0 ¢ 5 a s _*_o ri 3 or jilt ,,Ti a c o 3
115 g iii ...,26[[ A Ibblilu of 1 3 -R �_ i I! ! tm
182 ; to r [Mr tg• 13tLr.2:2 ,,fl, ' dal �r a. e ` IR $ 9� �'
I cc"=, 2.2. 1 i4 i it le 1 . 7 1* EXi itT: 1 pa ;: 194i -64.
j g s I 2 i E liii g 8 € A" s p 2T Q �r ?" 2c g
toy a� t R fit Q
I 7 .4 r ;( litaf 1 I - R
9. ot q 1 a 1 t ..., 1. g B.
11 a8 tiS Jr
a `� a s1
3 a 11 A
d �. 3 a$
co,
L
�, a 5 a &s
Q I a. r
2 2 it f z k
I
•
III For additional information and assistance.
contact the appropriate Regional Office or the
Division of Waters in St.Paul.
:.. 1
---rM
I • 1 -.-
--r"--- i--- — MINNESOTA
DE
-�i DEPARTMENT OF
` ;