The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Wetland Permit for a Channel & Boat Turnaround on Lake Lucy Property Lake Lucy Highlands j c C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Jan. 6 , 1988 \• •�'� UAHACE ' C.C. DATE: Jan. 25 , 1988 y CASE N0. 87-1 WAP Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: To Construct a Channel and Boat Turnaround Iin a Class A Wetland - Z � _ LOCATION: Lot 5, Lake Lucy Highlands /z..,/C 7 I Q APPLICANT: Eric Rivkin = _ 5525 Conifer Trail .. _.___ __ __ Minnetonka, MN 55345 ' PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ' ACREAGE: 10 . 3 acres DENSITY: ' ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR; Lake Lucy Highlands - vacant S- Lake Lucy !-- E- RR; Lake Lucy Highlands - single family I residence Q W- RR; Lake Lucy Highlands - single family residence W WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site PHYSICAL CHARAC. : A major portion of the site is a Class A wetland and contains marsh grass. 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density & Parks/Open Spac 11 - CI. M ' •tzt.t..» um El "�! -.6s1 fi ° ill reua,,.. ..i.igi 1,� ��,• �� RIMONECK D. -O IN 41 MEM MI 11111—jimil IYA14. IIP* '• -,-. p ..p. • is. al-Lkt slailm ilh 11.11 mow pi' _it . sooliallo k II .;sr ,,, , A, .4 s_ - a "za-701._. 4,1,-111F ---___ = ,.. d ! �1 Ilanier ..,. W. 67 TH STREET ,RR „_ ., . v,' ��!!�=Cry: �� 114.t , .,, ■■••.**4•011111walfir Roos*'tAl ��r��1 ' ` `till s,6 AN ewe :__ RR/SON ` ------ :,yl LAKE LUCY ®a men mt... ..% `-*s.... wr......,,Isti.iv Au IR r,;;_aht ..s __, mil.:O h_./.41,- A,...*IDE tri 'wive -:-.-- i. � E- fit' t , ,:. ■ I . ;4" t' 7. LAKE ANN 1, _ RSA ..: fi 1 j RD ei. co I - c • 3 R4 RR R12 (a A' :liar I ; :OUL E VA RD PA 6 .0 RT Rivkin Wetland Alteration January 6 , 1988 ' Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Wetland Protection Regulations require a wetland alteration permit for the creation of ponds, docks, walkways or boardwalks in a Class A wetland. The regulations also require a permit for any dredging or digging in a Class A wetland (Attachment #1) . The Wetland Protection Regulations allow dredging only when it will not have an adverse effect on the ecological and hydrologi- cal characteristics of the wetland. Section 2, Dredging Regulations, limit dredging as follows : A. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. B. It shall not adversely change water flow. C. The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. D . Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland district unless specifically authorized in the wetland alteration permit. E . Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. F. Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is deter- mined by the City that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. REFERRAL AGENCIES U. S. Fish and Wildlife Attachment #2 Soil Conservation Service Attachment #3 ' City Engineer Attachment #4 DNR Attachment #5 Watershed District Attachment #6 U.S. Corps of Engineers Attachment #7 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission first reviewed the Wetland Alteration Permit request on February 11, 1987 (Attachment #8 ) . The Commission tabled action on the item until several of the questions that were brought up could be answered and until the DNR and Watershed District made a recommendation on the issue. Rivkin Wetland Alteration January 6 , 1988 Page 3 ' The Commission felt that the DNR and Watershed District should comment on the application prior to the City acting on the item. The applicant pursued the issue with the DNR and Watershed District and has now received approval for a channel and a boat turnaround (Attachment #9 ) . ' The applicant had originally proposed a channel approximately 12 feet wide with a 1 to 1 side slope and a ponding area which was approximately 6 feet deep with a 2 to 1 side slope. The DNR com- mented that there should be minimal impact to the wetland and that the channel should be combined with a dock walkway to reduce the amount of dredging. The DNR also recommended that the pond be reduced to a 40 ' x 40 ' area and that the spoil material be placed above the ordinary high water mark ( 956.1) . The Watershed District recommended that the channel should be dug last from the pond towards the lake and that a barrier should be kept between the construction and the lake. The Watershed District also recommended that the site should be allowed to settle prior to removing the barrier between the channel and the lake. The applicant was also proposing to locate the spoil material from the channel within the wetland area. The DNR, Watershed District, and staff did not approve of this action and recom- mended that the spoil material be located outside of the wetland area. ' ANALYSIS The applicant has amended the proposal for the channel and a ponding area. The proposal is now for a channel and a small turnaround ( 40 ' x 40 ' ) for the boat. The channel is now approxi- mately 16 feet wide with a 2 to 1 slope to lessen erosion of the side slopes . The ponding area has been reduced to a 40 ' x 40 ' area as recommended by the DNR and now has a 4 foot depth and is constructed with a 3 to 1 and a 2 to 1 slope. The applicant is also proposing to remove all of the spoil material to an area on his property outside of the wetland area and above the ordinary high water mark. The applicant has also shown where a future connection can be provided to Lot , 4, the property just to the east of the proposed site. The applicant has provided a letter from this property owner stating that should he ever want access to Lake Lucy that he would get it through the existing channel and not propose to have his own separate channel (Attachment #10) . Staff is recommending that the applicant and the owner of Lot 4 , Lake Lucy Highlands provide a deed restriction requiring Lot 4 to use the proposed channel on Lot 5 rather than applying for a separate connection to Lake Lucy. As stated before, the DNR and the Watershed District have given approval for the current proposal . The DNR granted the permit I 1 Rivkin Wetland Alteration January 6 , 1988 Page 4 with the following conditions: ' 1 . The permittee shall comply with all rules , regulations, requirements or standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other applicable federal, state or local agencies. 2 . Permittee shall ensure that the contractor has received and thoroughly understands all conditions of this permit. ' 3 . Future maintenance excavation of this project shall not exceed the dimensions herein authorized. Prior to commencing any maintenance excavation, permittee shall advise the ' Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in writing of the volume of material to be removed, the manner of removal, and the spoil disposal site(s) proposed. Maintenance excavation shall not be commenced until permittee receives DNR approval. 4 . Excavated materials shall not be deposited or stored along side the protected water in a manner where the materials can be redeposited into the protected water by reasonable expected high water or storm runoff. ' 5 . When feasible and practical, excavation shall be conducted from landward areas to the protected water and breakthrough shall occur at the last practical moment. Prior to final breakthrough, any and all equipment shall be situated so that it is landward of the breakthrough point, facilitating equip- ment removal. ' 6 . Permittee shall comply with the conditions of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District as set forth in their letter dated October 7, 1987. Specifically: ' a . The District will require that all work undertaken in the lake be completed during the 1987-1988 winter months between the period of December 1, 1987 to March 1, 1988 . ' Work undertaken during this period wil minimize the potential of a problem, sedimentation, from developing within the lake. ' b. At the toe of slope where excavated material is to be spoiled, erosion control measures, silt fence, and/or ' staked hay bales reinforced with snow fence, must be installed. If silt fence is used, the bottom flap must be buried and the maximum allowable spacing between posts if 4 foot on center. All posts must be either 2" x 2" pine, hardwood, or stell fence posts . If hay bales are used, all bales must be staked in place and reinforced on the downstream side with snow fence. ' c . All areas altered, spoil area, must be restored with seed and disked mulch, sod or wood fiber blanket within two Rivkin Wetland Alteration 1 January 6, 1988 Page 5 weeks from the completion of construction or no later than June 1, 1988. d. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 ' hours prior to the commencement of construction. Planning staff visited the site with Dr . Rockwell since the , Planning Commission first reviewed the application. Dr. Rockwell stated that it was a well preserved wetland that provi- des refuge, forage and breeding habitat for a variety of fish, birds and mammals . She stated that it was a irreplaceable and non-renewable natural resource. Her comments on the proposed alteration were to avoid or at least minimize any adverse impacts to the wetland. She suggested that the applicant construct a boardwalk and a floating seasonal dock for access rather than dredging out a channel. The intent of the Wetland Ordinance is to preserve the wetlands or to at least minimize impacts on wetlands as part of develop- ment in the city. In the initial proposal, staff recommended that the channel and the pond be denied and instead recommended that a boardwalk be installed which would provide the applicant access to Lake Lucy. Staff and the city has been consistent in recommending and approving boardwalks as an option for access to lakes through wetlands rather than permitting channels to be dredged through the wetland. Staff feels that a boardwalk has less impact to the wetland since once it is installed it allows the wetland to revegetate around and underneath it and it does not require on-going maintenance. Also, it has been proven that alteration to wetlands such as dredging or cutting of the vegeta- tion promotes purple loosestrife which has been designated as a noxious weed and can destroy a wetland. The applicant stated during the public hearing in February that a boardwalk would cause him more liability than the channel . Attachment #11 is a letter from the City Attorney which addresses this issue. The attorney advises that there is no more liability in having a boardwalk than a channel. If the applicant is con- cerned with liability he can choose to leave the property as is , and not construct the channel. The applicant addresses further issues in his letter dated June 8 , 1987 (Attachment #12 ) . The City Engineer reviewed the new design for the channel and turnaround and stated that his comments from the February 5, 1987 , memorandum still apply. SUMMARY ' The applicant' s current proposal has met many of the initial con- cerns of the City, DNR and the Watershed District. The pond has been removed and the spoil material will not be located within the wetland. The applicant has stated that the City must permit Rivkin Wetland Alteration January 6 , 1988 ' Page 6 him access to Lake Lucy and claims that a boardwalk is not finan- cially feasible. Staff cannot base recommendations on the cost to the applicant, but must base recommendations on the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Wetland Ordinance states that mini- mal impact to the wetland should occur when granting a wetland alteration permit. Section 2 of the Wetland Protection Regulations provides six conditions that must be met to permit dredging in a wetland (highlighted under applicable regulations) . With the conditions established by the DNR and City, items A, B, D, E and F can be met, but Item C is not being met. Item C states "The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action" . The purpose of the channel is to provide the property owner with access to Lake Lucy. Staff feels that a channel is not necessary for this purpose and to "minimize the size of the dredged area required for the proposed action" , a boardwalk would be more in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff is confident that a boardwalk will result in less impact to the wetland at time of installation and in the future than a channel. The City has been consistent in ' permitting boardwalks to serve as access to lakes instead of chan- nels and as of this time no dredging of wetlands adjacant to a lake has occurred in Chanhassen. A boardwalk does not have to be ' unsightly and the chance of introducing or increasing purple loosestrife in the wetland, which could ultimately destroy this viable wetland, is too great for staff to support the channel. RECOMMENDATION The City' s regulations are more strict and have more control then ' the DNR and Watershed District. In order to minimize impact to the wetland, staff must still recommend denial of the proposal to construct a channel and recommends instead that a boardwalk or ' floating seasonal dock be permitted. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of the wetland alteration permit to construct a channel and turnaround. ' The Planning Commission recommends approval of a wetland altera- tion permit to install a boardwalk or seasonal dock with the following conditions : 1 . The boardwalk shall be located from the edge of the wetland to the open water of Lake Lucy. ' 2 . Shall receive permit from the DNR. ' 3 . Excavated materials shall be removed above the ordinary high water mark ( 956.1) . Rivkin Wetland Alteration January 6 , 1988 Page 7 ' 4 . The permit shall be issued for a restricted period of time for the months of December 1, through March 1, 1988 , pro- viding that the wetland is frozen enough to support construc- tion equipment. 5 . No motorized watercraft will be permitted within the wetland ( i .e. channel) . 6 . A deed restriction will be recorded against Lot 4 , Lake Lucy 1 Highlands to require sharing of the proposed boardwalk on Lot 5 , Lake Lucy Highlands. " Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the channel and boat turnaround, staff recommends the following conditions: 1 . The six conditions of the DNR permit. ' 2 . The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and erosion control plan for city approval prior to construction on the site. 3 . The applicant shall submit a performance security of $2,000 to ensure proper completion of the project. 4 . The applicant shall notify the city 48 hours prior to commencement of excavation and shall provide written notice to the City Engineer prior to completion of the project and shall receive approval by the City Engineer. 5 . Excavated materials shall be removed above the ordinary high water mark (956 .1) . 6 . Future maintenance of the channel and turnaround shall not commence prior to receiving permission from the City, DNR, and the Watershed District. 7 . An erosion barrier shall be placed around the dredged area and between the construction and the lake. 8 . The permit shall be issued for a restricted period of time for the months of December 1 , through March 1, 1988 , pro- viding that the wetland is frozen enough to support construc- tion equipment. 9 . No motorized watercraft will be permitted within the wetland ( i.e. channel) . ' 10 . A deed restriction will be recorded against Lot 4, Lake Lucy Highlands to require sharing of the proposed channel on Lot 5 , Lake Lucy Highlands . Rivkin Wetland Alteration January 6 , 1988 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On January 6 , 1988 , the Commission unanimously denied the wetland alteration permit request to construct a channel and boat turn- , around in the Class A wetland. The Commission felt that as the ordinance stands today, they could not approve of a channel and requested that the City ' Council review whether or not the ordinance should be amended to permit channels where it may not feasible due to the length to install a boardwalk and dock. The Planning Commission did not act on permitting a boardwalk and dock in the Class a wetland within the channel because the appli- cant is not requesting that this be an alternative. STAFF UPDATE ' On January 15, 1988 , staff visited the site with Mr. Rivkin and Mr . Jim Leach from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Planning Commission wanted the Fish and Wildlife Service to review the site once more with the new set of plans provided by the appli- cant. Dr. Rockwell, who originally visited the site, has been an advisor on wetlands to the city for the past several years . Dr. Rockwell has moved east and therefore, Mr. Leach from the Wildlife Service has been recommended to replace Dr. Rockwell. Upon visiting the site, Mr. Leach stated that he felt that the , impact to the wetland from a boardwalk or from a channel was approximately equal. His opinion was that a channel would slightly improve the wetland by providing a small percentage of ' open water. Mr. Leach stated that he would prefer a channel over a boardwalk because a boardwalk is a foreign object within the wetland and would require ongoing maintenance and could become an eyesore in the future. Mr. Leach' s major concern was that none of the spoils be located within the wetland area. If the spoils are removed to a upland area above the Class A wetland, then the channel will not have a negative impact to the wetland. ' Attachment #17 is a letter from Mr. Leach stating his comments on the wetland alteration proposal for a channel and additional recommended conditions for the installation of a channel. ' Mr. Leach also pointed out that purple loosestrife did exist within the Class A wetland along the shoreline. Staff contacted Jay Rendall, who is DNR' s expert on purple loosestrife. Mr. ' Rendall felt that if the spoils are disposed of properly outside of the wetland, the existing purple loosestrife will not spread. The City has contacted Chuck Dale of the Department of ' Agriculture for recommendations on the proper disposal of spoils which may contain purple loosestrife. Staff has not yet received an answer but recommends that the City Council condition approval of the channel on the applicant disposing of the spoils in con- formance with the recommendation of the Department of Agriculture. I Rivkin Wetland Alteration Permit January 6 , 1988 Page 9 ' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ' The Fish and Wildlife Service is now satisfied with the channel propsoal (disposing of spoils outside of the wetland) and feels a channel would not result in more of an impact to the wetland than a boardwalk. Staff recommends the following conditions should the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit: 1 . The six conditions of the DNR permit and conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 . The applicant shall submit a detailed grading and erosion ' control plan for city approval prior to construction on the site. 3 . The applicant shall submit a performance security of $2 ,000 to ensure proper completion of the project. 4 . The applicant shall notify the city 48 hours prior to commencement of excavation and shall provide written notice to the City Engineer prior to completion of the project and shall receive approval by the City Engineer. 5 . Excavated materials shall be removed above the ordinary high water mark (956 .1) . 1 6 . Future maintenance of the channel and turnaround shall not commence prior to receiving permission from the City, DNR, and the Watershed District. 7 . An erosion barrier shall be placed around the dredged area and between the construction and the lake. 8 . The permit shall be issued for a restricted period of time for the months of December 1 , through March 1 , 1988 , pro- viding that the wetland is frozen enough to support construc- tion equipment. 9 . No motorized watercraft will be permitted within the wetland ' ( i .e. channel) . 10 . A deed restriction will be recorded against Lot 4 , Lake Lucy ' Highlands to require sharing of the proposed channel on Lot 5 , Lake Lucy Highlands . 11. Comply with any recommendations/conditions from the Department , of Agriculture. 1 I 11 Rivkin Wetland Alteration January 6 , 1988 Page 10 ATTACHMENTS ' 1 . Wetland Protection Ordinance. 2 . Letter from Dr. Rockwell dated May 2 , 1987 , and August 24 , I 1987. Letter from the Soil Conservation Service dated January 20 , 1987. 3 . Memo from City Engineer dated February 5 , 1987 . 5 . Letter from DNR dated March 19 , 1987. 6 . Letter to DNR from Watershed District dated October 7 , 1987 and minutes dated October 7 , 1987. 7 . Letter from U.S . Corps of Engineers dated February 26 , 1987 . 8 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 11 , 1987 . 9 . DNR permit dated November 25 , 1987 . ' 10 . Letter from Mark Sando dated September 20 , 1987 . 11. Letter from City Attorney dated December 1 , 1987 . 12 . Letter from applicant dated June 8 , 1987 . 13 . Application. ' 14 . Initial site plan. 15 . Revised site plan dated December 1 , 1987 . 16 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 6 , 1988 . 17 . Letter from Mr. Leach dated January 22 , 1988 . I 1 1 I r I I 11 II il5-23-4 Violations. 1. Penalties. Any person, firm, or corporation p n w ho shall violate any of the provisions hereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be I punished by a fine not to exceed $300. 00 or by il imprisonment for not to exceed ninety (90) days. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a I separate offence. 2. Enforcement. In the event any building or structure is erected, constructed, altered, repaired, used, I converted, maintained, or any shoreland is altered or used in violation of this Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator of the City may institute any proper II action or proceeding in the name of the City (a) to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, alteration, repair, conversion, maintenance or use; or I (b) to restrain or abate such violation. 31 4NT SECTION 24 . WETLAND PROTECTION REGULATIONS III 3.1 I 5-24-1 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND INTENT: Wetlands are a valuable ' resource. Wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to minimize problems with flooding and erosion, serve as I sources of food and habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife and are an integral part of the community's natural landscape providing the aesthetic benefits of open space and a natural separation of land uses. It is the ii intent of this Ordinance to establish a program of sound 1 stewardship through regulations that strive toward zero degradation of the wetlands by conserving, protecting and enhancing these environmentally sensitive resources. 5-24-4 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to assure the protection of the general health, safety and I III welfare of the residents and the protection of the wetland resources of the City, for now and in the future, through preservation and conservation of wetlands and sound I IIImanagement of development by: 1. Establishment of wetland regulations. 1 2 . Requiring proper erosion control practices. 