Loading...
8. Wetland Permit for a Dock in a Class A 745 Pleasant View Road g i4,1i C ITY O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 18, 1989 C.C. DATE: Nov. 13, 1989 \����I .! Y CHANHASSEN IICASE NO: 89-7 WAP Prepared by: Olsen/v II I STAFF REPORT I PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit to Install a Dock IWithin a Class A Wetland I- Z • 4 VLOCATION: 745 Pleasant View Road and Tract B, RLS #13 Q APPLICANT: Jeff and Norma May 1 745 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 I IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family IACREAGE: 1 acre • DENSITY: Action by City Administrator I ADJACENT ZONING Endorsed K/a AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family Modified-- —... Rejecter IS- Lotus Lake Date LL / -k S , 5 Date Submitted to Commission Lmr E- RSF; single family I Dale Submitted to Councq 0 W- RSF; single family //-& -e? W WATER AND SEWER: Available I Emm PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The subject site has a steep slope which levels off adjacent to Lotus I Lake and contains a Class A wetland. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential I ' I ra I i- I' CASCADE R CASTL OGEE? CASCADE '4 I 1 I N PIN COUNTY COURT 7 CIRCLE - 0 1 • ^m,'1,. , Hi' , SHASTA :IRCLE / - �� Vr/r//! a WELT 'WSW' - SHASTA -1RCLC - - - T•: ' IN: 0 11. EAST ►/ 1 %^ 9c,, •. •'1`/`I OLYMPIC CIRCLE �, R e�©t j .• �►. 9°�',•:�► 6300 _� � IRE . . . 7#4 rait- tv:* CIRLE. f. ' �•�� �j` aiI CASTCOURT 10GYE la ����' \rlc�` '' ���II=:11!11■ , 6400 . ,/��f� � • re . .. 1��'HUNTERS S� , ` � ' 1 � FOX HOLLOMI! �� , , ^\% � 'I����� '�',�.!��`�� �• DRIVE MI ter. , A. FOXTAIL ' ;c1 .'' - - Vit f-7: I ' I COURT :;, , V ��: 6600 Kw& �w i .. ` � ,,'' I `! - 1 6700 IT-77:1 ‘ M.c. i ( ..�� •a bra i :,♦ u iii` K�~' f • RD , ., It70 -seoo r. ■ - f,.... _-/ -__ __________ • . ,---a � �� S J - 4141E, = 6900 17.7.111.m !� ■ I L O T V _•- . 4ke. ' az""rm'rz•%. • - .. .,....■ . ' ii"letts% -.' % ' -, iv%l,io*c7,i iC��'i ig, RY ' \ . \ )l� 's. dI 7000 . k$ . I 1.,c 411 \ 4 RWS19"3 I la 7100 ter\ -. �� , `v6., \Foi,. ...:::���LI!"i �� ,;,+ktia. , m.•" , ..,�•►\. .,.""ii� SHAD0WMERE� • . ,lei Ira- =■ -3� � ^?isell. < l �0 7200 � �3 S � IIIIMIIIM ��.I. �t x.40 ��st.,;\. L AKE ©M44'l mei'it 'ail .‘ .$0" .gA ilik%.444,41? ti-upwAi -s-Iiiiii .'' WHIN num; -- -- or '/----- !Ts... , r ier, 7,., W /011) ... - MU 41j 6,0 (.... .1r -.wpm ;LI: alrean lidlik_ ttr:dtle --s - `� `— R120 i►� z�+ "" f�_ '�'=fir ���e 00,47104,,Irt �"� a�5„.-,i-p-;: .rouvrair IFf UP.- LI.N - ch ‘ co I§ V.iikieitZa ri f Irgig,tiam - , . ai. orirrIVII• .f■� i, ,. ! 14 ou Emir , �! T.d "., . . , . ''0 . e2,-.0 _ _ - rr FIE rr. Sri �= ��' . . / . • �C iW �C1 i/�;�" < W air: Nip �`_ ,. 11118111 ".549:3�1 , -1- = 77TH ST ET 1 !J u%� _, itr . n f`j'�'ll ' / m rnm \ May Wetland Alteration Permit October 18, 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-71 Non-Conforming Uses states that any lawful use of I a building or land existing on February 19, 1987, may be con- tinued although such use does not conform with the provisions of this chapter. Except as otherwise provided, non-conforming uses , shall not be extended or enlarged. Section 20-75 Restoration states that a non-conforming use building or structure which has been damaged to the extent of more than 50% may not be restored. A non-conforming use, building or structure which is damaged to a lesser degree may be restored and its previous use continued provided that restoration is completed within one year following its damage and no enlarge- ment occurs. BACKGROUND , During the summer of 1989, staff visited the subject property with Mr. May. Mr. May had contacted staff to find out if any permits were required for installation of steps on Outlot B to provide access to the property. Upon visiting the site staff confirmed with the applicant that he would be permitted to install steps down the steep sloped area of Outlot B if the area of alteration was limited to outside the wetland and that clear- cutting did not occur. Staff explained that the underbrush and smaller trees could be cleared but that anything over 4" caliper and 4 feet in height could not be removed. Staff also stated to the applicant that adjacent to Lotus Lake was a Class A wetland 11 which was protected by the City. Staff stated that it appeared that the edge of the wetland ended at the bottom of the slope and that any alteration to this area would require a wetland altera- tion permit. ' Later in the summer, while staff was visiting an adjacent prop- erty, it was noted that the steps had been installed and it appeared that new fill had been applied to a path through the wetland and a new dock had been was installed. Staff contacted Mr. May stating that a wetland alteration permit would be required for the alterations that had taken place on the site (Attachment #1) . Staff met with the applicant and July 18, 1989, and provided the wetland alteration permit application and other materials to apply for installation of the dock and access to the dock through the Class A wetland. Staff again spoke with the applicant on July 31, 1989, when the applicant questioned whether a wetland alteration permit was actually required. Staff explained that the existing dock was a legal non-conforming structure which could remain in use to replace the dock ( install a new dock) a wetland alteration permit would be required since it is a :new structure which must comply with existing regula- tions (Attachment #2) . I May Wetland Alteration Permit October 18, 1989 Page 3 In September, 1989 , staff sent a certified letter to the applicant ' requesting that the application for the wetland alteration permit be submitted by October 9 , 1989. The applicant submitted the application by September 25, 1989, deadline. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to allow the installation of a dock through a Class A wetland and to main- tain an existing path through the Class A wetland. The subject property is Tract B of RSL #13 which is located on the north side ' of Lotus Lake. The applicant lives on the property located directly north of Tract B. The two parcels are divided by Tract D which serves as private drive for the surrounding properties . ° The applicant has interest in Tract D and the tracts serve as one parcel, including the applicant' s residence. The applicant has replaced an existing dock located on Tract B with a 120 ' x 5 ' dock. The applicant has access to the dock through a 179' long by 5 foot wide path through the Class A wetland. The new dock is located directly over the remaining structure of the existing dock. The 5 foot wide path through the wetland to the dock has been in existence for several years. The applicant has recently placed a thin layer of new fill over the path to improve the accessibility of the path. Attachment #4 illustrates the dock, path, edge of cattails and ordinary high water mark. There is wetland vegetation beyond the ' cattails . Staff is using the ordinary high water mark at the edge of the wetland. The existing pathway is located in the most northerly third of the Class A wetland and the dock is located through the remaining portion of the wetland. In the past, the City has permitted wetland alteration permits to install a dock or boardwalk through a wetland to gain access to a lake. Typically, the dock/boardwalk has been placed from the edge of the wetland to the open water. In the case of this application, the ground level path existed prior to the wetland ' ordinance and can continue to be used. The path cannot be extended or enlarged. Rather then use wood chips to maintain the path, staff would recommend the path be seeded with some form of low growing vegetation to reduce runoff and impacts to the wetland. The path can be mowed but should not be fertilized. RECOMMENDATION rSince the new dock is located over the existing dock and is not altering additional amount of wetland, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated September 27 , 1989, and subject to the following conditions : May Wetland Alteration Permit October 18, 1989 • Page 4 ' 1. The path shall be seeded with low growing vegetation and shall not be widened beyond 5 feet. 2 . The path may be mowed but shall not be fertilized. 