3 . Requiring sound management practices that will protect, II conserve, maintain, enhance and improve the present quality of wetlands within the community. IP 4 . Requiring improved water quality in streams and lakes il with its attendant increase in recreational use and value. X III . -80- li 4k ' • II 1 5. Protecting and enhancing the scenic value of the community. 6. Restricting and controlling the harmful effects of land development which adversely affect wetlands. 7. Reducing the need for piped storm water improvements. ' 8 . Preventing rapid runoff from developed areas. 9. Preventing pollution from gas, oil, salt, fertilizer, sand and silt. 10. Allowing only development that is compatible with wetland protection and enhancement. 11. Providing standards for the alteration of wetlands. ' 12 . Controlling development outside of the wetland areas that may be detrimental to wetlands. ' 13 . Prohibiting dumping of waste in wetlands. 14. Restricting the placement of structures within wetland areas. 15. Drawing attention to the function of wetlands and the impact of urbanization upon wetlands. 5-24-3 ESTABLISHMENT OF WETLAND AREAS: Lands lying within a wetland area shall be subject to the requirements established herein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city ordinances and regulations. The Wetland Protection Regulation shall not be construed to allow anything ' otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. The wetland map, entitled "Chanhassen Wetland Map" dated May 22 , 1984 is hereby adopted as prima facie evidence of the wetland areas and an official copy is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Land within the wetland areas shall be classified as Class A wetland or Class B wetland as delineated on the map. 5-24-4 DETERMINATION OF WETLAND AREA. An applicant pp cant for development which may be in a wetland area shall bring this to the ' City's attention. If required by the City, the applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to, topographic survey and soil data deemed necessary for the City to determine the exact wetland boundary. The City Council may exempt land from the wetland regulations if it finds that the land is not in fact a wetland. The City Council shall make necessary interpretations concerning the wetland area based upon the ' -81- 11 If 2 . Public works in a Class A or Class B wetland except for emergency public works which shall not require a wetland alteration permit. 3 . Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainage ways or water courses of a Class A or Class B wetland. 4 . Removal from Class A wetland of trees or vegetation except hay, crops and diseased and storm damaged trees and vegetation which shall not require a wetland alteration permit. 5. Docks, walkways and boardwalks, within a Class A or B wetland. 6. Installing or replacing drain tile or ditches in a Class A wetland. Repairing existing drain tile, in a Class A wetland if the property has not been in active agricultural use during the 12 months preceding the enactment of this Ordinance. _I 7 . Development in any Class A wetland or within 200 feet of a Class A wetland which is within the wetland's watershed. - 8 . Septic or soil absorption systems in a Class B wetland. 9 . Sedimentation basins in a Class B wetland. 10. Any structure in a Class A or B wetland except for minor expansion and additions to single family detached dwellings existing on the date this Ordinance is enacted which shall not require a wetland alteration _ permit. 11. Digging, dredging, filling in a Class A or B wetland. 12 . Advertising signs in a Class A or B wetland. 5-24-8 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT GUIDELINES : No wetland alteration permit shall be issued unless the Council determines that the proposed development complies with the following guidelines, as well as the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. In reviewing wetland alteration proposals reference shall be made to United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service under Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and Technical Field Guide. If the City Council determines that the required calculations in a particular instance are needlessly burdensome because of the area and nature of a proposal, it may agree to a substitute analysis. -83- • 11 wetland map, the definition of "wetlands" contained herein and the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. 5-24-5 PROHIBITED USES IN CLASS A WETLANDS: The following uses II are prohibited in Class A wetlands: 1. Disposal of waste material including, but not limited II to, sewage, demolition debris, hazardous and toxic substances, and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer. II 2 . Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer or disposal sites. il3 . Septic or soil absorption systems. II 4. Sedimentation basins for construction projects. 5. Open storage. II 6. Animal feedlots. 7. The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum. ill 8. Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications. III 5-24-6 PROHIBITED USES IN CLASS B WETLANDS: The following uses are prohibited in Class B wetlands: 1. Disposal of waste material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris, hazardous and toxic substances, and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer. 2 . Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, II hazardous waste transfer or disposal sites. 3 . Animal feedlots. il 4 . The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum. 5-24-7 ACTIVITIES REQUIRING A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: The following activities are prohibited in the Wetland area indicated unless the City Council issues a wetland alteration permit allowing the activity: il 1. Scientific research projects in a Class A or Class B wetland which alter the wetland. il il -82- _' I II 1. Filling. A minimum amount of fillin when necessary for the use of proper l be allowed ty, buonlywhen II it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. In determining whether a proposed development II II will have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland, the Council shall consider, but not limit its consideration II to, the following factors: IA. Any filling shall not cause total natural flood II storage capacity of the wetland to fall below, or I fall below further, the projected volume of run-off from the watershed generated by a 5. 9 inch rainfall in 24 hours. Since the total amount of filling which II can be permitted is limited, apportionment of fill opportunities for other properties abutting the wetland shall be considered. I B. Any filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to be diminished to an extent that is detrimental to any area river, I lake or stream. IC. Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic I wastes may be used. D. Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation. II JE. Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the 111 y I wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding of fish spawning. I 2 . Dredging. Dred 1 not have a net adverseleffectlonwtheoecologicaltandll hydrological characteristics of the wetlands. Dredging, when allowed, shall be limited as follows: g g� 11d 1 A. It shall be located as to minimize the impact on It / vegetation. 1 B. It shall not adversely change water flow. 111 1 C. The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. D. Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland district unless specifically authorized in the wetland alteration permit. -84- 1I E. Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. F. Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the City that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. 3 . Discharges. A. Soil loss from a construction site any part of which is in a wetland or within 200 feet of the wetland that is within the wetland watershed shall not exceed a rate of more than 2 tons per acre per year. B. Projected soil loss from a completed construction project shall not exceed 0. 5 tons per year if any part of it is in a wetland or within 200 feet of a wetland that is within the wetland watershed. 4 . Storm Water Runoff. A minimum increase in volume of storm water runoff to a wetland from a development over the natural volume of runoff may be allowed when necessary for use of property but only when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetlands. In no case shall the restrictions on runoff set out below be exceeded. Since the total increase in runoff which can be permitted is limited, the Council when considering permit applications shall consider, in addition to the following, apportionment of increased runoff opportunity to all wetland property within the surrounding wetland area. A. Storm water runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland only when free of debris and substantially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at rates which do not disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. Sheet flow and other overland drainage of runoff shall be encouraged. B. The proposed action shall not cause storm water runoff on the wetlands to take place at a rate which would materially exceed the natural rate. C. The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall not cause total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below further, the projected volume of runoff on the whole developed wetland ' watershed generated by a 5. 9 inch rainfall in 24 hours. -85- • ill III I D. The allowed total increase in runof , with the total fill allowed, shall not lcause btotal on II natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fa! 1 below, or fall below further, the projected nutrient production from the whole developed wetland I watershed. iii 5-24-9 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT PROCEDURES: The applicant shall furnish information if required by the City including but I Iiinot limited to, a site plan, topographic data and hydrological data for the review of a wetland alteration permit application. A wetland alteration permit shall not I be issued without having been first reviewed by the Al Planning Commission and approved by the Council following the review procedures set forth for conditional use ' permits. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes, intent and other provisions of this Ordinance. A permit must be approved by a 3/5 vote of the Council. The II Council may establish reasonable conditions which are specially set forth in the permit to ensure compliance with requirements contained in this Ordinance. Such conditions I may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures, require replacement of vegetation, establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity, I stage the work over time, require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering, require the provision of a performance security. The granting of a wetland alteration II permit does not abrogate the need to obtain permits required by other local, state or federal agencies. 5-24-10 TIME OF PERMIT--EXTENSION AND RENEWALS: II 1. Unless otherwise specified b p by the City Council, a II permittee shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one year after the date the Council approves the permit application. 2 . The permittee shall provide written notice to the City II Engineer 24 hours prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be deemed to have been completed until approved II by the City Engineer after receipt of notice of completion. 11 3 . If the permittee fails to commence work on the I development within the time specified herein, the permit shall be void. The Council may renew a void I permit at its discretion. If the Council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original application for a new permit. I ill -86- II 11 II 4 . The permittee may make written application to the Council for an extension of the time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date already established to commence work. The application for an extension shall state the reasons the permittee requires an extension. ' 5-24-11 INSPECTION: The City Engineer may cause inspection of the work to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection to be made following the completion of the work. 5-24-12 RESPONSIBILITY: AFFECT: Neither the issuance of a permit nor compliance with the conditions thereof, nor with the provisions of this chapter shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit ' hereunder serve to impose any liability on the City or its officers or employees for injury or damage to persons or property. ' 5-24-13 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: Within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal distance of 200 feet, the following minimum general regulations are ' - applicable: 1. Minimum lot area: 15, 000 square feet. 2 . Minimum structure setback: 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. ' 3 . Septic and soil absorption system setbacks: 200 feet from ordinary high water mark. 4 . Lowest ground floor elevation: 3 feet above ordinary high water mark. 5. No development shall be allowed which may result in ' unusual road maintenance costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost action. 1 5-24-14 Variance: The City Council may grant a variance from the requirements of this Section. In addition, a variance may be granted based upon mitigative measures proposed by the ' applicant to recreate, to an equal or greater degree, the environmental and hydrological function of the wetland area that is proposed to be altered. 1 ' -87- • CITY OF CHANHASSEN WETLAND EVALUATION WORKSHEET I I LOCATION _ � I� V1)kJ ?�G OF 1 • 1< II SUBJECT _ II? ' . !O rr or.. ;X 1 -pos_ko 1' TYPE OF WETLAND -rt.; r ' 1 �- , COMMENTS �.c.�2 �?tta�.t•y-t c� ( �( Co,{ , 1 frt-A-cta-- Cl/ Z"c&.. aZI*0 te.2/2 a .,-h rn-P�a aryl- cf.--- - I ter_ - I Pv1AY ? 1 i987 ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN II ;: WETLAND ALTERATION REVIEW IIMap ID No: DNR No: T lily R rs5 S WETLAND TYPES: Ii. Seasonally Flooded 5. Open Water Basins or Flats 6. Shrub Swamp I 2. Meadow Are 7. Wooded Swamp 3. Shallow Marsh _ I 8. Bog 4. Deep Marsh WETLAND SOILS: I 1 VEGETATIVE TYPES: I --t/yYwc vrX0 > S'l 01-4.-Q/J i _�` o�CV II WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS: / II 1. Location: Lakeside ✓ Streaznside Upland I2. Watershed District: 3. Wetland Size: 4. Open Water: II5. Drainage Area: 6. Ratio: 7. Drainage Flows to: II COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ALTERATION: II Ce �✓`trL '0'6- at o-r- --6. a. ie a a."21'e/t/-2-4- --.fim� 414-e-". A O'c,�o'.-.'a-R.4 _- Q- ok- o c. !v7-;-- iS-& 61.-P .r- ct -. °LI, e- 1 70,-1- _ , Signature: exertii C(;)- , 2te of Field Inspection: 67/1-/- ?l2 I I CITY OF CHANHASSEN WETLAND EVALUATION WORKSHEET REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS COMMENTS on proposed access boat channel by Eric Rivkin at Lake Lucy: The proposed channel would destroy a substantial portion of emergent • d associated with Lake Lucy at Mr. Rivkin's project site. 411011;nd wildlife that find food and shelter in emergent wetland of a— include but are not limited to surface-feeding ducks, rails, wrens, herons, blackbirds, sunfishes, bass, northern pike, and perch. A single access channel would probably not significantly reduce resources for fishes and wildlife whose reproduction depends on wetlands. However, the cumulative effect from more than one such project soon causes major losses that cannot be replaced or mitigated. Consequently, the Fish and Wildlife Service does not support construction of individual access channels for shoreline property owners. Alternatives of lesser damage to the environment are (1) a communal dock that can be used by many boat owners or (2) a public boat launching ramp which would require a parking area but serve a greater number of boaters and further reduce loss of emergent wetland from shoreline development. In response to your concern over pollution from treated wooden docks or boardwalks, I am sending you copies of pp 127 - 138 of Technical Bulletin Number 1658-1, the Biologic and Economic Assessment of Pentachlorophenol , Inorganic Arsenicals, Creosote Volume I : Wood Preservatives. Available information suggests that pollution from pressure treated wood material for docks and boardwalks is minimal . ' SIGNATURE ct..6cte, Eliz e th D. Rockwell , PH.D. Fish and Wildlife Biologist I 1 # i 8 J. f 1 kr Tests have also been performed to measure As in sump water from the basements I' of an As-treated wood foundation building. Measurements were taken immediately after L, II construction, after 3 months, and after 6 months. With the exception of the initial reading, the As concentration was below 0.1 ppm, the level permissible for discharge to ground water and for use as irrigation water (Arsenault, 1975a). IThe Alberta, Canada, Occupational Health and Safety Division investigated the AWWF and concluded (Boway and Hosern, 1976): II "From our evaluation of the literature regarding the environmental effects of wood preservatives, we do not think that its usage presents any signifi- 1 cant health hazard to the occupants, nor any contamination threat to the vegetation, soil, or the water system. Occupational exposure, either from applying the preservative in the plant or from cutting the finished wood, 1 presents no problem because of the nature of the reacted chemical and the work procedure. We support the Building Standards Branch ruling on Preserved Wood Foundations and, if the CSA standards are adhered to, then there will be no health or ecological risk." II In a study commissioned by the EPA, Burrus and Sargent (1976) reported that: II lh ;Ii,, "Atmospheric emissions resulting from the manufacture of wood preserva- �i,.' II tives is considered negligible. With regard to the uses of arsenically- 0 preserved wood, however, it is reasonable to assume that after a sufficient i! period of time (decades and, in some applications, centuries) deterioration !i;,, of the wood would release the arsenic to the environment. Such release I would be very slow since the preservative compounds bind tightly to the wood fibers. The amount of arsenic moving into the environment by this j method is too slow to pose a pollution hazard to air, water, or soil, and l II at the expected slow rate of release, concentration of soluble arsenic in adjacent soil and water would be low enough for the arsenic to become readily bound into insoluble species in soils and sediments." i,' Ilio IIThis study went on to consider various alternative policy positions available Ii; to the EPA. With respect to the alternative of banning use of arsenical wood pre- 11 �' servatives, the report concluded (Burrus and Sargent, 1976): !Ial�l ' . "This alternative was rejected because there is no apparent health hazard '':� IIto the consumer via vaporization, leaching, or other mechanism." Exposure to Animals at Point of End Use II Animals that may be exposed to treated wood are usually domestic farm animals II ' and pets. Animals would have similar exposure to the surfaces of the treated wood as that of humans living in buildings constructed of treated wood. Some horses are 11 prone to "cribbing" or biting off bits or chunks of wood from their stalls. They are not known to ingest this wood, thus limiting the exposure to As. p IIFate of Arsenic in the Environment Since As is an element, it is not a degradable entity such as penta or creosote. It does undergo changes in chemical identity and in valence state. Arsenic may be . II 127 I I o II - — — III I leached from treated wood, or applied as a herbicide, fungicide, insecticide, growth regulator, or soil sterilant. However, once it reaches the environment, it becomes indistinguishable from As which is present naturally. For these reasons, this section will discuss the fate of As in the environment in general terms as well as that specifically applicable to the wood preservatives. The fate of As that is unique to a particular application or use will be discussed in Volume II. Arsenic in Air I "Natural and human activities produce a persistent low-level concentration of arsenic in the atmosphere. However, elevated concentrations are found near certain human activities. To assess the importance of the contribu- tions of some of these activities, it is necessary to estimate the back- ground concentrations for locations in which these activities are not present. "The National Air Sampling Network (NASN) routinely monitors suspended particulate concentration levels in urban and non-urban areas, generally reporting them as quarterly composites for stations in the network. The composite, which pools all samples collected during the quarter, assists in generating sufficient material for laboratory analysis. "Average annual arsenic concentrations for locations ranged from 0.000 to 0.083 microgram/cubic meter. The average annual concentration for all NASN locations was 0.003 microgram/cubic meter. The average annual concentra- tion for the eight smelter sites was 0.030 microgram/cubic meter. Hence, concentrations increase by an order of magnitude for urban over rural and another order of magnitude for smelter cities over urban (Suta, 1978) ." Arsenic in Air from Treated Wood Arsenic in air from the use of treated wood originates in three ways: (1) from the sawing of treated wood, (2) from metabolism to volatile compounds, and (3) air entrainment of surface deposits. ' The Department of Health and Social Services for the State of Wisconsin (Wisconsin, 1977) examined the air content in a home building plant which used CCA- treated plywood. Air concentrations varied from 0.001 mg/cubic meter to 0.003 mg/ cubic meter in the breathing zone of off-bearer during the sawing operations. The "8-hour time-weighted average concentration for the off-bearer would be approximately 0.0015 mg/cubic meter," well below the current OSHA standard. No arsenic was detected in the breathing air of other workers involved with the sawing operation or the construction of walls treated with CCA. The NBS (Sleater and Berger, 1977) conducted air sampling tests in basements of homes built with the All-Weather Wood Foundations. They found levels of 0.002 to 0.019 microgram As/cubic meter in an exposed masonry basement. In homes with finished basement rooms, the levels were 0.002 to 0.031 microgram As/cubic meter with an average of 0.008 microgram As/cubic meter for wooden foundations; in masonry base- ments which were covered the level was 0.008 microgram As/cubic meter. These results indicate that the As air levels in basements constructed from treated wood were not statistically higher than those constructed of masonry. The NBS values were much lower than those reported in an earliez study by the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) for two of the same dwellings. No background As levels were 128 1 I reported by NCMA and thus their analysis might be in error (Sleater and Berger, II 1977) . Wood treated with As but not with copper and chromium might contribute to atmos- pheric As particularly in a closed environment. Merrill and French (1964) reported that Lenzites trabea and L. saepiaria gave a garlic odor when grown on an agar media containing As2O3. Both L. trabea and L. saepiaria are wood-rotting fungi commonly I found in wooden buildings. The methods used in this study could not detect any evolved arsenicals. Although the formation of alkylarsines from As in treated wood is theoretically possible, the presence of copper and/or chromium in the preserva- tive prevents the reaction by controlling the microorganism capable of this metabolic conversion. Arsenic in Air from Pesticide Application IIOnly two studies have been found relative to As in air as a result of pesticide usage. One involved lead arsenate spraying on apples and the other in air around a IIcotton gin after the cotton was defoliated or desiccated with arsenicals. Neal, et al. (1941). reported As air concentrations for a number of operations IIduring the use of lead arsenate in apple orchards (Table 45). Table 45.--Concentration of arsenic in air 1 Operation Average Range mg As/m3 IMixing insecticide 18,500 200-110,700 IIBurning containers 166,700 48,600-261,200 `t Spraying orchard 1,400 400-4,800 ' II Thinning fruit 800 100-3,200 i!:i�; Picking fruit 8,800 2,600-19,000 IIDumping fruit 100-600 20-1,900 ;,. ISorting and packing 60 30-80 II A wide range of air concentrations is evident depending on the operation. Applications of 30 to 90 pounds As/acre/yr were applied during this study. Since lead arsenate is no longer used on apples, this source of contamination no longer exists. II i1� Seasonal variation of atmospheric As in Texas was reported during a 3-year !' period as air concentrations ranged from 0.001 mg/cubic meter to 0.085 mg/cubic 1 meter (Attrep, et al. , 1975) . Concentrations were elevated from September to February, a period when cotton is ginned. The As found is a result of using arsenic acid desiccant or cacodylic acid, an organic arsenical defoliant. Average ambient , 1 air As content was 0.018 mg/cubic meter during this 3-year period. It was estimated II 129 1 1 ' I that "6 grams of arsenic are released during the ginning on one bale (500 pounds) of cotton." Burning of cotton trash from a gin is also a source of atmospheric As (HEW 1967) . At a distance of 46 to 91 m downwind from a west Texas cotton gin, concentra- tions of 0.600 to 141.0 mg/cubic meter were detected. Arsenic emissions from incin- eration, however, were not reported. In 1966, 37% of the gins incinerated their trash. "Adverse effects on trees and vegetation in areas downwind from cotton gin were observed." Texas Air Quality Control Board regulations since 1966 have changed these levels since burning is by permit only in remote, non-populated areas. Arsenic in Air from Smelters I and Mining Operations Air As levels have usually been highest in communities where smelters are located. During the refining of ore (copper, lead, zinc, or gold), heat decomposes the minerals and volatile As203 is emitted. The arsenical gases are cooled, con- densed, and refined. The quantities of As in non-ferrous ores vary. Western ores generally are highest in As. The arsenical concentrates after smelting may be sent to the ASARCO smelter at Tacoma, Wash. , where they are refined further. Air concentrations in and around the Tacoma smelters have been reported by a number of researchers (McClannan and Rossano, 1975; Nelson, 1977; Wagner, 1976; and Milham and Strong, 1974) . Monthly averages during 1975 ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 micrograms/cubic meter at the property line and dropped to 0.26 to 1.46 micrograms/cubic meter at a distance of 2,000 feet. Values continued to drop to 0.02 to 0.13 micrograms/cubic meter at 8 miles from the smelter (Nelson, 1977). Arsenic air levels within the smelter are a function of the ore being processed. The higher the As content in the ore, the higher the As in the smelter air (Wagner, 1976). Values ranged from <1.0 microgram/cubic meter for a smelter processing 0.003% As ore to 130 micrograms/cubic meter for a smelter processing 1% As ore. Arsenic can be re-entrained into the atmosphere from traffic traveling on unpaved roads (McClannan and Rossano, 1975), but the levels are about one/tenth those present from the smelter operation itself. It has been calculated that the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma has emitted 200 tons As203 per year (Milham and Strong, 1974) although levels should decrease as pollu- tion controls are upgraded under EPA guidelines. Atmospheric As is lower at other smelters. Anaconda, Mont. , had As levels of 0.18 to 2.5 micrograms/cubic meter (Wagner, 1976) and averages <0.5 microgram/cubic meter. A lead smelter in El Paso, Tex. , had quarterly averages of 1.40 micrograms/ cubic meter in 1974 (HEW, 1968). A Utah smelter had ambient air levels for 0 to 12 ppm As depending on sampling time (Wullstein and Snyder, 1971) . Arsenic in Air from Coal-Fired Plants ' Several studies have examined the mass balance of As in coal-fired steam plants and the resulting losses. Highest concentrations of As were found in the precipi- tator (Bolton, et al. , 1973; and Lyon and Emery, 1975) . However, there was a loss of 52 to 64% of the As indicating formation of a volatile gas which escaped the precipi- tator. Coutant, et al. (1975) likewise found As distribution through the combustion 130 I IIsystem as a function of temperature. They concluded that "although lead and arsenic 5 display characteristics of volatility in the combustion system, only small percent- I., 1 ages of these elements are emitted from the stack." Arsenic is enriched in down- stream fly ashes (Kaakinen, et al. , 1975). I The smaller sized fly ash is most likely to escape control measures and will also contain the highest residues on a weight/weight basis (Natusch, et al. , 1974) . Some As might escape the power plant in the vapor phase as As203 (Davison, et al. , II 1974) . Emissions from power plants may account for the higher urban air levels recorded when compared to air in rural areas of the country. A summary of As in air and dust is presented in Table 46. Arsenic in Dust Arsenic in dust can be present from several sources. House dusts in an area II around a smelter were among the highest reported in the literature (McClannan and Rossano, 1975). Values ranged from 77 to 4,461 ppm As and were a function of dis- tance from the Tacoma smelter. Milham and Strong (1974) likewise found dust samples I at 2 miles from the smelter contained 70 ppm As and increased to 1,300 ppm As from 0 to 0.4 mile from the stack. These findings were used by the Puget Sound Air Pollu- tion Control Board to set an emission standard for As designed to reduce environ- mental contamination. IIHouse dusts in Hawaii were examined for As since arsenical herbicides and wood ,, preservatives are extensively used in Hawaii (Klemmer, et al. , 1975). Results were II classified according to whether As had been used for termite control. Values varied from 1. 1 to 1,080 ppm As but no correlation was found between levels in the dust and As treatment for termite control. IHouse dusts in CCA-treated wooden foundation buildings with exposed plywood had levels up to 1,267 ppm As and averaged 229 ppm (Sleater and Berger, 1977). When the walls had been covered, the respective values were 53 and 20 ppm As. A home with IImasonry walls had dust levels of 27 and 18 ppm As for uncovered and covered walls, respectively. Atmospheric dust samples from Munich, Germany (Schramel, et al. , 1974) revealed variations with site and month of the sample taken. Yearly averages ranged from 8.0 ;`� to 53 ppm As. Monthly values ranged from 1.0 to 297 ppm As. However, monthly trends !ill IIfor the various sampling stations were not consistent. '' Dust samples at four sampling stations in Japan indicated air concentrations from 0.025 microgram As/cubic meter to 0.19 microgram As/cubic meter (Mamuro, et al. , I1970). Only two 1-month periods were examined in the first study. In the latter, values ranged from 0.01 microgram As/cubic meter to 0.079 microgram As/cubic meter in monthly samples from four sites taken over a year's period. The four stations were ! Ifrom areas with different degrees of pollution. Atmospheric As levels did not cor- relate with the pollution of other elements at any given site. I Arsenic In Water ,. Naturally occurring As appears in all water samples as evidenced in Table 47. In some cases, the As is below normal detection limits which vary according to the IImethod used. Arsenic levels are generally quite low. About 4% of the analyses in the United States shows As at more than 50 ppb, the maximum permissible concentration in drinking water (HEW, 1962). 1 131 ''4 1 1 1---- 1 II Table 46.--Arsenic in air and dust II Arsenic Concentration Locality Reference II Air Dust Microgram/m3 As ppm As United States: ' Maryland 0.005-0.012 -- Aras et al. , 1973 Washington, D.C. 0.02 -- Aras et al. , 1973 Miscellaneous 0.01-2.50 -- Sullivan, 1969 II Tacoma, Wash. -- 1,300a Millam & Strong, 1974 70b Millam & Strong, 1974 II 77-4,641 McClannan & Rossano, 1975 U.S. generalc 680-1,700 Natusch et al. , 1974 I Hawaii 11-1,080 Klemmer et al. , 1975 Australia -- 10-12d Commissioner of Public Health, 1930 II Czechoslovakia -- 14.0e Bencko et al. , 1968 750-3,800a Porazik et al. , 1966 II England 0.041-0.078 -- Goulden et al. , 1952 Japan 0.012-0.066 -- f Mamuro et al. , 1972 II -- 0.012-0.19 Mamuro et al. , 1972a Mexico 0.005 -- Navarrete et al. , 1974 II Russia: Rostov 0.8-6.0 -- Bespalov et al. , 1969 3,000-5,000m from I copper smelter 58-160 -- Rozenshtein, 1969 300-4,000m from power plant 3.8-24.8 -- Rozenshtein, 1969 I Germany -- 1.0-297 Schramel et al. , 1974 a Dust from copper smelter. II b Dust remote from copper smelter. c Fly ash. II d Dust from cattle dipping. e Near power plant. II f Airborne. II 1 132 II II IITable 47.--Arsenic in fresh water Water Arsenic Concentration Reference IMicrograms/liter (ppb) 1 United States, lakes: New York, Chautauqua 3.5-35.6 Lis & Hopke, 1973 Michigan 0.5-2.4 Seydel, 1972 1 Superior 0.1-1.6 Seydel, 1972 Wisconsin 4.0-117 Chamberlain & Shapiro, 1969 I California, Searles 198,000-243,000 White et al. , 1963 California 0.0-100ab Livingston, 1963 0.0-2,000 Livingston, 1963 I Florida, Echols Florida, Magdelene 3.58 Braman & Foreback, 1973 1.75 Braman & Foreback, 1973 Connecticut, Linsley Pond 2.3-2.6 Cowgill, 1974 Cedar Lake 1.6-13.9 Cowgill, 1974 IIUnited States, rivers: II Hillsborough 0.25 Braman & Foreback, 1973 Withlacoochee 0.42 Braman & Foreback, 1973 Fox (introduced) 100-6,000 Brown et al. , 1973 II Yellowstone 4.5 Ellis, 1934 Narrow 0.90 Ray & Johnson, 1972 Providence 0.75-0.90 Ray & Johnson, 1972 Seekonk 2.48-3.45 Ray & Johnson, 1972 I Sugar Creek (industrial <10-1,100 Durum et al. , 1971; & discharge) Wilder, 1972 Columbia 1.6 Onishi, 1969 II Columbia 0.21-86.9 Silker, 1964 Schuylkill 30-180 Kopp & Kroner, 1967 New Mexico, variety 0.55-192 Gladney & Owens, 1976 IVariety <10-140 Durum et al. , 1971 United States, canals: I Florida <10-20 Grantham & Sherwood, 1968 United States, well water: IICalifornia 10-2,000 Goldsmith et al. , 1972 Florida 0.68 Braman & Foreback, 1973 II Minnesota (introduced) 11,800-21,000 Feinglass, 1973 Washington 5.0-6.0 Fairhall, 1941 Oregon 0.00-1,700 Goldblatt et al. , 1963 Oregon 0.00-2,150 Morton et al. , 1976 1 Georgia 0.00-70 Sandhu et al. , 1975 United States, Puget Sound 1.5-1,200 Crecelius et al. , 1975; & Crecelius & IICarpenter, 1974 133 II II Table 47.--Arsenic in fresh water--continued Water Arsenic Concentration Reference II Micrograms/liter (ppb) I United States, rainwater: Rhode Island 0.82 Ray & Johnson, 1972 I Washington, Seattle 17 Crecelius et al. , 1975 Argentina, Cordoba, 480-1,490 Guatelli & de Germicola, I drinking water 1970 trace-300 Bado, 1939 Bosnia, Shebrenica, spring 4,607 Ivancevic & Tomic, 1956 II Canada, well water 0.5-15 Goulden & Brooksbank, II 1974 <2.3-7,500 Wyllie, 1937 Chile 800 Borgono & Greiber, 1972 I Italy, Modena Province: Groundwater 3.0-5.0 Vivoli & Beneventi, 1970 I Subsurface <0.4-21 Clemente et al. , 1974 Japan: II Rain 0.01-13.9 Kanamori & Sugawara, 1965 II Rivers (40) 0.25-7.7 Kanamori & Sugawara, 1965 Aomori Prefecture 30-3,950 Noguchi & Nakagawa, 1970 II Lakes 0.16-1.9 Onishi, 1969 Well, Nagoya Univ. 11.0 Sugawara & Kanamori, 1964 II Germany: Elbe River 20-25 Onishi, 1969 II Rhine River 3.1 Kolle et al. , 1971 Main River 3.6 Lieser & Neitzert, 1976 Logo Maggiore 2.5 Lieser & Neitzert, 1976 II Greece, lakes 1.1-54.5 Onishi, 1969 Formosa, well water 800 Fan & Yang, 1969 II New Zealand, rivers: Waikato Riverc 5-100 Lancaster et al. , 1971 I Waiotapu Valley trace-276,000 Grimmett & McIntosh, 1939 Postugal 0.0-1.0 Livingston, 1963 II 134 1 II Table 47.--Arsenic in fresh water--continued IIWater Arsenic Concentration Reference Micrograms/liter (ppb) IIYagnob, Daiyee River, 100-300 Kvashnevskaya & suspended Shablovskaya, 1963 II Sweden: I Rivers Glacial ice 0.2-0.4 Onishi, 1969 2.0-3.8 Weiss & Bertine, 1973 Antarctica 0.60-0.75 White et al. , 1963 II Spring water,d California, Kamchatka, U.S.S.R. , New Zealand 130-1,000 White et al. , 1963 IOil- and gas-field waters, California, Louisiana, IIHungary 0.0-5,800 White et , 1963 Thermal waters, Wyoming, Nevada, California, Alaska, IIceland 20-3,800 White et al. , 1963 Spring waters,e U.S.S.R. , IWyoming, Algeria, Iceland 30-500 White et , 1963 a Dissolved solids, <2,000 ppm. I b Dissolved solids, >2,000 ppm. High in bicarbonate; of geothermal origin. Ic d High in bicarbonate and boron. e Deposit travertine. IIThere are some sites where the arsenic levels are high naturally: Searles Lake, Calif. ; wells in California and Oregon; Bosnia; Canada; II Aomori Prefecture, Japan; New Zealand rivers, and various springs and thermal waters. But for the most part, drinking water As levels are not above the maximum allowable level of 50 ppb. Arsenic in seawater normally ranges from 1 to 6 ppb. IArsenic in Water from Wood Preservatives I The CCA pressure treatment forces the preservative into the cellular structure e wood. Within this cell structure, the As forms very insoluble compounds. Factors which affect the penetration and retention within the wood will affect its II leachability. I 135 II Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and southern yellow pine had high leachability at 2 to 2.5% preservative solutions, but greatly reduced leachability when the concen- tration of the treating solution was doubled (Dahlgren, 1975). Neither drying temperatures nor the time between treatment and drying affected the leachability of As. Leaching in saltwater is more rapid than in fresh water. Loss of As is shown to lag behind that of copper and chromium and is related to the excess chromium in the preservative formula. Leaching increased as the salinity increased (Irvine and Dahlgren, 1976) . The formulation may affect the leachability of the preservative. Wood treated with ammonical solutions of copper, zinc, and As lost 35 to 67% of the As when the metal oxide to arsenic oxide ratio was less than 1.25. When the ratio was greater than 1.25, only 1 to 15% was lost under a severe accelerated leaching test (Rak, 1976). Tests have been made for As leaching from AWWF as measured in the sump-pump waters. Arsenault (1975) reported an initial As level of 110 ppb As in the sump pit at the completion of construction of a house in Atlanta, Ga. After 3 months, the level declined to 80 ppb and in another 3 months, to 20 ppb As. A more recent examination of water from sump pumps in AWWF basements was made ' in Rapid City, S. Dak. , in 1978 (McNamara, 1978). Twelve homes were tested, varying in length of time the basements were completed (3 to 60 months). In homes with no sump pumps operating and debris in the pit, values ranged from 5 to 22 ppb As. In houses which had sump pumps operating and were being lived in, residue levels were <1 to 10 ppb As. Arsenic in Water from Pesticide ' Applications Several episodes of As appearing in water as a result of pesticide contamination ' or application have appeared in the literature over the years. Feinglass (1973) reported on 13 people who were exposed to well water which was ' contaminated by an arsenical grasshopper bait. The bait had been stored on the ground and the well was drilled through a layer containing the bait. The well water had levels of 11,800 to 21,000 ppb As. No permanent adverse health effects were observed. Water in the Wenatchee, Wash. , area contained from only 5 to 6 ppb As (Fairhall, 1941) , even though the soil in Washington was estimated to have received as much as 7,000,000 pounds of lead arsenate in a single year. Most of this chemical was applied in the Wenatchee-Yakima areas. Sodium arsenite was used for aquatic weed control for many years. As a result, As levels in some lakes has increased. However, it becomes difficult to assess all inputs when other sources of pollution are present. Arsenic levels in treated Lake Chautauqua averaged 15.1 ppb As 13 years after treatment stopped (Lis and Hopke, 1973). Arsenic content in water at application time varied from 1,100 to 14,600 ppb As. Sodium arsenite is not used for aquatic weed control at the present time. Richardson, et al. (1978) examined runoff water from cotton fields after arsenic acid was applied at 6.6 kg/ha. The highest residues were 250 ppm and were a function of time and tillage operations after application. Levels were reduced to 10 to 136 I II 20 ppb after two to three runoff events. Most of the As was associated with the Isediment from erosion. Arsenic in Water from Industrial II Discharge Industrial sources for As in water are quite varied. Widespread low levels have I been reported in rainwater (Cawse and Peirson, 1972; Ray and Johnson, 1972 and Kanamori and Sugawara, 1965) . Rain near smelters, however, may be quite u1 <O.high. r Crecelius (1975) reported levels in Seattle rainwater of 17 ppb compared P II5.4 ppb As in areas not containing smelters. Dumping of arsenic-rich slag and liquid discharges into the Puget Sound has II elevated As levels in the vicinity of the ASARCO smelter at Tacoma (Crecelius and Carpenter, 1974; and Crecelius,smelter 1975). howeverArwithc values ranging tfrom e1t200e ppb aAsdat with distance from the , the smelter to 1 to 2 ppb 2 miles downstream. II At a zinc smelter in Blackwell, Okla. , samples were collected from ponds, public water supplies, and the �,li creeks, roadside ditches, stock tanks, P ppb As (Benenati, 1974). IChickaskia River. All samples contained less than 10 pp Sources need not be caused by manufacturing and processing activities, however. I Elevated As levels in drainage from an abandoned thine of were r of found nag at Moreton Harbor, Newfoundland (Penrose, et al. , 1975). p Streams e, 5.3 ppb were observed. The concentration dropped rapidly to 1 ppb. southwest England receive drainage from past 1i ing andvs elting ppb arsenicaldand Iassociated metalliferous ores (Aston, et al. , these streams. I An p e isode involving As discharge from a manufacturing plant occurred at Creek in North Carolina in 1971. Large amounts of As were discharged into a ; sewage treatment plant in Charlotte, N.C. Water levels of 1,100 ppb were found in the water of Sugar Creek. The As was being moved downstream in both the dissolved IIand suspended state (Wilder, 1972) . Arsenic levels in Lake Michigan average 1.6 ppb As (Seydel, 1972) and are higher 11 `' than those in Lake Superior. Klein (1975) assessed the importance of various sources of inputs of As into Lake Michigan. He concluded that introduced sources are likely 11 to be most important for As. Aerosol deposition is the major source. II Low As levels in river water were the result of using detergents containing As (Tanner, et al. , 1973; and Colasanti and Hopke, 1974) . Arsenic levels ranged from to 51 ppm As in the detergent itself. Angino, et al. (1970) found that water Is treated with cold lime contained As at 0.4 ppb. Water at the intake contained 2.6 to 3.6 ppb before treatment. The As in water returned to the Kansas River after sewage treatment ranged from 1.5 to 2.1 ppb. Angino felt that As in detergents added sig- nificant quantities of As to the river system; others have felt that there was little danger (Pattison, 1970; and Sollins, 1970) . II 4 t 137 ► _ Fate of Arsenic in Water Adsorption from Water • Arsenic in water is quickly removed by reaction or adsorption to sediments. Several factors are responsible for the removal of arsenite from water by lake sedi- ments (Huang and Liaw, 1979) . The adsorption maximum of the lake sediments was reduced sevenfold after removal of the sesquioxides (iron and aluminum hydrous oxides), carbonates, and organic matter. Some adsorption still occurred after removal of the above materials and was attributed to adsorption to the external sur- faces of various clays. Concentration of As in water appears to be a factor in the rate of adsorption. At water concentration of 10 ppb As, 11% was left in the water at 5 days, and 9% Ii after 11 days. When 1,000 ppb As were added, 46% remained in solution at 5 days but only 17% at 11 days (Woolson, et al. , 1976). Naturally occurring As from hot springs concentrates in sediments to 300 ppm As (Reay, 1973). Arsenic is moved downriver as suspended particulate matter and deposited in the ocean. Industrial arsenical wastes, likewise, may concentrate in sediments downstream from the site of contamination (Wilder, 1972). Levels of 35 ppm As were found in stream-bed materials and 500 ppm on suspended sediments. During periods of low stream flow, most As is transported in the dissolved state and reacts with stream-bed materials, thereby decreasing As levels in water. During periods of high flow, the sediments are carried along by the water movement and most As is moved downstream on suspended sediments. Arsenic, whether from natural sources or human activity, moves to the ocean ultimately where sedimentation occurs. Ferguson and Gavis (1972) concluded that "there is no substantial imbalance between natural weathering and deposition of arsenic at present." A summary of As in sediments is presented in Table 48. ' • Metabolism in Water and , Aquatic Organisms • Metabolism of As involves several reactions; namely, oxidation, reduction, and methylation. The latter two processes are biologically mediated while the oxidation may or may not be. • Arsenate, methylarsonic acid, and dimethylarsinic acid were found in natural fresh waters which had received no As applications (Braman and Foreback, 1973) . In addition to the above, arsenite was detected in seawater. Trimethylarsine (or the oxide) was found only in fresh water. Bacteria, fungi, aquatic plants, and/or animals are responsible for the conver- • sions of inorganic As to the organic forms. Bacteria can methylate As both anaero- bically (McBride and Wolfe, 1971) and aerobically (Challenger and Higginbottom, 1935). Marine bacteria are known to reduce arsenate to arsenite under laboratory conditions (Johnson, 1972) . Johnson and Braman (1975) "hypothesize that some member(s) of the Sargassum community is producing the alkyl-arsenic" since it is not present in rainwater and alkyl arsenicals as well as arsenite and arsenate are found in members of this community. ' 138 -1/- r CARVER SOIL AND1_ ATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 219 East Frontage Road ' Waconia, Minnesota 55387 Telephone(612)442-5101 NOW I MINNESOTA lealh SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 1 January 20, 1987 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner City of Chanhassen Planning Department 690 Coulter Drive, P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Dear Ms. Olsen: Enclosed find a copy of the comments provided to DNR Division of Waters on Eric Rivkin's application for permit. These same comments will also apply for your review of Planning Case No. 87-1 Wetlands Alteration for Eric Rivkin. ' Sincerely, nt,tc / Paul D. Neumann Conservation Technician ' PDN/mh 1 Enc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 RECEIVED .1, N 2 1%7 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. 