3 . Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland shall require a wetland alteration permit. " PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION I The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland 11 alteration permit with staff' s recommended conditions and added the following: 4 . The portion of the dock that is within the wetland will be a permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated September 27, 1989, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The existing path shall be seeded with low growing vegetation 1 and shall not be widened beyond 5 feet. 2 . The path may be mowed but shall not be fertilized. 1 3 . Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland shall require a wetland alteration permit. ' 4 . The portions of the dock that is within the wetland will be a permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated July 24 , 1989 . ' 2. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated August 2 , 1989 . 3 . Letter from applicant dated September 26 , 1989 . 4 . Site plan of subject property dated September 27, 1989. 5. Letter from DNR dated September 6 , 1989 . 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 18, 1989. r I 11 11 CITY OF \ CHANHASSEN v' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 July 24, 1989 Mr. and Mrs. Jeff May 745 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. and Mrs. May: ' This is to confirm our conversation of Tuesday, July 18, 1989, in which you received materials for the wetland alteration permit application. It is my understanding that you will be submitting an application, in the near future, for a wetland alteration per- mit for the installation of a dock and an access to the dock on Lotus Lake. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v cc: Don Ashowrth Scott Harr Roger Knutson 11 I I I i CITY OF ''i , ._, . „. CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 •• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II (612) 937-1900 li II August 2, 1989 II Mr. and Mrs. Jeff May 1 745 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Dear Mr. and Mrs. May: During our most recent phone conversation on Monday, July 31, 1989, I II stated that I would send you a copy of our zoning ordinance con- cerning the non-conforming uses to further explain our reasoning for requiring you to receive a wetland alteration permit for the II installation of your dock. Section 20-75, titled Restoration, states that no non-conforming use, building or structure which has been damaged by fire, explosion, flood, act of God, or other calamity to the extent of more than 50% of its assessed market value may be II restored. A non-conforming use, building or structure which is damaged to a lesser degree may be restored and its previous use con- tinued or resumed provided that restoration is completed within one II year following its damage and no enlargement occurs. The dock that originally was located on your site was in such disre- pair that it needed to be replaced and the replacement did not take II place within one year. Therefore, the dock that was installed to replace the original dock must conform with the new City Code. Specifically, the new dock must conform with the Wetland Ordinance II which protects the Class A wetland located within your property adja- cent to Lotus Lake. The Wetland Ordinance prohibits a dock being placed within a wetland unless a wetland alteration permit is II received from the city. Also, any alteration to the wetland for access to the dock, such as filling, still requires a wetland altera- tion permit. II The original dock was "grandfathered in" , but the new dock was not and needs to receive the wetland alteration permit. The fact that Iyou are replacing an existing dock and will not be further altering the wetland then what has taken place in the past helps your request for a wetland alteration permit. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 1 Sincerely, Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner II cc: Don Ashworth 1 CITY TF CHANHASSEN 04441°11 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 September 21, 1989 CERTIFIED ' Mr. Jeff May 745 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Dear Mr. May: The city has not yet received an application for a wetland alteration permit for the location of your dock within the Class A wetland on the north side of Lotus 'Lake. Our last correspon- dence left it that you would in the near future make such an application. Since the city has not yet received an application we are taking this opportunity to remind you that the application is still necessary and that the application should be submitted by October 9, 1989. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ' Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v cc: Don Ashowrth Scott Harr Dave Hempel' '77 0,41 Roger Knutson- 4P I I I Jeff and Norma nay 1 745 Pleasant View ?toad Chanhassen, 91N 55317 I (612) 470-1975 1 September 26, 1989 I Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Dear Ms. Olsen: The attached application for location of our dock within a wetland area is in 111 response to our previous discussions on this subject and in response to your letters of July 24 and August 2, as well as your recent certified letter of Septem- I ber 21, 1989. If you will recall our last verbal discussion, I had indicated that I would be out of the country for much of August, and traveling the first part of September, and that I would submit our application during the latter part of the I month. It was not our intention to dodge the issue, despite the fact that I am admittedly having a difficult time understanding the city's intent. I want to mention a few factors in relation to the application and our request I for a permit. As you know, the dock has been installed since April of 1989, replacing an existing dock. It was not our intention to violate a city ordinance, and it is certainly not our intent to do anything that would prove to be harmful to the wetland environment. We put the dock over an existing dock that had deteriorated from neglect by the previous owner. We did not put the dock in a I new area or in any way over space that the previous dock did not occupy. It was not and is not our intention to do anything to the wetland area that was not previously established. In talking with local residents, they and we concluded I that the dock privilege was grandfathered. One of the reasons that we bought the property was that it is lakefront that has been in use for many years. I want to reiterate that we did not realize that the city view would be that we were defil- I ing the wetland area. To the contrary, we have spent a considerable amount of time and money restoring the physical appearance of this property, both for our own, and we hope, the enjoyment of others. This was the original farm property in the area (the house having been built in 1869), and it is easily veiwed from the lake. i I would now like to point out several other factors that I believe are pertinent to the city's review. I I I I 1. The pathway to the dock somehow became an issue when I spread a light coating of dirt on the path to fill some ruts which I considered to be hazardous after I tripped and fell. I believe that the city in viewing the area interpretated this as filling in a wetland area. The city asked the DNR to view the area. Unfortunately, however, I was not notified that this would occur and consequently was not present at the site . during their first visit. I received a letter of concern from the DNR ' which I responded to. At my request, the DNR returned to the site and readily determined that the land under the dirt that I had spread was ' in fact a raised area of land comprised of black dirt which has been the existing path to the dock for years and did not in fact constitute a fill of the wetland. Additionally, the previous owner is prepared to sign an affadavit and/or be present at any city meeting to testify that the path was there when they purchased the property 25 years ago. The previous owner as well as several current and previous area resi- dents are willing to verify the existence of the path and dock over the ' years. 