1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1 C 4. CITY OF II :,... 4 . I ' I ' -- C 1.,. : ANHASSEN •ki_\\Lle.„, M 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission I FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer 14 DATE: February 5, 1987 1 SUBJ: Wetland Alteration Permit - Eric Rivkin I Planning Case No. 87-1 In general, our wetland protection regulations (Ordinance 47-AR) I require a very cautious review of Class A wetland activities , such as those proposed by Mr. Rivkin; namely, the creation of ponds and the digging, dredging and filling in the wetland. This is not to say that these improvements are not permitted obviously; however, I believe the term improvement is the key qualifier. I will defer to the Department of Natural Resources , I Division of Waters expertise as to specific impacts; however, concerns that this office has with the proposed wetland altera- tion are with the longterm usefulness of this pond and channel proposal. I do not question the canoe access that will be main- tained; however, I have concerns as it relates to the implied primary purpose for this wetland alteration; namely, "to provide a secluded open water habitat for water fowl and possible I spawning entry area for fish" . The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Urban I Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, referenced in our ordinance, indicates a minimum - acre surface area and 14 foot depth and an adequate supply of good quality water is needed to support fish. This proposal provides only 1/10th of an acre of I surface area and a very minimum 6 foot depth. With the pond proposed to be roughly 300 feet inland from Lake Lucy, I antici- pate some very stagnant water conditions would prevail in this I pond and channel area, which would only encourage rough bottom fish and nutrient rich algae or weed prone growth, i .e. a very stagnant condition. In my opinion, this would lead to future requests for access to the site for continual dredging improve- ments. As a result, I do not look favorably on granting this wetland alteration permit. If, however, the Commission and Council sees fit to issue a I wetland alteration permit, I would recommend the following con- ditions be incorporated: II II Planning Commission February 5 , 1987 Page 2 ' 1. The permit be issued for a restricted period of time for the months of February and March, 1987, providing that the wetland is frozen enough to support the entrance of construction equipment. 2 . The applicant be required to submit an acceptable erosion and nutrient control plan for the site prior to construc- tion. 3 . A performance surety in the amount of $2, 000 be provided to the City to insure proper completion of the project. I 1 1 STATE 4, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. 612/296-7523 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 1 FILE NO March 19, 1987 ' Mr. Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Trail Minnetonka, MN 55345 Dear Mr. Rivkin: RE: PERMIT APPLICATION 87-6190, CHANNEL AND POND EXCAVATION - LAKE LUCY, 10-7P, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Department of Natural Resources personnel have reviewed your project and have conferred with other interested agencies. The concerns arising from the review of your most recent plan (a copy of which was received from the City of Chanhassen on February 12, 1987) are as follows: 1. We want you to be aware that there is no guarantee that stagnation won't occur in the pond. DNR Division of Fisheries does not totally agree that the studies and methods of Clean-Flo Laboratories are always effective in controlling weed growth. If purple loostrife, duckweed or filamentous algae invade, for example, future alternative controls may have to be by way of chemical treatment (which requires a permit from the Division of Fisheries) . 2. The 1: 1 channel slopes appear to be too steep to maintain the dimensions shown. The top width of excavation will increase dramatically with shallower side slopes, thus having a more profound impact on the environment. We request that the soils to be excavated be analyzed (by an engineer) for slope stability so that a more realistic estimation of channel width can be made. MAR 2 0 1:987 ' CITY OF CHANHA5SEN AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i3 ��rJ Mr. Eric Rivkin PERMIT APPLICATION 87-6190 March 19, 1987 Page Two ' 3. Finally, there still appears to be an issue of spoil placement. MN Rules part 6115.0200 Subpart 5B states that redeposition of excavated materials into protected waters shall only be permitted when it will result in improvement of natural conditions of protected waters for the public benefit. Documentation must be made as to the habitat improvement due to spoil redeposition, ' and must be reviewed and approved by the Area Wildlife Manager. In addition, the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and City of Chanhassen must be in ' agreement with the spoil disposal plan. It is my understanding that you have a new design for your proposal. If these issues can be addressed along with submittal of your new ' plan, and if the local authorities have no further objections, we will proceed with finalizing your permit application. ' Sincerely, 1��" ' Bo dreau, Area Hydrologist METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS cc: Bob Obermeyer JoAnne Olsen ' J25/lkr I Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 830-0555 Legal Advisor Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman&Doty 4 IDS Center Minneapolis,M eapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 October 7, 1987 ' Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe Regional Hydrologist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul , MN 55106 Re: MDNR Chapter 105 Work in Protected Waters Permit - Rivkin Property Lake Lucy: Chanhassen Dear Mr. Lokkesmoe: The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the MDNR Chapter 105 Work in Protected Waters permit for the construction of boat access on Lake Lucy for the Rivkin property in Chanhassen. The Managers recommend that the MDNR approve the Chapter 105 Work in Protected Waters permit for this project subject to the following conditions: 1. The District will require that all work undertaken in the lake be completed during the 1987-1988 winter months between the period of December 1, 1987 to March 1, 1988. Work undertaken during this period will minimize the potential of a problem, sedimentation, from developing within the lake. 2. At the toe of slope where excavated material is to be spoiled, erosion control measures , silt fence, and/or staked hay bales reinforced with snow fence, must be installed. If silt fence is used, the bottom flap must be buried and the maximum allowable spacing between posts if 4 foot on center. All posts must be either 2" x 2" pine, hardwood, or steel fence posts. If hay OCT 23 1987 I A CITY OF CHANHASSE Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe October 7, 1987 Page 2 bales are used, all bales must be staked in place and reinforced on the downstream side with snow fence. ' 3. All areas altered, spoil area, must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod or wood fiber blanket within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than June 1, 1988. ' 4. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to the commencement of construction. ' If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District' s permit, please call us at 830-0555. ' Robert C. Obermeyer BARR ENGINEERING CO. Engineers for the District ' Approved by the Board of Managers RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK ' WTERSHED DISTRI !i f President ' Date: /• j. ,• J RCO/mmm ' c: Mr. Frederick Richards Mr. Frederick Rahr Ms. Joann Olson KK/330,0 1 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 7, 1987 Page 2 B. Permit 87-64 : Bleustem Hills 4th Addition; Grading and land alteration permit : Eden Prairie. ' In order to allow municipal review of the development to be completed, it was moved by Cardinal , seconded by Rahr , I that the matter be continued until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Managers . Upon vote the motion carried . C. MDNR Chapter 105 Work in Protected Waters Permit Applica- tion - Rivkin property - Lake Lucy: Chanhassen Manager Rahr commented that no additional construction I should occur adjacent to the ditch being affected by this proposed development. Manager Rahr expressed his opposition to any future construction on either side of the ditch in the event this development application is approved. D. Permit Extension 87-43 : Eden Pointe: Eden Prairie . E. Permit Extension: Bermel-Smaby Singletree Lane site : Eden Prairie. Mr . Brauer was present to submit the plans and specifi- cations ' for this development . During the course of discussion, Mr . Brauer noted that sedimentation basins are already in place from previous developments which have been reviewed and approved by the Board. These sedimentation basins will likewise service this area to be developed. F. Permjit 87-68 and MDNR Chapter 105 Work in Protected I Waters permit application - Lake Virginia-Lake Ann-Red Rock Sanitary Sewer Interceptor : Eden Prairie/Chanhassen Upon motion duly made, seconded and adopted, this matter I was continued until further plans and specifications are submitted to the Board for review. G. Permit 87-69 : Utility Installation-Timber Creek North; Grading and land alteration permit: Eden Prairie The Managers noted that site grading has already commenced on this site. Mr. Obermeyer reported that the developer is now seeking permits for utility installation. The I Managers expressed serious reservations as to whether or not any additional permits should be issued unless and until the developer complies with existing permits requiring the installation and maintenance of all erosion 1 • , . NT Op DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY i • 4:\I F` ST.PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS e l'w,Q' 2 1135 U.S.POST OFFICE&CUSTOM HOUSE IQ '. ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101.1479 cz,,.74.,...7 46./fr7 -%..n,tib \ ATTENTION OF l J 11�� J • n Construction-Operations ,'r� ja ca2�saC�l i9JX . Regulatory Functions ` C�� 4(/ P n tqrs. E.pc,:c, tel,v16;1,, a4vi (1,444.0-J..44" 44447 I 56'26"S lie. Re: $ -Yy : �h�, 3� 7 )J A e. x30. JA T RN 6.6_3,6_ Ca l- Cr in Ai I I We have reviewed the information provided us about your project. The work you propose at the location stated above is authorized by an existing nationwide Department of the Army permit, provided the work is I done in compliance with the enclosed conditions and management practices - --,- - - listed in the enlcosure. I This determination covers only the project referenced above. If the design, location, or purpose of the work is changed, you should contact us to make sure the work would not result in a violation of 1 Federal law. Our telephone number is (612) 725-7557. IIt is your responsibility to insure that the work complies with the -'j terms of this letter and the enclosures. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN I ALL REQUIRED STATE PERMITS AND APPROVALS BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT. THIS NATIONWIDE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION IS CONTINGENT UPON STATE APPROVAL. If you have any questions, please call t I Sincerely, 'v 0.0 I Enclosure(s) BeC in ef, t A. Y II gulatory Functions Branch Construction-Operations Division Determination: 330 ,S J ) cal.) Li) , I 71,r. R - ., ,6-e-e- ' p a_ alw,n,rta 0,,,, Q ak e P ,�- - . '.��- 0 .,G fie ,-o -u/„e�,�,Q 74.,-- 24, I , �- , crn pert,. J3 -a 2 /0 .,,`,,0, ,wc.7 ,J ,wt,C/ /0, v 0a ,ag. #•• , MAR 13 i:387 Cdr,OF CHANHASSEtkl I HEADWATERS Minnesota 33 CFR 330.5(a)(26)(i) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters listed in paragraphs (a)(26)(i) and (ii) of this section except those which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 10 acres or more of waters of the United States, including wetlands. For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 1 to 10 acres of such waters, including wetlands, notification of the district engineer is required in accordance with Section 330.7. (Projects that qualify for any other nationwide permit may be authorized by that permit.) (i) Non-tidal rivers, streams and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters. Regional Conditions A. IF STATE PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS REQUIRED Any person intending to discharge dredged or fill material into Minnesota- designated "Protected Waters" shall submit an application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) before beginning work. Activities are not authorized under this nationwide permit until the applicant obtains all applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permits and approvals. Work may proceed upon receipt of all applicable MDNR and/or MPCA permits and approvals. Other State and local authorizations may be required. ' If the project will drain, fill, or inundate waters of the United- States and the majority, by area, of the waters/wetlands affected is above the ordinary high- =� water mark of State "Protected Waters", then Section B below applies. B. IF NO STATE PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS REQUIRED 1. An Individual Department of the Army Permit Must Be Obtained From The Corps s of Engineers For the Placement of Dredged or Fill Material In the Following Areas: a. TROUT STREAMS - the headwaters (and adjacent wetlands) and the tributaries (and adjacent wetlands) of these streams as part of a project that would drain,_ fill, or inundate an area larger than 10,000 square feet of a water of the U nited States. _ `s-).. FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (ST. CROIX RIVER). all headwaters (and = a1`z •• adjacent wetlands) and all tributaries (and adjacent wetlands) of the .St. Croix 'diver as part of a project that would drain, fill, or inundate an area larger than 10,000 square feet of a water of the United States. c. LAKES/WETLANDS LARGER THAN 10 ACRES - all wetlands adjacent to these 1 headwater lakes and wetlands, if the placement is' done as part of a project that _ would drain, fill or inundate an area larger than 10,000 square feet of a water - of the United States. These areas are identified by MDNR on .their "Public Waters/Wetlands Inventory" maps. d. TROUT LAKES - wetlands adjacent to these lakes designated by the MDNR (list attached). e. CALCAREOUS FENS - fens designated by the MDNR (list attached). B II -21 - y . , .. { c . ..., 1IEADWATE&S = - Minnesota Work may proceed upon receipt -.of an individual .permit from the Corps..of Engineers. '- --2 -Reporting Rec.uirement for Proposed Placement of Dredged or Fill Material in Other, t State Protected. Waterways -Activities that, -as part of a project, would drain, fill, or inundate an area of more than 10,000 square -feet of .a=water of the United States, -where the project - is totally outside state jurisdiction, must be reported to the Corps of Engineers Iprior to carrying out the activity. Work may proceed upon receipt of--a confirmation letter from the Corps of -engineers. 3. Nationwide Permit Applies - • _ pi - _. -- Placement of dredged or fill material in all other headwaters and adjacent wetlands is authorized by this nationwide permit. .Work may proceed without written authorization from the Corps of Engineers. 1-!) -, _ . . . _ - - -'- - _b. .-..ate .. 4 - -... - _ - - }...- - .7.. .. ..,--,(tiff --- - --. w I 3-22 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner . PUBLIC HEARING: Wetland Alteration Permit to create an open water habitat for waterfowl and private access for one canoe on Lake Lucy on property zoned R-R, Rural • Residence and located on Lot 5, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands, Eric Rivkin, Applicant. Public Present : ' Tom Kraker 5597 Timber Lane , Excelsior Mark and Kathy Sanda 14343 Fairway Drive, Eden Prairie ' Olsen: The property is located in Lake Lucy Highlands, Lot 5 and it is adjacent to Lake Lucy. The applicant is proposing a pond and channel to provide access for his canoe to Lake Lucy. The wetland is a Class A wetland and the Ordinance requires a Wetland Alteration Permit for any dredging or channels or docks or any alteration to the wetlands. A permit is also required from the DNR and the Watershed District. The channel will serve as access to the lake and the pond will serve as a wildlife habitat. The City regulations require minimal impact to the wetland, that no spoils I will be located within the wetland and that erosion control will be provided. The DNR and Staff visited the site with the applicant and after review, we found that the pond and the channel connected can promote rough fish entering up into the pond. The size of the pond is so that it will have summer and winter kill , the lack of oxygen , that it could possibly be a maintenance problem with stagnation due to the high volume of vegetation around it. The DNR has stated that they want the pond and channel to be separated. We keep working on this day to day and their most updated reponse is to have the pond and the channel separated. That would prevent the fishery problem with the fish coming up into the pond and promoting these rough fish. They had stated that an aerator could be used. The applicant has, as far as the stagnation and the summer and winter kills, on this new plan has provided an aerator. A DNR permit is not required if an aerator is not used during the winter. The DNR wanted it to g IPlanning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 2 Ir ' be made clear that if the channel is put in or the channel with a pond, that that becomes public and anyone using the lake can go up into that pond I area. They also pointed out that the site has loosestrife right now and it has been documented that if a site is altered it promotes more loosestrife to expand in that area which can be a real problem. It kills off the rest I of the wetland. The Watershed acted on this last Wednesday and they tabled any action until they hear back from the DNR on their recommendation. They have stated that they want erosion control throughout and that no spoils I will be permitted within the wetland area. As far as the City is concerned, we want minimum impact to the wetland. In our review, the main purpose of this pond and channel is for access to the lake so Staff is recommending that the pond and channel be divided because of the potential I problem to the wetland. We are recommending instead that a dock or boardwalk be installed. The reasons for this are the problems that can occur from the pond and the channel being connected to Lake Lucy. There I are two lots on either side. One already has a house being built on it and the other one is a potential home site and they could also want to come in and have another channel and a ponding area. We are recommending that if a I channel or a pond is approved, that they look at the possibility of putting the pond and channel on the lot lines. Also, if it is approved, we are recommending that he provide a performance security. If the permit is approved, we have a list of conditions that I can go through but we are I also recommending, as the DNR, that the pond and channel be separated so the fishery concern would be eliminated. Would you like me to go through 1 the conditions? IConrad: No. Eric Rivkin: (The applicant handed out pictures of the site to the I Planning Commissioners) The responses that I have here, included with that new map, are revised after I reviewed the Staff Report so this is a second major reiteration process. I'm going to read along and comment on the I hand-out that you have and I'll start out with why the proposed design has minimum impact. First of all, placement on the lot minimizes the length required. This is the outland area, started by herons is all marsh from I here down. They found to put a pond on the other side would go much longer so this is the shortest distance from the place where I could enter a boat and go to the open water. The pond depth, you can see a cross section here, I revised it here to 9 feet preventing problems to full depth I freezing. The pond also does not remove the wetland or aquatic vegetation thus destroying any additional foot or habitat for wildlife that would benefit from that. The marsh grass starts right here. This vegetation I here is primarily terrestrial and not aquatic. The pond, as you can see, is not what is located in the terrestrial area. The pond and channel square foot surface area is less than the typical design the DNR fisheries would have permitted with a simple boat turnaround. My proposal has a I total of 10, 813 square feet which is 8 1/2% less what DNR recommended. I talked to Steve Oie in the Fisheries and he said typically they permitted a 20 foot square channel with a turnaround for a boat. In my last Lconversation with him he said that was something they can live with and it's less than that. The surface area of the channel itself removes I , Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 3 C 1 only 2/10th of 1%. This is the lot right here in the green. The slashed area is wetland area on Lake Lucy. This outline was taken directly from the Wetland's Map given to me by Jo Ann. This pond and channel is to scale so it gives you an idea of what kind of impact it has. We've got over 2 million square feet of marsh on Lake Lucy and the channel is a little over 5,000 square feet. Is every remaining lot owner or potential owner had a I boat channel, that is all these lot owners here already have lake access. All the lot owners here except this one, Mark Sanda, has lake access. The island is owned by someone who doesn't live there and that could potentially go to development and this is a government outlot. That can not be developed. This could be potentially developed and Prince's property could possibly be developed. If I added in a total of 5,000 lineal feet of channel , the same as my width, and it came out to approximately 2% of the entire wetland area to date. The pond- is brought to the edge of the upland terrain to eliminate the need for artificial structures such as docks and also to keep it within my needs to work to put' my lake access in. The profile of the pond is perceived to be minimal because of the efforts made by steep slope. The slopes are 2 to 1 and 5 to 1. Typical as possible with a minimum disruption to the land may not be I conducive to further cattail growth. If you design a pond to be much more shallower grade to it, you further enhance the ability for cattail to grow back so we made it as deep as possible. The curved pond design avoids the