2. Another point of interest is that, over the objection of the previous owner, the city installed a sewer line across the area in question, causing the property to become "soggy". I am not pointing this out ' because I object to the sewer line, but only as a consideration of rea- sonableness when determining whether our application is out of line with the city's intent in wetland preservation. I hope that the city will favorably consider our application. Sincerely, /0, ' Jeff May cc: Don Ashworth Scott Harr Dave Hempel ' Roger Knutson Jeff and Norma May 745 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 r I r I 938„21 e. . x4 t 1 cell.7:✓. � t' �,,1 9400.9/ �� 0 / 91 �41� 1•' ,,Y1 RR / 'fr' .• ��itf , 41• ••{ •6 46' .--125" ) i +.. f i ;. o y 5 s4 ' d. 937.21 �,9n j i I t 0 M - / 2,14 9/8.7s VIA 9 1 AV• \ if qt 921.64 0 J 922.83 , t wt 932..!I 9.Sx„ p y ' 9,sr Si I - 929111t!..... /t+ 902.41 3N 9 j 9 L.ol / e !29x!5 - • 9'31 5 922 , 921 �N 921 2; ��. ` y' 920 642:•2 C.J 9 2 O I s4 \ a t -i \ 120.• oift li .s7t,ce '^ 9, 1Hr H // p eg v/9.xa //4�0 �: I 902<83 fin` E q0 op B98t 9' !033,94 (� ai'`'r 9 , 2 et � �9„ , / ck'"•,4 s Y 9,0x92 — 1 = 898x39 8 97x80 OP ,y9 t ‘IiII(8 if'. . N1vj� 897x18 �' `•• / #104 ad ea tl- a, !'.' >y. e r . ' • 1'Y 7... • 8!84 49. 894©72 / • 0.6- soni�•y Se ,41° i . 7 AftPL,,% ,,,, .„,.... . 4, . c, 8994 22 `V a f9• 4 4. I \ V.* ' ..e,A u. '4 "% 1 I, r e ' I I . z� I (clog 1 I STATE OF ,�JNINNESOT A DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES �0 METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 u/ PHONE NO. 296-7523 FILE NO. September 6, 1989 I Mr. Jeffrey May 745 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' RE: V90-6030, LOTUS LAKE (10-6) , CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Mr. May: ' This letter is to confirm actions taken and matters discussed in our August 31, 1989 meeting. Neighbors Pete Thielen and Mike Clark were also present during portions of the meeting. Representative locations were dug and pictures taken along the strip which had allegedly been filled below the ordinary high water mark (OHW) . A fairly clear delineation between new fill and original ground was discernible. Based on the soil conditions and the fact that an old dock had been maintained at the end of the raised area, we have determined that the strip of land in question was higher than the OHW before additional fill was placed. Therefore, no fill activity occurred below the OHW and there is no violation of DNR rules. We believe it would be advisable to plant low-growing vegetation to protect the path from erosion. A few inches of wood chips would also be acceptable. Even though a DNR permit is not needed for this work, you still must comply with all rules, regulations and requirements of all applicable agencies and units of government. Thank you for your cooperation and patience in resolving this matter. Please call me at 296-7523 should you have any questions regarding our findings. Sincerely, C Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Ken Harrell, USCOE S. Walter, C.O. _ Bob Obermeyer, Barr Engineering J. Fax, St. Paul Waters JoAnn Olsen, City of Chanhassen Lotus Lake (10-6) file 1 C147:kap AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER SE P 0 8 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: JEFFREY J. MAY OWNER: JEFFREY J. MAY ' ADDRESS 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD. ADDRESS 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN,MN. 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN. I Zip Code 55317 Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) i,7% 1810 TELEPHONE SAME REQUEST: TO INSTALL A DOCK OVER AN EXISTING DOCK ON LAND OJi MY PROPERTY THIS AREA IS CLASSED BY THE. CITY AS Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development CLASS A ETLAND. Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan XXX Zoning Variance XXXX Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting ' Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review XXXXX Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME REPLACE EXISTING DOCK IN DISREPAIR PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION CLASS "A" WETLAND _PRIVATE ' REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION DOCK PLACEMENT & ACCESS PRESENT ZONING CLASS "A" WETLAND -PRIVATE PROPERTY ' REQUESTED ZONING SAME WITH APPROVAL FOR DOCK AND ACCESS USES PROPOSED FAMILY RECREATIONAL SIZE OF PROPERTY 1 ACRE LOCATION SEE EXHIBIT "A" AND EXHIBIT "B" PARCEL B REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST IS TO REPLACE A DOCK FOR PRIVATE USE. I DOCK IS 120 FEET LONG OF WHICH 2OFEET IS TO ACCOMODATE A BOAT. THE MAJORITY OF THE RUN IS OVER THE WETLAND AREA.THE PATH IS ONE WHICH IS ON A STRIP OF HIGH GROUND AND WHICH HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) MANY YEARS . SEE EXHIBIT "A" AND "B" ATTACHED. I City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : ' 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 filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: ' The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural- requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . 1 Signed By Date lop,c26, /?I ' Ap lint _ The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. 11 Signed By Date Fee Owner Date Application Received Application Fee Paid City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered by the Planning Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their Commission/ meeting. I WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT EVALUATION WORKSHEET To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application 11 (Attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION: ' Size: SF.F RYHTRIT "A" AND "B" Class: "_A" Type: WETLAND AREA ON NORTH END OF LOTUS LAKE Location: Lakeside //xx Streamside Upland ' Watershed District: Area of Open Water: , Drainage Flows To: Vegetation Types: Soil Types: ' 2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: REPLACE EXISTING DOCK AND IF POSSIBLE SPREAD A FEW INCHES OF WOOD CHIPS ALONG HIGH LAND PATH AS PRfPOSRD BY THE DNR(SEE ATTACHED LETTER) .DOCK IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE NO DISRUPTION ' TO THE WETLAND AREA.MODERATE PRIVATE USE IS PLANNED. 3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: FAMILY RECREATION BASED ON FISHING BOAT USE. 4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: ' 5 . A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO ALTERATION IS MADE: OCCUPANT WILT• NOT BF ABLE TO UTTTTZF 1 THE PROPERTY AS TNTEILD_Rl WHEN TvE PROPERTY WAS PTIR(,HASFTI_ I I 5 . B. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND ALTERATION: NONE IDENTIFY C• ALTERATION: ADVANTAGES US OF ROPERTY A V il 1� f 1F7 DO UAHL TPYROPOSED UPGRADE IN LINE WITH OTHER QUALITY UPGRADES DONE ON THIS PROPERTY TO IMPROVE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT. 1 b . USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: —2- 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 2 out and look at that. They have no concerns at all as indicated in some letters that we have. Our intention is to have a small motor boat . We have it there now. A small 14 foot fishing boat with a small motor on it so my son can use it to fish. That' s all we actually intended to use. Steve Decateur: . . .weeds? Jeff May: That' s not determined yet . We don' t want to do anything that' s going to do anything negative to the area. What we did when we had the boat there is we simply created a path by the action of the prop going through the weeds. Now the DNR did tell us that if we wanted to that we could ask them to treat a path probably 5 feet wide or 10 feet wide, enoug; to run the boat through if we wanted to do that. They would have no problem with that. I have not asked for that. We' re pretty sensitive about that area. We just want to get access to a small motor boat so we can use it for that purpose. Mainly fishing . We don' t intend to have a large power boat in there to waterski . We just want to have access to and from the edge of that land so we can fish . Conrad: Any other comments? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Steve Decateur: Can I address the commission on a general topic related ti this? I 'm curious what kind of precedent might be established. There are adjacent lots in Fox Chase area and I 'm assuming additional requests will come through. I 'm concerned that by looking at that one case we not disturb that end of the lake to any great degree. There' s already been. . . '— We' re not adding greatly to it. Is there any intent on the part of the Council to establish a policy for what additional applications might be expected for similar kind of development on the lake? i, Conrad: Jo Ann, in writing the staff report, basically in a Class A wetland, which this is, docks are not permitted? Olsen: Without a permit. Without the wetland alteration permit. Conrad: Yeah, without a permit but basically they are not allowed. Olsen: You have allowed them in the past and what we've always done is try• to minimize the disturbance whereas we typically, even like in this case, we would have required a boardwalk to go through the wetland all the way td" the open water rather than a path. When we have the opportunity, when we have a new subdivision and there' s a wetland, we usually prohibit at that point, will prohibit any docks going through that wetland but what' s happening now is there's lots of existing lots along where in the past we have allowed them under circumstances with the least disturbance to the wetland. As far as Fox Chase, there' s a conservation easement all along there and they do not have any right. I think there' s one dock. There' s like 4 lots that can share one dock. Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 Page 3 11 Steve Decateur : So it can' t be. . . Olsen: Not on Fox Chase. Wildermuth: Was that done at the time of the subdivision? Olsen: Yes. And that's right when the wetland alteration. . . Wildermuth: Process was installed? Olsen: Ordinance. That' s when we had more control than lots that already existed. 11 Steve Decateur : Is there a penalty and enforcement situation should somebody develop without knowledge of the easement and what would be the intent at that point should that occur? Olsen: If Fox Chase did something like that? Steve Decateur : If it happens to be in any wetland that would apply to the wetland policy. Olsen: The oridnance now requires to double the application fee plus there can be a misdemeanor and fine. The Council has the power to have them remove whatever has been installed and to restore the wetland . 11 Conrad: Did we allow a dock out on Minnewashta? Dan Hertz? Did we allow that? Emmings: For each lot. Five. Conrad: We gave them access? Emmings: They had permanent docks through the wetland and then temporary, seasonal docks from the edge of the wetland out, if I remember right. Olsen: Right. They have boardwalks through the wetland part. Emmings: Essentially a permanent dock to the end of the wetland. Olsen: I think they only had four . Two of the lots had to share. 11 Emmings: That rings a bell . Conrad : Was that an A wetland? Must have been. rEmmings: That's the one I thought of when I thought about this one. Steve Decateur : I hate to dredge up old business but . . . Emmings: Don' t say dredge. i 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 October 18, 1989 - Page 4 I Steve Decateur: I 'm sorry. But on the east end of the lake there I know was an issue and to my knowledge it' s not been resolved for wetlands disturbed brought up to the Council ' s attention. Planning Commission' s II attention and I'm interested, as long as we' re discussing it, finding out where that situation is. I 'm not objecting . I understand one person and 11 you obviously have a process and this gentleman has gone through the process. That doesn't create a problem but I have a problem with people who flagrantly go ahead and destroy the wetland. It was brought to the attention of the Council . There' s a remedial action prescribed and there seems to be no resolution to those types of cases. It lays in limbo for months and I 'm interested in an update on that. . . Conrad: Let's wait. Steve, let's wait until this one is taken care of 11 and then maybe we can bring that up. What did we do Jo Ann to, there was, a resident on the east side of Lotus Lake who had put in a trail and something and something? Olsen: We made them put in a boardwalk and allowed them to keep the dock. The reason we're not requesting that here is because again, this trail , till path has always been there and they' re not changing anything . Essentially it's grandfathered in. Conrad: Is that true? Is it grandfathered in? ! Olsen: It was an alteration that' s always been there. It would be almost the same if a dock had been placed, if the original dock were still there. From our visiting the site with the DNR and the applicant, it doesn' t appear that that' s been widened over and above what' s there. Conrad: So once upon a time I heard there was fill but really the fill wall on the trail . Olsen: On this site? There is fill next to it. The lot next to it. 1 That's where there's been lots of fill . Wildermuth: From the sewer project? 1 Olsen: No. They were filling in. Jeff May: You're not talking about my site? Olsen: Mike Clark. Jeff May: Oh, okay. But not on mine. I haven' t filled my lot. Olsen: No. ' Jeff May: I want to be very clear about this okay? I want to reiterate something. That we're sensitive to this gentleman's point of view. We bought the property because it had lake access. We bought it because it II had a dock and we bought it with the intention of using that but we also have tried, I think we've almost bent over backwards not to run afoul of the intent that we have in the ordinance. We just want to use what's been " I Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 5 there for years. That path was built there years ago by the previous residents who had a dock there. It' s always been a dock in the past. It ' s a high land point and we' re just asking to be able to use it as it was. Not trying to change anything . Conrad: I appreciate your attitude and that' s one of the things that Chanhassen residents 3-4 years ago subscribed to in terms of the value of wetlands and it' s sort of an education process and I 'm not going to preach for talking about the purpose of them but they are quite significant. And any break in the wetland can basically reduce the value of that wetland . This commission and previous commissions have spent, and staff spends hours reviewing these things and we'd rather not. Yet on the other hand , we know that there's a water quality issue that the residents really are very interested in. Being blunt, based on the staff report , there seems to be a series of communications with you and lack of response and actions before permits. The Chanhassen ordinance does come before DNR ordinance . We are more restrictive in some cases here and it' s not that the DNR has final say. The City of Chanhassen has final say. Jim, comments . Wildermnth: Who would have done the filling that the area hydrologist talks about? The previous owner? Jeff May: Let me explain that please. I 'd like to explain, or have response to the comments that you just made. There' s one thing to knowingly violate an ordinance. There' s another thing to not know you 11 violated anything and I think what you are, the impression I have is that you feel , through reading what you read, that we knowingly violated the ordinance. It's not true. We had a misunderstanding but I took action to talk to the City about what it would take to have a dock out there. I wasn't sure, I 'd been told there was a dock out there. I wasn't sure that we had a dock out there and when I talked to the City, I don' t think, in fact I know I didn't indicate that there had been a dock out there. I subsequently when winter cleared, went down there and found out that there was a dock there and I asked people. I made probably a boo boo here but I asked people, it wasn' t intentional , about that and almost the universal feeling I had was gee, you' re grandfathered in. It shouldn' t be any problem so we went ahead and did that. Went ahead and put the dock in but we were extremely careful not to do anything that wasn' t there 11 previously. Now the only fill problem that we had is on the high path that again has been there for years. There were some ruts down there and I tripped and I fell and I felt it was a safety hazard so I put a very thin layer of fill , probably the rut's about like that and a very thin layer of fill . Spread it out a little bit along the pathway only. What happened here is that when the City came out and saw that there was some activity on the property next to mine, they noticed that. They were rightfully concerned about that because if you look at it, it looked like it had been filled in. Okay? And that was the right thing. I wasn' t around . The next thing . I knew I received a letter from the DNR concerned about it. I responded immediately on that. They came out . We worked well with the City on this. They came out. Took samples. Immediately saw that we went down that far to solid black dirt. Saw that we hadn' t violated anything and the letter that they wrote is attached. So if I 'm guilty of something, it' s because I wanted to get rid of those ruts because I thought that it Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 6 was a safety hazard and there were about 4 of them that were filled in . It wasn't our intention to fill in any wetland. It was kept right on that II path and we have not filled in a wetland area. Now you made a mistake I guess because I listen to people, . . .we all do that I felt were knowledgeable and it seemed logical to me that we had a dock there. That' why we bought the property and so we went ahead and put it in because the , people said gee you're maybe grandfathered . Now the reason I didn' t respond as quickly as Jo Ann would have liked and I should have done it . I I indicated in the letter , if you read the letter , was because I travel extensively and I was in Hong Kong and also in China during that timeframe because I had business relative to that area and involved in the Teniment Square problems, I was out of the country a lot. So we weren' t trying to dodge anything there. When I got Jo Ann' s certified letter , I was in the process of filling out the application anyhow so I got it to her quickly and I explained it to her and the City Manager at that time because I was concerned that it not be misconstrued that we were trying to dodge anythin so I hope you' ll accept that because that ' s exactly what happened . Wildermuth: It was apparently above the ordinary high water line anyway a it turns out so it really isn' t a big issue . I guess my thinking is that the dock was put, or the upgraded dock was put in with some degree of sensitivity and it looks like a grandfather situation. It would appear that the requirements for the wetland alteration permit have been satisfieil in terms of letter of spirit . There' s only one thing that bothers me and that is that the dock and the work was done and was in existence before th application was made again . At some point we' re going to have to put some teeth in our regulations and requirements I think. There's going to have to be a penalty. As we talked about earlier this spring . Was it last spring or this fall that we had another issue on Lotus Lake? I Batzli : I agree with Jim's comments. Jo Ann? How do you determine whether something is grandfathered in? There's a statement somewhere that'll it has to be, if it's less than 50% destroyed it has to be replaced within 1 year? Olsen: I 'm not saying the new dock is grandfathered in. That' s why I 'm making. . . Batzli : But on the old one, how did we come to the conclusion that it wall in such a state of disrepair that it had to be repaired within one year? At what point do you make that decision? Olsen: I don't know if I 'm following you but all that was left were the supports. Batzli: So it was that bad? I Olsen: Yeah. Batzli : Other than echoing what Jim has to say, if we do approve this I II would adjust two of the conditions slightly by saying the existing path, the first one, rather than just path. And add at the end on the first lin of the third condition, or other filling so it would read, any expansion o I Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 7 the dock or path further into the wetland or any other filling shall any g 1 require wetland alteration permit. Wildermuth: Just out of curionsity, why have woodchips fallen out of favor? 11 Olsen : We've found that those wash out into the wetland and they' re a lot of maintenance towards that. Wildermuth: You have to keep renewing them? Olsen: Yes . 1 Ellson: I really don' t have anything new that the other two haven ' t said . Again I 'm disappointed that it happened after the fact but I think that his intentions are , it' s not like he put in twice the size or 3 times the size or something like that the dock in replaced but you know it still calls to me that we aren ' t communicating or sending out information to people who live on these wetlands that they know if all his neighbors feel this is grandfathered in and that' s just another indication that people who live on them and deal with them still don't understand what we want out of them so maybe we ought to be looking at communicating directly to these people either through some sort of mailing vehicle or something like that. I realize that most people should be notified when they' re buying so they have it but we see it time and time again and it's just another example so I think it' s got to more than us just having an ordinance and then give us reason to slap somebody on the wrist. We also have to be a little more proactive on educating people. His neighbors for example. That it ' s not necessarily grandfathered in. I can understand how the majority rules and you think, well geez 5 people who' ve lived here 15 years , they ought to know. It's not necessarily the case but as far as this particular request, I could see approving it. Batzli : Jo Ann? Do we have an overlay of the wetlands in Chanhassen? Olsen: We've been working with the Fish and Wildlife to update that because what we have doesn' t show all the wetlands. Batzli : So if we wanted to generate a mailing to all the property owners in Chanhassen about the rules within Chanhassen, we couldn' t generate