established deciduous shrubs and trees such as dogwoods and ash as well as provide a natural wood. The crooked design of the channel avoids an artificial appearance with minimum length. If we went straight out it would not look like it was a part of the park. With minimum intrusion into the upland clay soils which maximizes the chance for rapid revegetation surrounding the pond but also the fact that it is in terrestrial vegetation area also maximizes the chances for it revegetating too. Why the construction methods have minimal impact? Dredging the channel versus using herbacide, which is an alternative that the DNR has approved before. Dredging is non-polluting to the environment. Siltation created by dredging will totally disappear. The long term health effects of herbacides have not been 100% safe and may contain carccinogens. To minimize silt entering into the lake, we have followed pretty much the recommendations given to us by Bob Obermeyer of the Watershed District. To minimize silt entering into the lake, construction is to take place during the winter months when ice can support the equipment. I would like to say that I think they are making a somewhat unfair in this proposal by the Staff that we only restrict this to winter of 1987. If delays are made, I I do have the right to have one year to use any permit that may be issued to me so I think that should be extended to 1988. The pond should be constructed first and the channel dug last from the pond to the lake leaving a barrier at the end of the channel until sediment permits removal of the barrier. Siltage here, minimum two foot dock is excavated in the area and all exposed spoils from the pond will be located right here. The exposed soil will be temporarily seeded with broadgrass mixture and mulched I with straw for erosion control. For nutrient control, no bluegrass will be planted and no fertilizers will be permitted. Spoils from the channel are being disposed of behind this 12 foot berm. The 12 berm meaning there is a ' clear area from the edge of the channel to where we can disperse the spoils Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 4 from the channel. This is not spoils from the pond. This is the channel only. This is cattails and it's 8Oo water or ice in this case and the amount of silt, as indicated on here, could possible get into the wetland area is less than 1/4 inch of slit over the area being dispersed. The Carver Soil and Water District Manager visited the site and said that ' dispersement of cattail spoils is the way it is normally done and it disappears with no detrimental effects. Almost every municipality in the local area permits this practice with no detrimental effects and since this ' isn't a very big project, this isn't going to even scratch, it will probably disappear within a year. Also the fact that the channel isn't dug in a typical fashion. It's not squared off. It's angled down for access and it also minimizes the amount of silt that we're taking out. Typically ' most channel designs that the DNR permits is one with a square bottom so I've also submitted a license for that design. Black dirt and clay spoils from the pond can be placed separately upland and spread to the proposed ' topography as soon as the moisture content of the soil permits. Final seeding of the upland area, up around here, will consist of short prairie grass mixtures. Also, the excavator says that carrying channel spoils away is pretty needless and also is very cost prohibited. There will be worse damage to the environment because he's going to have to remove these dogwoods due to the truck traffic because the pond has to be dug first. This is all going to have to be tracked over, he has to haul in two dumptrucks going back and forth constantly to keep the crane operating and it will take another additional four days of construction, $3,000.00 more ( and it will also contain large chunks of ice that you would have to deposit here which make the spoils impossible to level out the same year because of the moisture content so you can't dry it out. That prevents spreading it out and reseeding it right away and that adds to potential silt run-off in this area. I also wanted to respond to the dock. It really can't work ' because it is house prohibited which in effect denies me the right to lake access. Since my conversations with Jo Ann, I've gotten three more quotes from Bridgeco. I called three more sources and they are all more than what I quoted here so this is very conservative. We're talking about $17,000.00 to put in 600 lineal feet of dock with minimal three foot width. This is the least expensive design and comparatively the cost to excavate the ' proposed plan with an aerator is $2,700.00. If I did the custom deck or floating deck, it would be more expensive and I had quotes upwards of $30,000.00 to $39,000.00 to do floating docks and to do the kind of docks you see in parks where there are docks going in the reeds and that kind of dock is $35,000.00. Posts need to be driven to solid ground and are very difficult to install. It is a serious liability and it's a safety hazard to snowmobilers. 6 to 7 foot tall cattails up higher than docks and t snowmobilers do frequent the area all the time. There was a snowmobile trail there when we visited the site this morning and it is a serious liability. The dock would be hidden in the reeds and someone traveling at a great speeds is going to run into it. This is the kind of thing that ' invites lawsuits. Also, the neighbors and I thing a dock is an eyesore. It doesn't blend in at all to the environment. Product life for docks is typically 15 years. Maintenance costs are very high especially if made to ILremove the docks. The posts in the winter, if it becomes a liability, it turns my leisure activity into a vocation which is something... I also • Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 5 would like to say in response to the fact that it's not detrimental, I would like to say why it's beneficial to the wildlife fish and lakes surrounded by the community. The addition of more open water would counter balance the gradual disappearance of open lake waters due to natural eutrophication process. There is also a clay base to the pond whic will maximize in it's depth and also maximize it's ability to continue to hold water. The addition of pump at the bottom surface will encourage initial growth of a better class necessary for natural oxygenation and support fish and water fowl habitat. The DNR, John Parker, from the Water Conservation District Manual which he came me those specifications for the pond. When I proposed this plan to him and he initially said that there wouldn't be any problem due to the wildlife benefits to this and he did recommendations on how to design the pond from this book. In a smaller' positive way, the pond also increases the storage capacity of the lake by more than 14 gallons. The 10 to 1 slope going up in here is preferred for water fowl entry in the Water Conservation District Manual. It states that'll that's not a good slope. The pond is located to existing shrubs and dry grasses providing desirable cover for mammals and possibly nesting water fowl and is far enough away from the houses to provide. The fish manned to the area will consumme mosquito larvae. The map shows here the size of the pond now. The DNR recommended a 40 by 40 foot version of this pond which is a little less than half this size. If I don't have any pond at all , rough fish are still going to get in. They prefer shallow water. My pond I is more than twice the depth that the DNR recommends. They recommended 4 { foot deep, 40 x 40 foot boat turnaround and if you have someplace for rough s fish to spawn, that's going to be the place to do it. I've proposed an aerator system which will keep the water oxygenated to encourage good fish I to come in because they prefer water with high oxygen levels. The pond and channel are large enough to provide additional landing area for water fowl. That is another benefit. Even though ducks and geese have been thriving in much shallower ponds in the Lake Lucy area , you can drive by any little pond and they are covered with green duck weed and it's croontail in them. I have taken a canoe out into these ponds and looked at them with Bob Lange ' to investigate what is the nature of these ponds and there is croontail, about 2 or 3 feet of muck and the ducks and geese are thriving so algae does not create the severe stagnation conditions where there is a high degree of decomposing orgranic material in the bottom does not discourage wild fowl at all and the evidence is there. Just drive by and you find animals all the time living there. I plan to prevent stagnation and • fillament this algea to a minimum by putting in a microenforcer used with a remote pump described in the attached literature. I gave Jo Ann a copy of it. You probably didn't get a chance to see all of them. I think there is one sheet where they describe the system there. Basically, what it does is "! it causes microscopic air bubbles to rise in the water from the lowest part of the pond and the surface tension of the air water interface causes them to pull a maximum quantity of water from the bottom of the lake causing a purging process and that's the kind of thing that occurs naturally in clear lakes up north twice a year when cold waves come in. The pump will be turned off in the winter to prevent open water hazards. This can benefit the community too. The process being demonstrated on the pond can provide I a good example for studying, controlling or reversing the eutrophication 1 IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 6 Ic process that is occuring now on Lake Lucy. Every lake goes through it and I some people refer to it as a dying lake process when you lose the resource. Lake Lucy is a very shallow lake and anything that you can do to create more open water will enhance it and reverse this process 180 degrees so I was kind of surprised the DNR didn' t come back and actually want more taken P out because they permit this on a grand scale on other lakes. The city of Richfield right now is breaking up cattails and they're not even putting in aeration systems. They are just simply going in and digging out the mess I and the muck and putting in ponds and cattails that were already there. That will disappear and they will have more open water for the rest of this area to enjoy and wildlife and encourage better fish, not rough fish. This I will also benefit the other lakes and prevent fish kills. Improving clarity, reduce weeds and algae and help eliminate the sulphorous odors that are associated with decomposing matter. I will maintain larger and healthier fish and wildlife populations, eliminate stagnant bottom waters II to prolong the life of the lake. ...to localize the proposed pond. It is 430 feet from Lake Lucy and is the most effects of this area. Let's say I didn't have the aerator. Let's say the artificial oxygenation was not used 1 at all. Build-up of decomposing matter, this is what you need to encourage rough fish. To have an understanding of this would eliminate any fears that anybody might have with a 9 foot deep pond encouraging rough fish for a very long period of time. You need several conditions in order for rough II fish to want to live there. One is that you have decaying algae on the top. That may occur, probably will occur because there is duck weed there now I- but that's not going to cause light to enter the water but what causes the II fish not to want to come in in the first place is black anterobic sludge that is down in the bottom and causing a separate type water which prevent the fish from going down and doing bottom feeding. This permits beneficial aerobic organisms. The build-up of decomposing organic matter on the I bottom of the pond would be very insignificant for some time because there is little organic matter to begin with and build-up in the surrounding vegetation would be minimal. Usually it builds up very fast when you have 1 agricultural run-off going in when it rains and have open soils and we have lots of forested areas. Ponds in forested areas tend to fill up much faster because the organic matter tends to build-up over time and there II aren't any big trees around here to cause that condition. There is little organic matter to begin with and build-up from surrounding vegetation. Beneficial aerobic organisms to consume and keep up with a minimum influx of organic matter so so-called stagnation or oxygen depletion probably I won't occur for some time. Continuous oxygenation or removal of carbon dioxide will maintain a favorable environment to any good or bad that go into the pond as well as prevent build-up of manaerobic decomposing organic I matter. By having a shallow channel and a shallow pond, boat turnaround, the rough fish would thrive more. By giving the good fish a place to come in, it would cut down on the rough fish population by having deep water II there. The design of the pond is meant to support large populations of spawning game fish. That's not my primary purpose but at least it won't be a detriment to any fish or any wildlife that would wander in. However , I IL_ will mention that this artificial oxygenation process has in many ponds been a great success. To explain the oxygenation part of this thing a little better than I can, I have asked Bob Lange who is an expert in this II Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 7 C area to talk and answer any questions about this process. Bob Lange: I've known Mr. Rivkin since 1985 and I would like to say that II he has called me on many occasions and asked my advice about environmental matters. He has looked at other land and has constantly worked to improve the land for the environment and wildlife and I think he is a credit to your community. I didn't come here to promote my company but I would like to tell you that I'm the President of Clean Flo Laboratories in Hopkins and we started business in 1970 so we're 16 years old and we have restored over 1,000 lakes and ponds worldwide during that period. One of the things that, I would like to address is the loosestrife problem. Loosestrife prefers water that is shallower than water that cattails live in and by digging the!' pond deeper than the cattails, Mr. Rivkin's project certainly will not encourage any loosestrife growth. The other thing I would like to address is mosquitoes. In 1982 I wrote a report for the Department of Environmental Protection in the State of New Jersey on mosquitoes and the results of that report caused the state to allow storm water settling basins to be built in housing communities provided aeration was applied to these basins and I would like to read you some exerpts from this report. Ponds will be conducive to mosquito growth if permitted to become stagnant of it the ponds became full of aquatic vegetation. Mosquitoes and stabilization ponds have usually been associated with growth of aquatic vegetation. Shallow ponds with abundant vegetation often produce mosquito problems. I would like to say here that Mr. Rivkin's pond will be so deep f that it won't encourage submerged aquatic vegetation. According to researchers, ponds free from vegetation have presented no problem and I give several references here. Waters that contain fish, seldom are sources of mosquitoes because their larvae are preferred fish food and are relatively available to fishes because the larvae and pupae come to the surface to survive. While collecting material for his publication the mosquitoes in Illinois, H.H. Ross in 1947 found no mosquito larvae or nymphs in farm ponds except in parts containing dense stands of submersed aquartic vegetation which prevented the fish from reaching the larvae or pupae. What I've just given is three major reasons why mosquitoes have not been found in ponds treated by the clean flo process. The moving surface water due to multiple inversion of the water , the lack of aquatic vegetation and the exceptional abundance of fish. Water quality is greatly improved in all the ponds that we treat, especially in higher oxygen, lower phospherous and nitrogen levels. This gives much better water quality then would be found in ponds partially recharged... I would also like to say that in the ponds that we have aerated, there has been an increase in water fowl using those ponds. In fact, in the State of Kentucky, we have several ponds that we are aerating there and this has been responsible for water 11 fowl now beginning to winter over in the State of Kentucky where they haven ' t in the past. Are there any questions that I could answer? Conrad: Maybe later on. ' Mark Sanda: I'm the neighbor to Eric's east side. The property line there mentioned in one of the diagrams and my wife and I are here, we just wanted to state that we've known Mr. Rivkin for about 6 months. It's becoming I Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 8 lk: mutual future neighbors g ors and have been very impressed with his knowledge of environmental factors. He has taught us a tremendous amount about the type of vegetation that exists up on our property and the care of some rather nice majestic red oaks that exist up on our property. The care in taking care of the trees during the construction process of our home and ' I've told Eric that as long as the pond did not become a mosquito nest or something like that, we can't imagine him doing anything to the property that would be environmentally damaging and that we have no objections to ' the building of the pond and the channel . Tom Kraker: I'm also an owner of one of the lots on Stellar Court, actually across the street from Mr. Rivkin and I have known Eric for a ' short period also but have been equally impressed with his knowledge and concern and care of the environment. I would like to state that it appears that the recommendation for the dock is really much less in keeping with ' the natural environment than his proposal and I would encourage the Commission to come in with a favorable recommendation because I do support it. I have personally lived on small lakes that have become victim to the ' eutrophication process and it's really a sad thing to see that proceed and anything such as this that can arrest that should be looked on very favorably and I believe Mr. Rivkin's proposal with the deep pond, aerator, etc. will indeed help arrest that process and again, should be looked upon favorably. r Eric Rivkin: I want to read a letter from another neighbor who was addressed on the list. His name is Bob Burish and he is owner of Lot 1, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands. He addressed the letter to Ms. Olsen. It says, in regards to the notification on the hearing for my request to dredge a channel and small pond on the shore of Lake Lucy, would like to go on record in support of the request. It is our opinion that the plan proposed would enhance the shoreline by creating a protected open water wetland area for migratory water fowl and shore birds. It would also create more ' habitat for fish and aquatic wildlife. It is also our opinion that the channel and pond area would be more appealling than a long wooden dock to the open water and less disruptive to upland game and visual aesthetics. I l also want to say that since it has become or would become a public waterway that everybody on Lake Lucy, whether they come in from land or water, will come and enjoy the benefits of the increase in wildlife and possibly a place to fish. I also talked to some of the older residents of the area to ' find out what kind of the history of the eutrophication process has gone on Lake Lucy. There is a gentlemen there up on the hill who has been there since 1907 and I asked him how is the fishing on the lake? How has it been ' and he said it's gotten worse. All he catches now are bullheads. He used to catch walleye and many more northerns then there are now. He is so disappointed with the lake and it's ability to produce fish that he doesn't ' fish there anymore and he hasn't for about 30 years. Since 1907, that's less than half his life. He says that the amount of cattails that have been encroaching on the lake has been ever increasing so we can stop that process . I Planning Commission Meeting II February 11, 1987 - Page 9 c . 