that right now? ' Olsen: Well we've been putting that off until we did get that map. The updated one. We can still do it but as you' ll be seeing, there will be other cases coming similar to this but where they did get the wetland map and a wetland wasn't on there. Ellson: Right. I like them having a map of the details. . . Emmings: Generally I 'm satisfied that this is a reasonable thing to permit and I also don' t really have much suspicion that there were anything but bad communications here. I don't think there were any bad intentions so I don' t care about that very much. I 'm interested in, I just have a i Planning Commission Meeting Mi II October 18, 1989 - Page 8 II couple of 'questions here. On that drawing that ' s up there Jo Ann, there's a line there, a dashed line and it's indicated to be an approximate location of ordinary high water mark and edge of wetland . Olsen: That's how the DNR determines their edge of wetland . Emmings: From that line at the bottom it says shoreline. There ' s a line II way down there. Do you see that one? Now is the wetland between those two lines? Olsen: No. It also shows the edge of the cattails. There is still wetland vegetation over here too. Not necessarily cattails. This is more the open water . I Emmings: Where's the wetland on this? Olsen: The wetland is, not having the specific survey, is approximately i this location. . . IIEmmings: So the line that 's indicated to be ordinary high water mark and edge of wetland, that's not the edge of the wetland on the landward side but on the lake side? Is that what you' re telling me? Olsen: That would take. . . II Emmings: It is? So that is the landward side of the wetland , that dashed, line? Is that right? Put your finger on it. Okay. So that's the landward side of the wetland? Landward edge of the wetland? Olsen: Right. This is where the water . . . I Emmings: It says shoreline down at the bottom so that' s confusing to me. Can you tell melon there where the wetland is? From where to where? Put your two hands. Okay. That' s what I was asking . That' s the wetland . We've got dock in the wetland? Olsen: Right. 1 Emmings: Is it all seasonal dock? Is it all going to be taken out and pu back? Jeff May: I guess it possibly could be. Right now the way it' s set is this is left in and then the part that goes into the water is actually II taken out. + Emmings: Okay, so you've got a permanent boardwalk in the wetland and a I temporary or seasonal dock in the lake? Jeff May: I guess that' s it. Emmings: Okay. That's good because that' s what we've done before and I II didn't see that was what was going on. II II Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 9 I Jeff May: I 'm not familiar enough with the terminology to make it clear . Emmings: Well, I may be making some up here anyway so don' t feel bad . Jeff May: Again, as I said, we were aware of that and that actually serves as a boardwalk. Not a dock. In fact it was very expensive to do that and we did it with that in mind . There' s only a small part that gets used as a dock. This is all boardwalk by your definition. It's just enough dock to go into the water so I can have a 14 foot motor boat . Emmings: I understand. I just wondered if that part in the wetland would ' be put in and taken out every year but it' s permanent. Okay, good . Jeff May: It' s like a boardwalk, so that' s what it is. It' s not a 120 foot dock by that definition. It ' s about 20 feet. Batzli : I think we may want to reflect that in the conditions that that is a permanent portion that won' t be removed seasonally. Emmings: Then my next question is, is there any problem with the fact that this dock is on a lot that has a separate legal description and I know you addressed it briefly in the report but it seems to me, is that a buildable lot? Olsen : No . Emmings: It isn' t? Olsen: Well if they separated it . Right now it' s only separated by an easement that he has ownership of so it's a continuous piece of property. Emmings: Okay. So this is Tract B of a registered land survey and where your house is, is that also Tract B? Jeff May: No . Emmings: It's Tract D? Jeff May: Yeah. Emmings: So it has a separate legal description. It' s not the same lot. Olsen: No. It's not the same lot but it's continuous. Emmings: But is that alright? Do we let people live on one lot and as in long as they own another lot . Olsen: It' s not a separate lot. If it' s not separated by a street. ' That's the definition. . . Emmings: It is a separate lot with a separate legal description period . It is . I I Planning Commission Meeting I October 18, 1989 Page 10 II Olsen: Well we can confirm that. It was under single ownership. Emmings: Both lots are, yes I agree. There is no problem with that? It', my own curiousity. Olsen: I think it was okay because it' s just separated by that easement II description which they also, it' s not even an easement. Jeff May: It's solid all the way down there. There is an easement granted. II Olsen: D is actually a parcel . This isn' t even an easement. It' s a parcel. Parcel D. II Jeff May: A constant strip of land separated by a small tract. . . Emmings: The land is contiguous but has separate legal descriptions and II I 'm only asking if that makes a difference to us . Olsen: When we have done, the situation when it' s caused a problem before is like on Lake Minnewashta when they own two lots but separated by public right-of-way by street. This is, he owns this lot but then he also owns a portion of Parcel D which is that . I Emmings: I know what he owns . I 'm only asking if it matters . I don' t know. I can't see that it would necessarily matter. Can I have a dock, ill I live in Minneapolis and I bought Tract B here, can I put a dock on it? Olsen: If you bought this big piece? I Emmings: No. Well , whether I did or didn' t. If I bought Tract B. Olsen: If you owned Tract B and that's it? I Emmings: If I owned Tract B and lived in Minneapolis , can I have a dock on that lot? I Olsen: No. Emmings: Why not? I Olsen: Because it'd be considered, it' s not a principle structure. Emmings: Because it's an accessory use? II Olsen: Yes. i Erhart: Your question Steve regarding two parcels of the same ownership came up about 6 months ago in another issue and it was clear at that time that the City treats two parcels with the same ownership as one parcel in II the way it applies . .. Emmings: Out on Ches Mar? I 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 11 I Batzli : That was if the County considered it one lot for tax purposes. Jeff May: And they do. Batzli : They had to go through subdivision because the County considered it one lot and if in fact the County considers this one lot for tax purposes, I think we'd have a tough time arguing both sides of the coin . That'd be a nice distinction. Olsen : I can verify that. I/ Emmings: I 'm not opposed to this in any way. It' s just a question that came up because they' re different lots and I just wondered if it made a difference I guess . Olsen : The fact that they were continuous I think made the difference rather than them being separated . Batzli : I 'd rather see the distinction being that they' re considered one lot for the county's purposes. Olsen : Tax parcel and that they would have to, that if he wanted to sell Lot B, he would have to come through the subdivision process? Batzli : Right. They would . Emmings: Really? Batzli : They did on Ches Mar . Emmings: I'm not sure that' s the same. You don' t have to go through a subdivision if you own, because this is a registered land survey. Tract B and Tract D are separate lots . Olsen: Parcels . Emmings: Absolutely separate legally and they can probably both be built on and no subdivision is required. You would have to tell when the deed came through separating them, then they would change that in the Assessor ' s Office or in the Auditor ' s Office but I don't believe there'd have to be any other , there certainly wouldn' t have to be a subdivision. Olsen: . . .Let me confirm that . Batzli : I thought there were two lots that the County combined under common ownership out on Ches Mar . Two separately recorded lots and they even had different property interests because someone held a life estate out there and they combined those and I couldn't believe that. Olsen: It was the City requiring them to get the subdivision. I I Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 12 11 Conrad: Steve, do you see any negatives to that? Let' s say you' re right in terms of this. I 'm trying to search for the negative impact. The precedent or whatever and I don' t see it yet. - , Enm►ings: I don't see it here because they' re contiguous so that doesn' t, it doesn' t bother me in this case . What does bother me or what I would worry about is, I think that technically it probably that there' s a proble here and that just under our ordinances I think that there' s a technical problem but I think who cares basically is my answer . I don' t think it' s an important problem. I think these folks ought to have, they bought that to have lake access from their home and I think they ought to have it. You don' t buy a lot on the lake and not have access to the lake in my, opinion 1, so. Conrad: So your assumption is it' s . . . Emmings: And if he should ever sells off Lot B, he' s going to lose his II access to the lake and that' s up to him. Batzli: But then will that dock be grandfathered in? I Emmings: That dock would be grandfathered in to the new owner of Tract B. Not to him obviously. I Batzli: Do you mind? Emmings: No. I Batzli : So if you lived in Minneapolis , you would have access to the lake through that lot. Emmings: No. Jeff May: No. You wouldn' t necessarily have it because you wouldn' t have a right to drive into it. Batzli : Yes. Jeff May: Would you? Batzli: Sure. You can't necessarily sell a land locked lot and then not II provide access. Emmings: Anybody's going to get access to a lot but I think the point her1 is that his home is on D and since it's all contiguous, I don't have a problem with that. Wildermuth: Boy, get two lawyers together and you get all kinds of trouble. Emmings: Like I say, I think technically it' s a little strange but I thin" it ought to be overlooked. I just thought it was kind of a funny thing . The wetland ordinance is also kind of weird because oddly enough the , r Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 13 prohibited use in the Class A wetland is operation of the motorized craft of all sizes and classifications. It doesn't say anything about docks and then in Division 2, under wetland alteration permit it says a dock is a prohibited use unless you give them a permit. Conrad : That's real confusing . It sends a real strange message. Emmings: Yeah. It's written in a funny way. ' Conrad : It's like fill out this piece of paper and then we flip from prohibited to accepted is the implication. I/ Emmings : Yeah, but I think all and all , I think it should be allowed and I agree with the changes that Brian wants to add to 1 and 3. I think those are good changes. Erhart: I really don' t any more to add and I would agree with staff' s recommendations with Brian' s changes . I think it's okay. 11 Conrad : I don' t know. I have some concerns . I think the applicant resolved some of my concerns in his comments. I get concerned a little bit when people are not working well with the City but it appears that that was not necessarily the case. Batzli : Is that it? Conrad : Yeah . The silence is it Brian. The silence is it I 'm afraid . I have 3 concerns that are not relevant to this particular application. The grandfathering in of a dock. I 'm not convinced that that ' s really what the ordinance intends and I think the ordinance has to be picked apart because I don't believe that' s true and I don' t believe that if a dock was, if a dock section, I don't understand the grandfathering that we were talking ' about here. Typically Jo Ann, when a grandfathering , when something hasn' t been used for a year, I thought that use is no longer . . . Olsen: And that ' s what happened here. The reason I 'm making them go through the wetland alteration permit is because it wasn' t grandfathered in. The new dock. Batzli : This is not a true grandfather situation? Olsen: The reason it wasn't grandfathered in is the reason they had to go through the permit. If that dock had been there last spring and then fell apart, they would have been able to restore it without having to do anything . Conrad : Okay. I don' t have any comment . Is there a motion? Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of 11 Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan dated September 27, 1989 subject to the following conditions. Number 1 will be altered as Brian indicated by adding the word existing between the first and second words. Number 3 will be altered to add the phrase, or other filling at the I Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 18, 1989 - Page 14 end of that first line there. And we' ll add an additional condition 4 that will state that the portion of the dock that's within the wetland will be permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. Batzli: Second. Conrad: Discussion. My thought on discussion, Jo Ann? Based on the plan that the applicant has given you, is that good enough in terms of monitoring? Olsen: The plan does give us elevations and dimensions so yeah. This is something we can work with. , Conrad: Okay. How do we monitor Jo Ann? Is it sort of, there' s really not a very good way to monitor . Olsen: We don' t have a sytem. 11 Emmings: Don't tell anybody. i Batzli : Can't they go down there with little soil PH testers? Olsen: Yeah. Althought I do go out on Lotus Lake once a year on a boat . II Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-7 as shown on the site plan date" September 27, 1989 subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing path shall be seeded with low growing vegetation and shall not be widened beyond 5 feet. 2. The path may be mowed but shall not be fertilized. , 3. Any expansion of the dock or path further into the wetland or other filling, shall require a wetland alteration permit. I 4. The portion of the dock that's within the wetland will be a permanent boardwalk and not a seasonal dock. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I Olsen: Do you want me to talk about. . .the property on east of Lotus Lake? Conrad: Almost . I just want to talk about penalties on wetlands. Do we II have penalties? Olsen : Yeah. We can go through with the criminal misdemeanor and I citations . I I Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 15 Conrad: So it just goes into any kind of a misdemeanor type category and that' s what it would be? ' Olsen: Right . And what we do is double the fee so for an individual it' s $50. 