11 Headla moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried and public hearing was closed. p Headla : Jo Ann do you have any comments on the presentation? Olsen: Yes, I have a few. Steve Oie from the Fishery Department of DNR I does not approve of the channel and pond. As stated before, they want it separated to not promote any rough fish with the connection of the two. Also , they stated they want the pond separated 50 to 100 feet from the I channel. The government lot to the west was an outlot but the City did not want it as a parkland so the developer went to the City and it has become a buildable lot now. As far as the construction extending into next year , that is fine as long as you only do it during the winter months. It states that you can not dredge during the water fowl breeding season. Again, the spoils, it was recommended that they be outside of the ordinary high water mark and the Watershed District has confirmed that they won't I allow even the channel spoils to be placed within the wetland. All spoils have to be mulched and seeded and that will be difficult to do if they are just placed next to the channel. Again, we are stressing that the pond and I channel should be separated. Headla : What do you mean that the pond and channel should be separated? I Olsen: The pond is an area where the fish will go up and can spawn, rough fish, so the DNR does not want that to be connected. They will allow the channel so he can have access for his canoe and they will allow the pond I also if he wants to have an open wildlife habitat area but by connecting them , that provides an area for the fish to go up and possibly will promote the rough fish. If there is any stagnation of that water, that also has I been found to be detrimental to the lake. Headla : So physically, they should not be connected? Olsen: Right. They are saying that they should be separated at least 100 I feet minimum. Headla: On the agenda here, the second line says a private access for one II canoe on Lake Lucy. Where did this one canoe get started because we're talking about a tremendous amount of money and effort for one canoe? I Olsen: It' s just a private access . Rivkin: I live there and I want to get out to the open water and I have a I canoe today. The lake is not big enough or deep enough for water boat. I think there is a motor restriction on the lake so it doesn' t appear to be in the best interest to have a watercraft so I would rather put it as a I nice place to go to in the first place. I would like to add that the purpose for wildlife is one major benefit to having this. It kind of turned into a purpose after reviewing all this because it is a reversal or stoppage of the eutrophication process. I would put that down as the purpose for this project . I IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 10 IL Headla: I have two concerns. My first concern is I think you've covered a I lot of the questions as of today. It scares the heck out of me, what's going to happen in 5 years? You may not be here. What happens if you lose power down there to your aeration system? What can we do to make sure that is maintained 5 to 10 years from now? IBob Lange: After it's run for 5 to 10 years, it would take a number of years for the lake to eutrofy again. The pond would be eating up the Iorganic matter and it would be much better off than Lake Lucy. Rivkin: Because we're starting off with a fresh clean bottom. Lake Lucy has 3 to 4 feet of muck on the botton of it. We've actually gone out there I and felt the bottom and stuck our paddles down and measured the muck. We know what it is. We're starting out clean now. It's a clay base at the bottom of this pond and it would take hundreds of years for muck to I accumulate like it has on Lake Lucy so it will virtually always be better than Lake Lucy even with no aeration at all. There's algae there now. It's wetland and you go out there any time in the spring and you see algae. I By making more of the water reachable, doesn't decrease the amount of algae. It's the bad kinds of algae that we worried about but the depth of this pond, even without artificial aeration. I Headla: You're interested in just a canoe. Why wouldn't you be satisfied with just a simple channel coming up to two lot lines? r i IFRivkin: Coming up to two lot lines? Sharing with the neighbor? Headla : Yes . IRivkin: Mark Sanda has , do you want to address the two neighbors sharing? Mark Sanda: Yes, in speaking to an attorney, they said there were a I tremendous number of legal issues about who would have responsibility or liability for something that came up a lot line. It's the same as having a driveway on two lot lines , recommended against something like that. IRivkin: It's also an aesthetic problem that the lot line is straight and I want to have something that will fit naturally. I Wildermuth: You've done your homework very well and your argument is certainly compelling. Do you know what is below the muck on Lake Lucy? What kind of soil? 1 Rivkin: I asked a soils expert about that. I have not dredged out to find it but I own a lot on the north side of Lake Lucy and that's been sold and I I looked at the soil reports there. It is very sandy on that side of the lake going down to the old clay and the area on the west and north side is gray clay and very mottled clay. The soils expert told me that that would penetrate down into the lake bottom so the lake bed is clay. It's not sand . I Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 11 C ' Wildermuth : So it would support the kind of slope you are contending? Rivkin: Yes. In other words, the clay has a very high ability to hold water first of all. It's the muck that's the problem sitting on top of it. Wildermuth: I'm really wondering what it's going to take for the sides of I the pond to slope in. Rivkin: The pond edge now as proposed is the same, is only 6 inches to a I foot above the lake level measured on a survey in 1985. The DNR has said that the low water mark and high water mark is an important. The elevation is going to be 6 1/2 when it was surveyed and the elevation before freeze over was 6 inches above that. Lake Lucy is at the head of a chain of lakes and there are a lot of springs in the area. There are water springs coming out of Mark's land that drains in. There is water coming out of the lot I that I used to own next to Ted Hillary's place and there's water constantly filling the lake so the lake level doesn't flucuate very much except in severe droughts. Wildermuth : So you don' t anticipate having to redredge very soon? Rivkin: No, not at all. There's no reason to redredge. To cause redredging would mean that it would have to be so filled with muck that I would have to take it out and because the slopes are the way they are, it won't revegetate at all so it won't need to carve it out. The edge is already growing with vegetation right now so it won't erode into the pond I and we're going to seed with natural prairie grass around there which is native to the area which will encourage wildlife habitat and also the soil. That's the best thing for that area to keep the soil intact. The short prairie grass mix number one. They have restored for large corporations and parks and cities and they said that the particular clay soils that we have would work. Siegel : Jo Ann , do you know the average depth of Lake Lucy? Olsen: We were talking about that today and the number the DNR has is fairly old and it' s not accurate so I don' t have a current depth. Siegel : Does the DNR regularly stock Lake Lucy with game fish? Olsen : I don ' t believe that there is a public access to Lake Lucy. Siegel : It seems like this would be sort of an improvement in this area rather than an unimprovement to the area . Olsen: From a wildlife aspect it could be either way. The Fisheries are I saying that it will be detrimental to have a pond and channel together . Siegel: I guess I missed the reasoning or if there was any given for ! reducing the area to 40 by 40 instead of the. . . 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 12 Olsen: Again, DNR says that that is the size that they normally allow for a pond area. I Siegel: That was their only consensus was that they don't allow larger than 40 by 40. 1 Olsen : They have certain regulations . I Rivkin: I happened to have a conversation with Steve Oie from the Fisheries about what you said about that. They changed their mind on the 40 by 40 and said just separate the pond completely. I asked Steve, how did you arrive at 40 by 40? He said it's arbitrary. That's about enough I to turn around a small boat. Sometimes it's bigger when you have larger developments. They have boat marinas that are bigger but it's just arbitrary. It's a design problem. As far as the fish are concerned, the I shallowness of the channel itself. Lake Lucy already has rough fish. It's a shallow lake. It has rough fish. If I put a channel in, rough fish are going to go into the channel. If I have a shallow channel, they'll live in I the channels. If I have something deeper and better than what is already on Lake Lucy, then that doesn't encourage rough fish, that encourages any good fish that may be around whether I aerate or not. I Siegel: I guess I understand what you're saying that's why I'm trying to get some reasoning of why the DNR feel so strongly as they do about their recommendation or if this is a recommendation . IRivkin: I asked them back and forth for a number of days for a couple of weeks and they change. Today they are one way and tomorrow they are another way and you talk to somebody else and they're slaying him. I can I find just as much evidence to support my proposal as theirs but they have allowed many projects larger than mine with more impact than mine for people who are profiting from carving out large areas of wetlands. People I put in boat marinas for a great purpose right? They go in and carve out a big wetland but you get some serious million dollar marina there and they permit that sort of thing and it's a precedent. I wanted to make sure that I my design that we don't be a detriment to anything , it will be a benefit so we meet that criteria. I talked to Bob here who knows fish and lakes and other ponds that have certains depths and character of ponds and lakes and I called the John Parker over at the DNR and he proposed certain criteria I to me which I based my design. When I talked to him he said, well Fisheries is against it. I said, were you against him when you called Fisheries and he said no but their supervisor said he was against it so I I guess I'm in too. That's the kind of responses I get when I call the DNR. Just because I'm relying on somebody elses opinion therefore that's what I recommend so what it boils down to, a lot of these decisions are arbitrary. I Siegel: What is your reaction to the stipulation that the pond and channel not be connected? ILRivkin : That promotes rough fish and encourages stagnation. I i .... �_. • Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 13 c Siegel: Would you still be pushing for the project if a requirement was that you had to have the channel separate from the pond? Rivkin: I think it would be a detriment . I wouldn ' t put the pond in. Siegel : You would just use the channel? Rivkin : I would put the channel in and request for some kind of large turnaround but then that's about half the size of the pond anyway so why I not put something in that's really going to benefit fish instead of just doing a halfway attempt at it because if I put in something shallow like a channel, it's encouraging rough fish. If I put in something deep, it doesn't encourage rough fish, it encourages good fish. Bob Lange: I have a report from Dwayne Shodean from the Department of Natural Resources and in his report he states that two of the aerated lakes' that we did in the Minneapolis area became the two top game fish lakes in the seven county metropolitan area and these were lakes that were trash fish lakes primarily. They would get winter kill before that and we produced trophy size game fish in all the projects we do nationwide. On the contrary, our process is not desirable to the trash fish. I have a letter in my file from Dave Hanson who is president of Fab-Con and he is on a swimming lake in Golden Valley and they put our system in there and the ' northerns came back and other game fish. They had a number of carp in the lake before we put our system in and these carp were constantly seen with their backs sticking out of the water and after our system was in for a few' years, the carp left the lake. It was connected downstream to Wirth Park so they left the lake. They left the area. I don't believe that the rough fish will come into Mr. Rivkin's pond and I believe that it will be a place' where game fish will thrive. Conrad: Why would they thrive there and not in the lake? There apparently. aren ' t any fish in the lake right now. I Bob Lange: Right, because we have an abundance of oxygen which fish need. We have a much lower toxic gas level. Fish become sluggish and lythargic when there is high hydrogen sulfide, amonia, carbon dioxide in the water and this process gets rid of those gases . Conrad: But if the rest of the lake doesn't sustain life, then what are wel doing? Bob Lange : If there are any game fish around , it would be able to multiply ' and thrive. Rivkin: DNR has gone on record as saying they encourage projects as those recommended by the federal government to create wetlands out of agricultural land and also to reverse the eutrophication process by dredging out areas and creating more open water for wildlife. They have gone on record as saying, the head of the DNR has gone on record as saying this is one of the best policies that was ever to come along and is one of the best ' _- ' IPlanning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 14 benefits to Minnesota. He said that in last Sunday's paper. There is a II project going through our Congress right now about.—project, reinvest in Minnesota which has a section in there about creating more wetlands and included in wetlands open waterways so the DNR has gone on record in supporting this sort of activity. 1 Conrad : They' ve been on record as supporting what kind of activity? II Rivkin: Creating new areas for fish and wildlife and for the development of pockets. People have to take a vote of the representatives. Siegel: What is the timing of approval from the DNR and the Watershed Isubject to this request? Where does it stand, do you know? Olsen: DNR has 30 day comment period and they're pretty close to making I their recommendation. Watershed District only meets once a month so they' ll be meeting on March 4th. I Rivkin: If I want to get this in this winter, as warm as it's been, I've got to get in by March. The Council meeting meets and approves it, I can get a permit within a few days . 11 Siegel: That was the point of my question because one of Staff's recommendations is that it be contingent on approval from DNR and Watershed and if Watershed isn't going to meet until March 4th, you won't be able to get approval from them until March 4th. Rivkin:vk n: The DNR said they could work around that. As long as I meet the 1 criteria, she doesn't need them to meet and I do meet their criteria of erosion and soil control as far as I can tell from the recommendations . Siegel : But the Watershed District is separate from the DNR. IRivkin : I know but Judy Monroe from the DNR said that she could issue a permit or something and could work around their not having to meet. I I don't know. You would have to ask the DNR. My impression was that she could give permits without having the Watershed District actually meet. Things have gone through faster. If it doesn't come down to it and I miss this year, I ' ll have to wait until next winter . IOlsen : We really must get Watershed District approval . I Emmings: I've got an awful lot here but I'll try to keep it short somehow. I'm wondering what your training and occupation is because we're getting an awful lot of scientific type of information here and if I 'm going to Ievaluate what you ' re saying , I have to know who you are a little bit? Rivkin: My background is industrial design. I'm an architect for IL_ products and I had influence on as far as the aesthetic and care taken to make sure that it conformed aesthetically with the environment so aesthetics are my business. Throughout my entire life I've always been an I Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 15 ( I environmentalist. I'm against the use of herbicide control and pesticide control and stuff like that. By owning this land and other people owning land on Lake Lucy will benefit from the things that I can do . Emmings: I guess I would have the same question for you Mr. Lange. I don ' t know what your background or training is in. I Bob Lange: I 'm an engineer by training from the University of Michigan. Emmings : What kind of engineering? Civil engineering? I Bob Lange: Electronic. Emmings: When I look at the plan, I'm really torn over this thing. I think the pond would add a lot to the property. It looks real nice and I see a guy who has a lot on the lake and in a lot of ways it seems crazy to me that he doesn't have some sort of reasonable access to that lake but I think in a way you've done such a good job of doing your homework that you've raised more questions then you've answered by a longshot and I have no way to evaluate this flood of information that has come in front of me. I don't know about the rest of you and there is an awful lot of disputes here that are basically scientific in nature and I have no way to resolve them. - Rivkin: Why does that discount the ability for me or somebody else to come up. . . I Emmings: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I don't know if you're right or not but I know that you disagree with the DNR on several points and I don ' t have anyway to resolve that dispute . Rivkin: I can site several sources here. They' re in your thing there . Emmings: I ' ve read everything . I Rivkin: What seems to be the major concern. Emmings: Let's get into it a little bit here. First of all , the plan we've got in front of us shows a pond that is 4 or 5 feet deep and the DNR said it would freeze out and now the pond is 9 feet deep so the plan seems to be changing as we're looking at it and that concerns me a little bit and I hope that the DNR, I don't know what version of the plan they have in front of them when they're issuing their pronouncements. You say it's II beneficial to the fish and wildlife in your materials and the DNR says it isn't beneficial to fish and they don't want the channel connected to the lake. Mr. Lange says that oxygenation is very important to this thing and I'm sitting here wondering what if you decide to turn off the aerator six months after you start it up? We don' t have any way to control what you do and I have no reason to think that you would do anything like that. It's just a question that comes to mind. You've got opinions about it being good and what it would add to the wildlife and to the use of the lake and I IIPlanning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 16 1( everything else and your neighbors have got opinions and the DNR has I opinions and a lot of them are in conflict. Mr. Lange says that Blue Stripe likes it shallow so that's not going to be any problem in the pond and I think right away, okay, well the channel isn't so shallow. Is it going to be a problem in the channel? Somebody put an article on my desk I here when I came in tonight, it's from the New York Fish and Game Journal and it says that the most loosestrife weed problems have occurred at marshes in which the natural vegetation has been disturbed or eliminated I and in a lot of ways it sounds to me from what I read here that it's the disturbance of the environment that is as much a problem as anything else. Rivkin: They have to root somewhere and they don't say in that study that Ithey say how shallow the water has to be for loosestrife to take root. Emmings: No, and I don't know that but if the 9 feet of depth is enough to I eliminate loosestrife from growing in the pond, do we have to worry about whether the channel is 4 feet deep? IRivkin : You said you were worried about the channel freezing over . Emmings: No, I didn ' t. I Rivkin: The DNR didn't say anything about the channel freezes at 4 feet. I've seen articles that have sighted literature about freezing. It never completely freezes over . Ponds wouldn ' t freeze all the way to the bottom. rThey never even came out to look at the site. Emmings: That's not an issue.ue. My question is do we have to worry about loosestrife growing in the channel? IBob Lange: Mr. Emmings, if you look at the natural areas around this area where there is loosestrife growing, you will see them around the perimeter I with the cattails on the inside. You won't find loosestrife growing in water deeper than the cattails themselves will root in. The channel is going to be deeper than the cattail roots so there would be no loosestrife in the channel . I Emmings: And we don't have to worry about cattails encroaching in the channel either? Ever? IBob Lange: Right. I Rivkin: If the channel were dug with straight walls, that would almost guarantee for many generations that cattails or anything else would vegetate in there. There would be some gradual coming in but only to about I 1 foot or so would you say they like to root in but the steep slope is what the DNR told me. John Parker told me that that slope is ideal for not encouraging cattail growth so I 'm not in conflict with the DNR there as far as cattails are concerned . ILEmmings: So you would not think that you would ever have to redredge that I Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 11, 1987 - Page 17 channel. Once dredged it will stay clear forever of loosestrife, cattails, whatever else might grow? Rivkin : I feel that quite strong , yes . Emmings: On the lake I live on, Lake Minnewashta, we've got cattails at I several places on that lake and clumps of cattails grow around on the lake and lodge against my shore and why wouldn ' t that happen here? Rivkin : Those kind of cattails are on bogs. 1 Bob Lange: What they're doing is growing on top of dead plants. They have to have their roots in less than a foot or two of water in order to grow. , Emmings: I wrote down a comment here that too bad your system isn't being used on the whole lake instead of just on his pond because I think the possibility of producing trophy size fish for the whole lake is not realistic. I was wondering Mr. Sanda, you have lakeshore property here too. What are you planning to do for lake access if anything? Mark Sanda : Nothing at this time. No plans . Emmings: If the DNR gets it's way and has you disconnect the channel from I the pond , did I hear you right that you just wouldn ' t do the pond? Rivkin: I don't know. I hadn't thought about it. I think what would happen is I probably would do it because digging the pond was supposed to 1 clean out the detriments to the channeling and also add to the positive condition of the lake. By separating it, why have it. The purpose doesn' t exist anymore of benefitting the lake or benefitting the environment so I probably wouldn' t. Emmings: You've just underlined another area where you and the DNR disagree. So that makes it very hard for me to make a decision on this thing. That is the problem here. Because this stuff really should be resolved by people who understand it. We're people who come from all different kinds of backgrounds and I don' t know half of what you know about 1 this stuff and it makes it just real difficult. Rivkin: I asked a question to the DNR this afternoon and they didn't state I a reason why they just referred me to somebody else. I couldn't get a straight answer. I get the impression that this is just an arbitrary decision. It's like throw our power around and you can't have this and you can't have that and we'll look smart here and I didn't get an answer to that question that you're asking. Why do I have to separate? Why is there no benefit to what I'm doing? If by separating this, aren't you creating a rough fish spawning area in the channel by not having it connected to a beneficial something that will negaify rough fish. Emmings: We've had a recent example here where the DNR made a comment on a proposal that was before us and then the person who was superior to that I Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 18 person wrote us a letter and said just ignore what they said and we're ' going to do it another way so I 'm familiar with what you ' re talking about. Rivkin : Why wait then? The same thing is probably going to happen in this project. You're going to wait a month and go investigate it and they're ' going to give you 10 different answers if you ask 10 different people. Emmings : Just as a personal matter, I have a hard time seeing as any kind ' of goal for this project that would either stop the encroachment of cattails or stop the process of eutrophication. Particularly since, as you underlined, you're really affecting such a very tiny portion of the whole ' thing. That process is not going to be stopped. It's going to be stopped right in that area but the natural process that is bringing that lake to dry land isn't going to be stopped by this project. I think there is so much evidence on both sides of the thing, I don't think we have any choice but to table it until some of the issues can be resolved and I guess, to me, I would almost be willing to go along with what the DNR decides to do and the Watershed because I think they have more expertise than you do to make a decision and I think we ought to table it until we see what they have to say. Erhart : I think Steve was getting to where I was getting in listening to his questions is that I think we've wasted a lot of time here. You're asking the Planning Commission to make judgments on a lot of issues that r has nothing to do with planning. I guess my responses to you is why are we I_ looking at this on February 11th and you're trying to get this thing in this winter? You're trying to push a process along here too fast. Have you actually gone to the DNR, to their offices and shown them this plan ' and everything? Rivkin: Yes, I sent it to them in the mail and I they helped to design it in the first place. Like I said before, John Parker was the one who advised me. I used his advice throughout the process to come up with the first proposal . Erhart : Okay, but is there a formal DNR approval process? Rivkin: Yes. Erhart: In the sequence of this thing, I might be entirely wrong but in the sequence of this thing, you should have had all that done before we saw this proposal. That's just my opinion. The chairman may want to address that a little bit later and I just don't feel that we can answer these questions. We shouldn't be asked to. Moving along to what I consider planning questions, what was the notification process of this regarding ' other land owners? Was it all the people around the lake or was it just people within 300 feet? I thought we had a change in that. I'm all in favor of everything you're arguing about. I've got plenty of swampland myself that I'm thinking of coming in here with a proposal within the next year but . . . Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 19 Rivkin : What don ' t you believe? Erhart: Like I say, I agree with everything that you're arguing for but there is a process to this so that it gets done right. I think all the people around that lake ought to be notified about this thing because from a planning process, it effects them all and that's what our Ordinance calls I for if I remember right . Rivkin: Why weren't they invited this time? If the Ordinance calls for it, why weren' t they invited? Conrad: The old Ordinance did not call for it. The old Ordinance said to notify landowners within 300 feet. We have changed that within the last • month or two. Rivkin: Before I applied? ' Erhart: I sort of agree with Steve. The thing ought to be tabled and let's get the homework done and you can get it in next winter. Get the approvals in favor of that. So you have an understanding of where we're at with this thing , I would like to see us take sort of a poll to give the planning staff direction on whether we agree or disagree with the concept in total or if you would like, you can have us go to a vote on it. ' Rivkin : I was encouraged by Jo Ann and people of the DNR that this would go through rather quickly. Judy's first reaction when I said this was this is wonderful. That we should do this and the fisheries and wildlife will , kiss me for doing this and it was a wonder I didn't ask for more land to be cut away. I sent a letter to the DNR and said what do you think and they didn't have any problem with it so I was encouraged that it might go through this year but I'm not rushing it through. It's my fault for giving it you this late in the first place so I'm still not hooked on the idea of this year which gives plenty of time for plenty of bargaining to go on but I why would it change your opinion? I don't think it would probably change anyone ' s opinion. Erhart: I don't think we want to pass it. Somehow this thing is going to be tied to the DNR and Watershed approval whether we pass it here tonight is the way I understand the recommendation . Rivkin: I thought the City could overridge the DNR. Conrad : No. I Olsen : If our recommendations are more restrictive, it overrides DNR. Rivkin: So it just becomes an argument contest. ' Conrad : No , we need their input and that ' s what we' re looking for . I Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 20 Erhart: Since we've spent so much time, just in favor of the project, if ' we get to the point to where we're going to give the Staff an idea of what we would like to see. I'm in favor of the project overall. I would like to see, because of these things have a tendency to affect a lot of people, I would like to see it shared. Regardless, that's my opinion. I think ' lawyers will always find a million reasons why you can't do something and I think Steve will agree with me on this one that I would like to see it shared if it is possible. On the other hand, if it's not, it shouldn't be a criteria for going ahead. I would like to see the pond actually as big as possible. I think it provides more opportunity for wildlife. I don't understand the connections and without getting into another question, is there real fishing on this lake? I guess if we bat this around, I don't ' know if there is any fishing on this lake so I don't know whether, you're going to have to get DNR approval on that so that completes my questions. ' Rivkin: If you take a vote now and let's say it passes. The DNR sees that, that would be a positive thing for them. A cue for them... Emmings : If they' re as arbitrary as you think they are. Rivkin: Then again, it will go on for a year this way and everybody will be more confused then they are right now. Just try to involve more people ' and involve more arguments. Emmings: If the plan you're proposing for the pond is as good as you say it is and you have Mr. Lange to present the mechanics of it and his ' experience and background, I can't see any reason you can't convince the DNR that you should have it. ' Rivkin: The problem is, this has happened a lot. When you have to go head to head with the DNR you're going to lose because that's their power. No, I can not bring in expert witnesses that will counter their arguments because they still would not issue a permit even though everybody and his brother could be convinced that the expert I bring in is right. They'll still be a stick in the mud. They'll still not approve it just because they are ashamed to go back on their own opinions and this is just past history. This is their behavior . Emmings: But if they won' t issue you a permit then you're not going to build it. See, that ' s the problem. You ' re going to have to convince them. Conrad : That ' s the truth . Rivkin : I would like you to take a vote and send a signal . . . Conrad: You'll hear what we're going to do in a few seconds. Just a couple of thoughts. I've been around for a few years longer than the other members on the commission and that puts me into the old historian role back when but let me give you some background to the wetlands protection IL ordinance. Basically it took 2 or 3 years to come up with and the community is real sensitive to wetland alteration, obviously. We're one of I i Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 21 1 the few who have a permit process like you're going through right now. You're one of the first that is really testing a few sections of it and the test really says, are you really providing an asset or are there potential negatives? The way I read it right now, I see more negatives than positives. The fish, I don't think there are any game fish in there so whatever you do, you're not doing anything, whether you aerate it or not so, I'm not seeing any positives and therefore, if I were to test the Ordinance as to the philosphy and I don't know if Jo Ann gave you the wetland Ordinance, but there is a philosphy. There is a rationale for granting alteration permits and I think you should take a look at that. I think the' Planning Commission should get those sections, which we don't have here, that sets us up for why we would grant a variance. You make a lot of good arguments for and I think if we see those good arguments , those are going to be the positives that will allow us granting that variance but right now, to echo what some members to my right say, the plan has changed and when I see a plan changing so many times, I don't know what I'm reacting to. I saw one. I saw some other specs and when I see varying specs, I can't make a motion because I don't know what we're making a motion to and when we do that , I'm not sure what other advisory agencies are really reacting to. It gets us all snarled up. I see conflicting info. I see the specs changing. I don't see documentation from some folks that I would like to see documentation on. I guess I'm very worried about the precedent. It's not yours. Now, I'm worried about what are we saying to I everybody else? That you can build ponds. There are other cases where dredging is not good and I can quote you several that I've been through - where dredging can be very detrimental and the DNR says no and the lakes in Chanhassen they will say that too. I don't know, it's probably not the truth in your case but again, I can see that scenario as a potential negative. The loosestrife is an issue that I guess we should know about and we have some technical information that tells me we should be at ease about that. Again, I see enough issues that I'm unsettled with that I couldn't say that there are more positives confirmed then negatives, potential , and I'm really concerned about the precedent also. I think in I the long run you probably have a pretty good project and I think we're going to be able to go along with it but again , I would like to see the technical information come together. One plan come together. The information coming back. I would like to see those things in one place. I'll stop there. Those are my concerns and I guess I would be in favor of tabling also until we get some of those things lined up. Rivkin: One more response. I guess in the interest of trying to get something through, I know that if I try for a pond I might as well forget it. What I'll do is I'll pull back and I'll compromise. The DNR has already stated that they are willing to go with the channel as proposed and a small turnaround, 16 square feet. If that is agreeable with you and it ' s agreeable to them, would you consider passing something . . . Conrad: I guess my preference would be to see that come back. I don't know how quickly we can turn that around. I lose stuff that says I'll negotiate here with you rather than something on paper. Again, I get a little bit nervous with that and I don't want to speak for the Planning 1 II Planning Commission Meeting February 11, 1987 - Page 22 Commission but I guess my preference would be if that's what you would like I to do is to come back in two weeks and I 'm not sure where we'll go with that . II Rivkin: I'll have plans and specs on her desk in two days so it can get into the City Council. I think the DNR will issue a permit fast enough to get it in this winter yet because they have approved a 40 by 40 foot at the end of the channel . IEmmings : Has the DNR approved anything? IErhart: I feel we' re being roused to influence the DNR quite frankly. Conrad : I do too . Rivkin : They recommended it in their Staff report. Emmings: But I don't know what they're doing down there and frankly, I'm II as concerned about them as I am about your project. I like your project and I wish you could just show us that everybody would go along with it and that there's not going to be any problems with it. I would approve it in a I second but right now, I don't know what the DNR is looking at and I would like to see what they say before we act . Rivkin: I don't have the time, money or energy to fight them so I'm going Ito compromise and go with whatever their recommendation is. It's in the Staff Report for a channel and 40 by 40 foot and I would like you to vote on it so I can get on with my life. IOlsen: The DNR has to coordinate input from all different offices and it's a little tough. The DNR has been trying to negotiate with the applicant. II As far as the most recent recommendation, the separation of the pond and the channel, they are saying now, even a 40 by 40 could really be detrimental and encourage rough fish. However, the DNR still does not have II a definite recommendation. By approving what I have in the Staff Report is not necessarily what the DNR will approve. Headla: What does the Watershed want? What does the DNR? What are their I comments? I hear second hand, third hand. I would like to see it in writing. IEmmings moved, Erhart seconded to table the Wetland Alteration Permit to create an open water habitat for waterfowl and private access for one canoe II on Lake Lucy on property zoned R-R, Rural Residence and located on Lot 5, Block 2, Lake Lucy Highlands until the Planning Commission has a plan that has been approved by the DNR and the Watershed District and that the public hearing will be continued and notice will be given to all the landowners ILthat the new Ordinance requires. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion carried. I II NA-01733-01 INNESOTA PROTECTED WATERS P.A. Number Department of iriri Natural Resources 87-6190 II Division of Waters PERMIT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, and on the basis of statements and information contained :n the permit application, letters, maps and plans submitted by the applicant and others supporting data, all pf which are made a part hereof by reference, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below to change the course, current, or cross section of the following: Protected Mater County I Lake Lucy ( 10-7) Carver Name of Applicant Telephone Number (include Area Code) Eric M. Rivkin ( 612) 934-2363 I Address (No. C Street, RFD, Box No., City, State, Zip Code) 5525 Conifer Trail, Minnetonka, MN 55345 Authorized to: I excavate channel through 400 feet of cattail with a maximum top width of 16 feet, a depth of no greater than 4 feet (to elevation 952.1 NGVD, 1929) below the ordinary high II water level, and 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) side slopes, all as shown in plan revised October 2, 1987 and received October 6, 1987. Purpose of Permit: ( Expiration Date of Permit II lake access by canoe 6/30/88 Property Described as: Gov. Lot 1; Lot 5, Block 2, Lake Lucy County CARVER I Highland, SE;, Section 3, T116N, R23W; Stellar Court, City of Chanhassen As Indicated: (8) As Indicated: (11) does not apply the ordinary high water level 956. 1 NGVD, 1929 This permit is granted subject to the following GENERAL and SPECIAL PROVISIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1 1. This permit is permissive only and shall not release the permittee from any liability or obligation imposed by Minnesota Statutes, Federal Law or local ordinances relating thereto and shall remain in force subject to al., conditions and limitations now or hereafter imposed by law. 2. This permit is not assignable except with the written consent of the Commissioner of Natural Resources. 3. Tha Regional Hydrologist shall be notified at least five days in advance of the commencement of the work authorized hereunder and shall be notified of its completion within five days thereafter. The notice of permit iss.,.eo by the Commissioner shall be kept securely posted in a conspicuous place at the site of operations. 4. No change shall be made, without written permission previously obtained from the ''c-missionor of Natural Resources, in the dimensions, capacity or location of any items of work authorized hereunder. 5. The permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the Commissioner of Natural Resources for inspection of the work authorized hereunder. 6. This Permit may be terminated by the Commissioner of Natural Resources at any time he deems it necessary for the conservation of water resources of the state, or in the interest of public health and welfare, or for violation of any of the provisions of this permit, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. II 7. Construction work authorized under this permit shall be completed on or before date specified above. Upon written request to the Commissioner by the Permittee, stating the reason therefore, an extension of time may be obtained. 8. The excavation of soil authorized herein shall not be construed to include the removal of organic matter (as indicated above) unless the area from which such organic matter is removed, is impervious, or is sealed by the application of bentonite after excavation. 9. In all cases where the doing by the permittee of anything authorized by this permit shall involve the taking, using, or damaging of any property rights or interests of any other person or persons, or of any publicly owned lands or improvements thereon or interests therein, the permittee, before proceeding therewith,_ shall obtain tfe written consent of all persons, agencies, or authorities concerned, and shall acquire all property, rights and interests necessary therefore. i II 10. This permit is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed upon or incurred by the State of Minnesota or any of its officers, agents or employees, officially or personally, on account of the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the permittee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors relating to any matter hereunder. This permit shall not be construed I as estopping or limiting any legal claims or right of action of any person other than the state against the permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors, for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the state against the permittee, its agents, II employees, or contractors for violation of or failure to comply with the permit or applicable provisions of law. 11. No material excavated by authority of this permit nor material from any other source, except as specified herein, shall be placed on any portion of the bed of said waters which lies below (as indicated above). 12. Any extension of the surface of said waters resulting from work authorized by this ermit shall all become protected waters and left open and unobstructed for use by the public. II 13. This permit does not obviate any requirement for federal assent from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1135 U.S. Post Office and Custom House, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. ISPECIAL PROVISIONS 4. The permittee shall comply with all rules, regulations, requirements or standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other applicable federal, state or local agencies. I5. Permittee shall ensure that the contractor has received and thoroughly understands all conditions of this permit. 16. Future maintenance excavation of this project shall not exceed the dimensions herein author- ized. Prior to commencing any maintenance excavation, permittee shall advise the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in writing of the volume of material to be removed, the manner II of removal, and the spoil disposal site(s) proposed. Maintenance excavation shall not be commenced until permittee receives DNR approval. ,7. Excavated materials shall not be deposited or stored along side the protected water in a manner where the materials can be redeposited into the protected water by reasonable expected high water or storm runoff. II8. When feasible and practical, excavation shall be conducted from landward areas to the protected water and breakthrough shall occur at the last practical moment. Prior to final breakthrough, any and all equipment shall be situated so that it is landward of the break- , through point, facilitating equipment removal. 19. Permittee shall comply with the conditions of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District as set forth in their letter dated October 7, 1987. Specifically: 1. The District will require that all work undertaken in the lake be completed during the I 1987-1988 winter months between the period of December 1, 1987 to March 1, 1988. Work undertaken during this period will minimize the potential of a problem, sedimentation, from developing within the lake. II2. At the toe of slope where excavated material is to be spoiled, erosion control measures, silt fence, and/or staked hay bales reinforced with snow fence, must be installed. II If silt fence is used, the bottom flap musrt be buried and the maximum allowable spacing between posts if 4 foot on center. All posts must be either 2" x 2" pine, hardwood, or steel fence posts. If hay bales are used, all bales must be staked in place and reinforced on the downstream side with snow fence. ISEE ATTACHMENT A 0 Authorized Signat re Title Date lei,.... -..-------- Kent Lokkesmoe Regional Hydrologist /v""64✓�'.�s4l Z5'/ 7 I Attachment A ��f` Permit 87-6190 Kent okke moe, Regional Hydrologist Eric Rivkin ,Wci6;wg e z5 i sg'7 Date 3. All areas altered, spoil area, must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod or wood fiber blanket within two weeks from the completion of construction or no later than June 1, 1988. 4. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 hours prior to the commence- ment of construction. cc: USCOE Carver County SWCD Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek WSD City of Chanhassen DNR Metro Fisheries Jon Parker, AWM St. Paul Waters Lake Lucy file (10-7) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I MARK SANDA 1685 STELLER COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55331 I I 67-t , . . i V2z/s-9- IAr, 2,,,,., I `T-f--4=1- __)212 ;te-t ,t.1- -. _, ZiLir, 641,_d .„0 fr,A, (_,;t 1 .. �. . /y,,ndx c-evy,e—Q ,ez-t- ---je--d- X- 64/1-rLe., -,2:6-t-e-P4- /* I /74~-ta / " ..&,,e, . ',..-7-/IL- . 7,9--g- 1 -W-i-ti "7",-esioi ot--r....-c-e.2.2_ -24------ , 1 . 1 Pl-vr / 1 i &A,e-- 7 . 1--pn-d ciP, de,m;t_e, ,ge.2t, 6,-‹_e_z_vg. 1 " f / ; . � /�1 -i-e.fix- e...-0--x4.-Pt.-4A/- I l ij4-f_ CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. LAW OFFICES , GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 DAVID L. HARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING M. CECILIA RAY VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE PATRICK A.FARRELL ELLIOTT B KNETSCH DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 MICHAEL J. MAYER ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE. (612)455-1661 December 1 , 1987 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Rivkin Wetland Alteration Permit Application I Dear Jo Ann: Mr. Rivkin has applied for a wetland alteration permit. You have recommended that a boardwalk be constructed to give him access to open water; he prefers to create an open channel. His attorney has advised him that a boardwalk may expose him to liability for anyone injured by it. He should check with his insurance agent to determine if his home owner' s insurance gives him adequate coverage. Assuming the boardwalk creates greater liability exposure for the applicant than an open water channel, the fact is not germane under wetland alternation permit requirements. If he does not want to accept the liability ' exposure created by the boardwalk, he always has the right to do nothing. Very truly .yours, ' } Q'RANN ;"GRANNIS, FAR L "' KNUTSON, P.A. -YYYY - ' Y + fi 1BY: °:►°r N. 1 son RNK: srn CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. 