00. Conrad: That' s not much. Have we reviewed the new DNR wetland ordinance? ' Olsen: The Shoreland Ordinance? Conrad: Well no. The new ordinance that is now sort of being down played by the DNR in terms of wetland preservation. It's one that they' ve had in 1 for , they' re going to let it stay in for 2 years before they start enforcing it. IOlsen: That ' s the shoreland . Conrad: Is it shoreland? And you've reviewed it? 11 Olsen : Yes. And we will be implementing , we have to add it in. Conrad: We can add it in any time we want is my understanding. ' Olsen: And that was our intention when we went through the zoning ordinance amendment, we kind of left that section open that we would be adopting . Conrad: The DNR has implemented , has drafted an ordinance that is far more, well more restrictive. They' re being more aggressive about 11 preserving wetlands and how quickly they' re being abused and eliminated but they have a phase in of 2 years which basically says that the new ordinance is not really being applied for 2 years but I think it would be appropriate for us to take a look at it and make sure. Olsen : Yeah . We are working with the DNR. They are going to, in fact 1 they've got monies as far as grants to give to cities to help implement the ordinance and we have been in conversation. They're going to be coming out and meeting with us and going through it. I Emmings: I've seen a copy. You sent me a copy. I think I asked for a copy. I was looking at something for myself and they sent me a copy. Olsen: The new one? Emmings: Yeah so I looked through it a little bit and it is. Now it' s shoreland though. The one I saw. I don't know if they've done anything with wetlands or not . Conrad : The article that I read was in the Star and Tribune and it sure gave me the impression we' re talking wetlands but I 'd be real interested. So Jo Ann the plan is to incorporate this in our ordinance? Olsen: The shoreland ordinance? I Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 16 I Conrad: Yeah. Olsen: Yes. Paul and I will be working on that . There' s a lot in there II that doesn't apply to Chanhassen. We' ll be taking out the things that do apply and Roger Knutson has already sent me a model ordinance that has used, taken out portions of the new shoreland ordinance so we are working I/ on that. It should be on the ongoing list . Conrad: Is that thick? How many pages is that? ' Olsen: I' ll send it out to everyone. It' s thick. I think I did request them to send us a copy of where they crossed everything off unless' I might already have that. I ' ll send you copies out. Conrad: I personally would appreciate a copy. I 'd like to take a look' atli that. Okay. I 'm talking specifically about what Mr . Decateur is interested in. The person across. . . Olsen: Right. With VanKoch and Frost . What happened , why that ' s taking II so long. Emmings: I don' t know what we're talking about . Can someone fill me in? II That name doesn' t mean anything to me. Olsen: VanKoch? There was on Sandy Hook Road right about here . They didi come, did it ever come in front of you while I was gone? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: And it was tabled . Conrad: Right. Olsen: One of the reasons was because the DNR was involved and the Corps. Batzli: We never pronounced it VanKoch I don't think. I Emmings: Okay. Olsen: They're the ones that filled in the wetland to get rid of the purple loosestrife. Anyways, the reason it's taking long is because we were trying to, the City in their action, their recommendation was going til be remove the fill but we were waiting to get a coordinated plan from the DNR and the Corps of what they would like to see removed and how much. I spoke with C.L. Strauss from the DNR again last week asking about that and they do have something . They're supposed to be sending it to me. Once I get that. Once I have a plan to say okay, this is what we want them to II do, that's when I 'm going to bring it back. Conrad: But my impression was, they didn't think that what we had I recommended was worthwhile. In other words, the restoration of the triangle. I 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 17 I Olsen: They didn' t like that idea but I think one of the problems was they 11 wanted to actually determine where the ordinary high water mark was- and have them remove everything up to that. So they will have to restok.e but it's just that we had to determine. . . Conrad : And the thing that' s taken so long is because we've been kind of contingent, waiting for somebody else from another agency? Olsen: Yeah. I just wanted to let the experts say what should be done you know. I knew we could make them do—irt-. I j-us-t wanted them to tell me what they would like. I kept saying what do you really want to see happen. Batzli : Weren't we trying to get the next door neighbors? Olsen : We do have the application. We did include the beachlot itself. Steve Decateur : Do you think, are we talking a 30 day process? 6 months? Olsen : I still haven' t got their plan but once we get it , it won' t take long. Steve Decateur : It will be next spring . . . Again, I 'm not interested in making an example out of this gentleman or the other party. I am interested in the Planning Commission' s position on education and getting some teeth in the enforcement. It appeals there is some in this case that' s partially satisfied but if that' s going to be the policy going forward, that based on complaints. It' s one thing to respond and restore but another thing to make sure that the message is in the community that ' you people are proactive and also that there' s some teeth behind the ordinance so when there is a problem, that word gets out to the community to stop this sort of flagrant abuse of what I consider a very precious 11 resource. . . .my soapbox . Conrad : I think it will be a nice precedent actually to restore something that's been tampered with. We haven' t done that before so I guess it' s ' quite nice. Jo Ann another comment on my part. Chemical treatment of wetlands. Specifically, I keep thinking of the DNR allowing the people to chemically treat which has happened on the north end of Lotus Lake. A boat path. Olsen: That's more in the open, in the lilly pads in the open water . Conrad: So it's not really a wetland? Olsen: No. ' Conrad: Okay. Wildermuth: That' s outside the shoreland? Olsen: Yeah. And they do allow it. In fact a property next to Jeff May does have that big path and they do have a permit. 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 1989 - Page 18 I Wildermuth: Are you thinking of doing something stronger for these wetland alteration permit violations? 1 Olsen: We have that in place to fine them and the City' s never taken that . Conrad: It's not much of a fine. 1 Olsen: You have the double fee but I think that you could still pursue the citation. 1 Conrad : It' s barely a penalty. Emmings: The potential fine and even jail but no judge is going to do that and he shouldn't. You can argue if they should or shouldn 't but thdy just won' t. Steve Decateur : Certainly if you have restoration, it' s just a precedent that would be very expensive. If you people are willing to enforce that, that' s the teeth right there. I Emmings: That' s on the civil side. That' s not criminal . Wildermuth: Yeah, that's one thing and I think the contractor that does has almost got to be tied in. . . Elison: Yeah, what about that contractor from Lake Minnetonka . . .and you'll like to somehow be able to punish that contractor. Wildermuth: Well not punish him but just make it difficult for him to do II something like that again. Conrad: As long as we' re going to do some things on the new shoreland ordinance, I ' ll be real interested in that. I don't know what we do in penalties but monitoring becomes, still becomes an issue with me. There's just no way we do a good job of monitoring and there' s just a lot of cases where these things get expanded you know. , Wildermuth: It sounds like the DNR detected this . Conrad: I think Jo Ann did is my impression. The sleuth. Which is real II good. It turns into a little bit of, which is real positive that she, that Jo Ann found that and brought him in. I think that's really great. - Emmings: The other part that makes, the criminal side of it is kind of ineffective or less effective because there's cost associated with prosecution and I think making the restore it is, that really puts the burden on them where it belongs. I think that' s the best thing to do. Olsen: Or installing those boardwalks, those are real expensive. Emmings: I'm sure they are. I