8 June 1987 Ms. Judy Boudreau Area Hydrologist Metro Region Div. Waters, DNR ' 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, Mn. 55106 ' Dear Ms. Boudreau: ' I have reviewed your concerns regarding the channel and pond excavation and am responding with a modified plan and detailed explanation. The following list of people conferred with me: ' Clifford Reep, Shoreline consultatnt Scott Thomas, Hyd. Soils Engineer, Twin Cities Testing Lab ' Cameron Kruse, P.E.,Vice Pres-Engineering, Braun Eng. Testing Jerry Sundee, Hyd. Soils Eng., Sundee Eng. Mary Ruhme, City of Richfield ' Anne Sigfurd, Director , Woodlake Nature Center With regard to the dispensing of the channel spoils: Notice on the ' revised plan that the spoils from the channel will now be brought upland above the 100 yr. flood plan (957 elev.). This will minimize impact on the wetland and seems to be in agreement with the City of Chanhassen's Wetland Alterations Ordinance ' and the DNR's initial comments of Feb. 11 (see att.). With regard to the plan as a whole: You will also be pleased to notice that the pond has been eliminated . This was also done to lessen the impact on the wetland by drastically reducing the amount of dredging and is limited to the minimum size required for the proposed action. The design is now only a channel with a minimum boat turnaround of 1600 sq. ft. (top surface) equivalent to the 40x40 area previously recommended by the Fisheries department in the DNR initial comments of Feb. 11. ' With regard to the channel sloughing: A r i g After discussion with various hydrological soils engineers, the 1 :1 slope is too steep and a 2:1 slope would be much better. Sloughing will occur to some degree no matter what slope is used because the materials are mostly muck and water, and an accurate slope can never really be maintained. To cut a 4' deep channel in a marsh, one must make it just wide enough to minimize sloughing and not be conducive to rapid re-establishment of cattails or weed growth. Starting with a 2:1 slope, this would ' make the channel 16' wide at the surface. Sometimes starting with a 3:1 or a 4:1 slope will reduce the sloughing rate further, but it will also cause an environmentally unacceptable top width. - ' There would still be no guarantee that a particular sloughing rate will occur, even after exhaustive soil testing. The soils engineers whom I spoke with felt it was highly unproductive to the project to have soil testing done in the channel area to RUG ! 87 ' !'Y cHANHAs r't determine slope stability. To make a reliable recommendation, they must obtain enough samples along the length and width of the channel area and surrounding area in order to make any worthwhile estimations of sloughing rate or stability. In combination with the fact that the samples will be difficult to obtain, they said that the cost would go well into the thousands of dollars making it unreasonably expensive, thus in effect denying me the open water access. ' Uncontrollable variables-such as freeze/thaw cycling, freeze depth, variable water depth, and natural wave action make it nearly impossible to predict what the sloughing will do overtime. Being a dead-end semi-private, short narrow channel means that the wave action from speeding boats and the boat wake and prop wash typically associated with serious sloughing problems will be almost nonexistent and cannot be factored in as a serious cause of sloughing. I agree with the principle of soil testing when its necessary and productive, ' especially to larger, more involved projects, but in this case it seems clearly an unreasonable and unnecessary requiremement. , In addition, it is mainly to my disadvantage that the channel may slough in. When plant regrowth occurs over time, it is to human disadvantage if channel passage is restricted. It is inconceivable that plants or wildlife will be harmed if the channel fills in very slowly with vegetation due to sloughing. Even if it sloughs in to an appreciable degree many years hence, the channel may still be passable. No soils experts familiar with this type of channel construction that I spoke to thought a 16' W x 4' D channel will completely fill in and be totally impassable in the near or distant future. After construction, I plan to "let it go natural" with no ' interference. Any alteration of course to reopen any part of the channel should it become impassable will require a DNR permit and conditions can be reviewed at that time.The modest 16' width at the surface with a 4' DNR-recommended depth I for prop clearance is a good compromise and is still narrower than 20' which the DNR told me originally was a typical single party channel width. 1 1 I The following conditions will apply during construction: Ii.Spoils from the construction will be disposed of upland in the area shown on the drawing, and will be spread to proposed topography as soon as moisture content of soil will permit. ' 2. To minimize disturbance to wildlife by preventing construction during waterfowl breeding season and fish spawning season, and minimize silt entry into the lake, construction will take place in winter months when ice can support equipment. 3. To further minimize silt entry into the lake, a barrier will be left at the end of the ' channel until construction is completed and settling permits removal of the barrier. The channel will be constructed from the lake toward the upland with a dragline. ' Note: It is not possible to dig the upland end first since that is the area the spoils must be transported through during construction. This will force the machinery operators to trample over mature dogwoods in the wetland and cause a severe ' safety hazard to the 2 dump trucks and the operators if forced to travel a greater distance over the ice to dump the spoils upland . Silt entry to the lake and damage to the environment are the main concerns, and digging from the lake to the upland will be least disruptive to the environment and safest for the construction crew and machinery. A silt ditch of 2' depth will be excavated in area shown. All exposed soil upland will be temporarily seeded with ryegrass mixture and mulched with straw for erosion control. Final seeding will consist of Prairie Restorations, Inc, short prairie grass mix #1 or equivalent. 4. Ingress and egress for the dumptrucks hauling the spoils to the disposal area will be between the existing dogwood hedges indicated on the drawing. These are not to be disturbed. 1 I I 1 1 I With regard to an alternative dock system: Doing absolutely nothing to the wetland , no docks included, may be intellectually an opinion of the farthest extent of the word minimal, but minimal does not mean to do nothing, but to design using the fewest and simplest elements with the least impact to achieve the desired result-which is lawful right to open water access. A dock system in this case may also have minimal impact, but in no way is "fewest"or"simplest", either in enhancement to the wetlands, safety to wildlife or humans, or in reasonable resources to achieve access because of its gross size of 430'. As Y ou can see from the attached estimate, the cost is so exhorbitant that it makes it impossible to achieve the desired result, thus in effect denying the right to open water access. If the distance were much shorter, it would be a viable alternative and less impact on the wetland, and may not be objectionable by the other residents as an eyesore on the wetland. Please note that the neighbors voiced strong opposition to the long dock system, and heavy favor to the channel idea instead through letters sent to me (attached) and through opinions expressed at the City's Planning Commission hearing where my first proposal was presented. At the hearing, there was not one resident who stood up in favor of the dock proposal, nor did I hear any positive comments from any members of the Planning Commission on the dock proposal. The other residents who spoke up and myself got the impression that the majority of the Planning Commission felt that the channel, or even the pond for that matter would not have been harmful to the environment. Although we agree in principle to protection of the wetlands by law, the residents and I felt that since the area of the channel was so minute(only .01% of the total 50+ acre wetland area) it would not have a negative impact. If every lakeshore resident on lake Lucy that had the same reason to cut a channel in similar fashion to my proposal, either now or in the distant future , the total area of wetland lost would be only about 1-2% of the 50 or so acres of wetland. That can also be interpreted as minimal impact to the wetland. I suggest that the eutrophication rate and subsequent rapid weed growth now occurring on Lake Lucy is probably filling in more open water and creating more wetland than my scratch-of-a-channel will take away. This means the impact may still be zero as the open water continues to fill in with another .01% of sedimentation and vegetation. The residents and I feel strongly that the dock will be extremely difficult to maintain and deteriorate more rapidly than usual. Because of its huge size, it cannot be expected to be removed in the winter , and will gradually become a piece of junk in the wetland. It will also be a serious hazard to snowmobilers because it covers such a long area hidden in the tall cattail reeds. It will also cross an established deer trail which has been observed to be used daily by many deer for several years. At least four residents at the west end of the lake do confirm that the deer like to graze and retreat in the wetland regularly, and when deer bound through, a 1-2 foot high dock would be a safety hazard. Mr. Ridderson indicated in his letter his eyewitness account of a deer breaking his neck trying to break free from a dock while being chased by a dog. I want to add that I am not convinced that Ms. Olsen's proposal for a long dock system will not harm the wetland. More affordable dock materials such as I I pressure-treated woods typically used for permanent dock posts and decking contain inorganic arsenicals, which are highly toxic cancer-causing chemicals that can leach out into the water. That's not a comforting thought, and I wouldn't be surprised someday to see pressure-treated lumber banned from open water applications before its too late to discover its a more serious pollution and health hazard than we think. See the attached EPA report on restricted uses of wood preservatives and Dr. Foreman's toxicological evaluation of leachable arsenic. I looked into the next least expensive alternative that wouldn't seem to harm the ' environment, which was the galvanized steel post method I asked the Sery-a Dock Co. to quote (attached). The other local dock companies capable or qualified to install a dock either refused to quote the job or did not return the inquiry. The favorable opinions of p o some members of the Planning Commission and the attached testimonials of neighbors indicated the strong community support for my channel, and I can assure you that this support will be repeated, if not stronger the second time I present the revised plan at the next Planning Comm. meeting. The ' dock system is not an acceptable alternative, and I believe that the new proposed plan does have minimal impact and stops just short of having to resort to a dock. I understand Ms. Olsen's well-meaning position that she must try to enforce the Wetlands Ordinance, and I would be the first to stand behind it if it were a realistic, beautiful, and safe alternative to achieve lake access, but in this case the dock proposal will in effect deny the right to open water access because of its high cost, and be an unsafe eyesore on the wetland. I also enclosed a copy of the quotations for the channel digging so you know the difference in costs between that method and a dock system- Dock system: $19,000; Channel: $2000 - $5750. I In conclusion: The decision by the City Planning Commission to table my 1 project was due to more questions being raised than answered, and what they requested for the next meeting was approval of a plan from the DNR and the Watershed District so the Planning Commission can make a confident decision the next time this plan is on the agenda. I hope you will all find the new proposal a satisfactory solution. Thank you for your consideration. Please call me if you have any questions. My phone numbers are 937-4048 at work or 934-2363 at home on Fridays. Copies of the revised drawing and this memo have also been sent to JoAnn Olsen, and Bob ' Obermeyer. Sincerely, dAP ' Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Trail iMinnetonka, Mn. 55345 1 I .. _ i. h ±� 1 •• _ " . '�{}�.r�J --� v� -..- "_•a.IF ' is II ela a titt-i if.° VI***iiiii a I 11 III !MOM VEEP'i'''mitIPAt El me . •„• j.i r 1 r I= , ---T,r I ill%ill \ 4(iffi' 1 ii, MaILII:aolekii.77 thh.... %,„ , 41, P4 t) Ab. ' I • f ill ,.....______II I • • ram 4Z IP Kir, am in is ..IrimI ii , likill P--.# - W ST TM sTIKEr 'F # / .•U-:. , 7/%1 614 .RR _ �;, 1, _ "DP '�. Lam'5-1140C • -. 7`A:,, - / tjVAIII MIA "i is err L I-Veg 144a RA/SON �.. ittl; 'I ® ! .,age . .. 4 - i .,• r.1114‘; i 0--- - I ji,W. E III spy 6-: VAL, ,!t-asp -'�-1 I, ■� CFI a == ::: : ' vf/11111 Ai 1a ■& 111 „ :� ' 4m v 1 allatallatt■-41"4-1 r r - , illi uleltiV4 l� 1:::* V' .4- /- C4. /.--- 0 • IS LAKE ANN '� RSF I 7.., RD 1 I R4 IIRR . i r 71 ik. . R 12. hi ' � ' � � � � =0U EVAR• ` v\ W .0 RT A / I t•-.. „ 5.7.-',.... , •• ,7,- 4,_ S I :&,.._,.:,. I „..i. _ , _ /.„._,_. _,....„......„...,_ ...... . t -.\-------7:\- ' -' 519 tAC ;',''' • HE-IP.E.1644ilu ro to 6.,..„, tacti 4 - ..,.., , ‘J. •-•,-.: . — --s — , , •., I . . 14._ pir--,- . ,......,..„.,...,.. I 9,.,, \ .' 6 ' . ..,\ 3 i---".\.,.. s^,\jii 1 l'% . f .,g-.._:, t . /', ) /I . . , ,1.1 141-4 ,4.14,, ,.. - ,- r,Lii..2,, c PI ;.•••.. -.2••:i, .-N„," . \\ -' ;', F4 tl" , I 1.-,-,- .,_ ..., • ..-- -, -----. '...4 ',-----,:-.49„..,,,. .b \ ,„. .. ., ii..,\ -,.., 4.3 • •■• . .." • 4'AYL,.,.x.:._ .''.... • . -. \• .-- t' __ ---40- ••■—____ . --- .....„..-Vi I • _,..:•-•, \\ \ '' „ --, -:- _:.. __.Y_____ 1_____.. -..„,„ ••■ .0 I /t 'i ..., , ------- ._ 9A-'. ! / --.-9- \ 4'1 •\t II -- ..,...-.. '.= ■ 4 \- ,. _ 5 0.3 AC. . ._.. il-..\--.. . - ..--.= 7 \- - : ..\\\\\'v.''. XN A d I . - ... . . , d 614.t` 0 f orl':\ al pcii.. 11,01. j■si \\ e — ___ a ,.. \ .,.\•\.:■,.._ I ef;r, a6,0„,,„„ !). , • , ,,.... ,0.0,..,.,, ,,,, __ . 1 1 I -:',-' i .,..... - . • . . • •.-\ • 16011' I ier6 •,. ., ' ‘ . • ntja 4,4 fv".1 6,r ' , \ •'x ,i , 0 C . 00 91 ,h * 41 f; I i .l' ..0 .-- --- t .............. .• ...<.■••••.... '-----_---....-.. Z -I _;_,-, , F „ii- •' (rd. ■ ...^.. 9- IA 11 4. ''':' 'II. i 1 '''\\\S\, / v.• I . 14-- .--rg- ,.,.. _,-..r 1'■ . I -*I T '. I,,..' ' , ( ,s'..\,,,..:,, e.1.9 -'. •.':',-.4, I . , 1.-U 1 - --. - I of-'- _....-‘_-_---—- j .,.f‘ v,---..--.,..—._— z • E ...).,Y5 -1.4. PI -s-, -,.. 5 — I 4;4' z'..,.. . , ., ' , AK L. 94 Now 61.1 .9 t E4 1-1 irti A — 13 11;1. CA ,;, I — ,ilt(:: •_- a-_-:, , -, ;• i:t;-...,41" - - E 1-g A 1:4-' cd • 1:Y4J.?",474i4;-,4,44;,,- _ --- --;'-., ...,. „.,,,,...:.".....i........r„„.: 11'...... -'5 S. _.....: -:......._ ...l....."...:___.- .... :-I- _...1__I-__- . 1 ___T„.....\...:11...12/-:,:„ — ---4;:.,17'.f..5:4.fr.,4 -'-'-s , ;•:-t, , 1 :,-4-,,,,,ii.-‘4",-.7e.: '\> - -- '! '.--1--•--”"fr`-'2, :`,....ss... 4- 44.-4 ."- ,`--- "4--- .-.---r- '.4.!..4.*-,--iii,"1-,Akft--4.... ....'4,44...----,„ ....., -- '''.4---,44:.•_^-' .7ss •....",.... 4.--'44.-- ---'---- ---.. .- ,-- Q • --.- - - _ 11:,- - r—aii.-- -- ._,_,:-.:..---z...,-. ,,,_„ .‹..... ..,::—...._—___—, —- ..., .— — ....,_—. .... — . - ... I _.-.- 4 „ L.44 f,!y... 1 -4-•• ••s .... •-•••:"---, --- ••••-• •-••• --- ■ -•-... ---- - __ _ ......,- ----I..-- ----••••., ---. .....„..... -.------.Z."-•--- -----_ _ ---••• -- --- ..... ...• ---> „,,,/ ••••••• -.---.. --- ....s••••-• ...,"---• -....._ ---- --...., "---•-- --- .- -- —-:::=---P. -— -- ----------•,----><:.--• _.....-'-------;;'°‘ -_ --- ----_ 5_ .-._. ___ ______ ____,__----___--• _--- ...-• ........-_.- --•...-',-,0 ....."•••• ........."-----5:..."------....'"1------:-.:-••■-------"-------------- -.--- ■-- -•---._ ----- -•-•---------7--- „..• ..--,,A•,.. - --•••■....... ----_,."--- `,..."-•>•,,,,::---_:,---Z.;----- ---- ---- - .-- -———__---•-•--5-,-_-_-.--•f°1--- ----' ••::".-',.......'t --7,•?- • ‘... ....... ---„ -:-_•-• •-_,.„ .--- -..., - 0__ ___ -- -— --- •‘„,,2,-.:-_-:-.'--• --• ••••-... ---. "------- ----- -- --- --... --- --------__-:--- -- ---- ....----•-•- -- • ........., ...... ..........--_.....,:---..,... .......-:-......„,.........„......---, 4-,.--............,_---.....z..--,z... --"--- "--_--_-.--....:--..--_,-----------..---------'-;,..--- ---- ...._ -...... I --V4-i• ,.-...„. '-4.:: 'St' , '-- .. .. _ '''''''.... .-:.•,,P,,,,,,,,.:, _ , ..._ -- .......-- --. ---....___ „.---_,----....„..--..„.... ••••' a, ....- 2"...... ".... ..„..... ..„.... --.,.... ...-______--- 24, ---- .--• „.../. .....44..., .44... ,J.< .-.. ------ "... _... .., "--..._ ---. ____, .- ... _444/ .444.... 4.... .4, ....., .....„ -._ 4_-!. 'Itg;.-;,-,.•--,-.- ' ..... ..... ..... ,. --... -.. ..... -,.... ---- __. ---- ..., 4..... 4-... .'",... --..._ ---- 4...... ...... -..., / --... ........ .....7.■ „...-... .. / ,4 I --___--- ■.-----.......... ---.------4.... ....... .4... - ---.. ....... --- ...................T-'4....'.."--..------ -,_ 4...., ---- ..... -.... --• ---- ../' / -.' / .. , '_'"-.„ '--- / „,-1- ../ ,•-• 4. ',.., ...„ 44. --..... 1, ----- 4--___ _— -- --, „..-. .■, • .../ / / ..../ --...... --._. ..... --- ,... r? --,, -_... _ sa-Z 5 - I ,. ...■ ...:.------...■„..,.. ---. ■ -.... :5'.------- ■ .... --.. •-.••...--. •••..... _....__.__ ,.x 4,:--, —_., 4) .__ _----- 'i' ,. .' ../. .v ---. - „.., ,- - ...-- ..--- ..---"'/% .../2...1'41..' ' ../ • / 4- .... )4 .,i. 0, k , ..... .■.. j-..- ........... -...' ,...7 ........ ...,C. ..... '''./ -- --- - -.. __...._ - 4. ■ --___ _-- i t 4 1 I 4 (.."- --• ■.... 4,drkr---•1.,Z;--......4--'4.--a!";•6• ----- -- -- "-----,..-:: '.,'•-- 1 ••••... V • -••- ----- / --' . •-- ' . t-.4% A ' 11,,,.__ • 3 i 5 c, I , - ; - -1 ,- , 11 Mlles rt.-te.---'' •• ...7- I _ -- ,,.-.•,i••t rv.„..r •.•• ...7., I _ U 4 \-, N 0 51 (NI f,5 h st iL-4 r,' \\\ \ \\ 3 e..., . *1 H '4 -- 4 4, a, o w cr 2 10 4) a i ,\ , ...._ A\ ■ 1 I United States Office of Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107) Agency Washington DC 20460 ..EPA Environmental News 1 FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY JULY 11, 1984 Al Heier (202) 382-4374 EPA RESTRICTS 1 USES OF WOOD PRESERVATIVES The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today imposed restrictions on three pesticides used to preserve wood: creosote, pentachiorophenol, and inorganic arsenicals.. 1 The agency' s final action restricts the sale and use of the wood pre- servatives to certified applicators. Until now, anyone could purchase and use these preservatives around homes and farms. These pesticides account for over 97 percent of the wood preservatives used in this country and for one third of all agricultural and industrial pesticides (2 .7 billion pounds) produced in the U.S. In addition, the commercial wood pressure treatment industry will be required to participate in a consumer awareness program to inform users of pressure-treated wood or treated wood products. EPA will require appropriate protective clothing, such as gloves and coveralls impervious to the chemicals, in certain applications of the wood preservatives and in handling freshly treated wood. Respirators will be required in certain high exposure situations. The registrants of pentachiorophenol will also be required to limit immediately the dioxin contamination (hexachlorodibenzop-dioxin or HxCCD) in pentachiorophenol to 15 parts per million (ppm) and to reduce that level to one ppm within 18 months. The more potent 2 ,3 ,7 ,8 tetrachloro- dibenzo-p-dioxin (2 ,3 ,7 ,8-TCDD) has not been found nor will it be per- mitted in pentachiorophenol. 1 EPA said that without these restrictions, the risk to public health from using these pesticides would outweigh the benefits The agency' s decision is based on evidence that (1) creosote causes cancer in laboratory animals and has been associated with skin cancer in some workers occupationally exposed to creosote; (2) a dioxin contaminant (HxCDD) in pentachlorophenol has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals; and (3) arsenic has been shown in epidemiology studies to be associated with cancer in humans who either drank water contaminated with arsenic or who breathed air containing arsenic. In addition, pentachioro- phenol and inor•anic arsenicals causes defects to the offs•rin• of labora- tory animals. Creosote and inorganic arsenicals also cause mutagenic effects (gene defects) in bacteria and laboratory animals. 1 1 11 I - 3 - - Applicators must not eat, drink, or use tobacco products during the I application process, which may expose them to the pesticide formulations. Workers are required to wash thoroughly after skin contact and before eating, drinking, use of tobacco products or using restrooms. I - The labels of all pentachlorophenol roducts must include a warning rning that exposure to women during pregnancy should be avoided because pentachlor- I ophenol has been shown to cause defects in the offspring of laboratory animals. I - Pentachlorophenol and creosote cannot be applied indoors. - Pentachlorophenol cannot be applied to wood intended for use in in- teriors , except for millwork (with out-door surfaces) and support Istructures which are in contact with the soil in barns, stables, and similar sites and which are subject to decay or insect infestation. A sealer must be applied in those instances. I - Creosote cannot be applied to wood intended to be used in interiors except for those support structures which are in contact with the soil I in barns, stables, and similar sites and which are subject to decay or insect infestation. A sealer must be applied. - The application of pentachlorophenol to logs for construction of log Ihomes will be prohibited. - If creosote or pentachlorophenol is applied to wood intended to be used I where it will be exposed to body contact, two coats of appropriate sealants must be applied. Urethane, epoxy and shellac are acceptable sealers for creosote-treated wood. Urethane, shellac, latex epoxy I enamel, and varnish are acceptable sealers for pentachlorophenol-treated wood. - Pentachlorophenol or creosote must not be used where there may be Icontamination of feed, food, drinking or irrigation water. The Consumer Awareness Program will require wood pressure-treaters to send onsumer Information Sheets with each s ipment o treate• woo. . - is in orm- ; tion wi. •e ma•e avai a• e in p aces w ere rea e• woo. is so • o ins ruc consumers about handling techniques, such as the use of protective gloves and coveralls and face masks when sawing treated wood products. The intormation Iheet will recommend against the use of wood treated with any of the three reservatives in proximity to food, feed, and public drinking water. In in- teriors of farm buildings where domestic animals are unlikely to lick or bite the wood, pentachlorophenol and creosote-treated wood may be used if two coats f an approved sealant are applied. ItThe information sheet will also recommend that consumers avoid frequent and rolonged skin contact with pentachlorophenol and creosote-treated wood such as reated lawn chairs and other outdoor furniture unless two coats of an effec- tive sealer have been applied. All treated wood used for patios, decks, 1 RONALD L. FOREMAN, Ph.D. Toxicologist 901 S. Wolcott St. * P.O. Box 6998, Chicago, ILL. 60680 * Tel. (312 ) 996-7638 To: The Portland Cement Association Subject: Toxicological evaluation of leachable arsenic in FDN and LP-22 labeled plywood, based on data supplied by Trace Elements, Inc. Summary of test data: The quantities of arsenic leached from 3x5x5/8 inch specimens of FDN and LP-22 labeled plywoods at the various time intervals are summarized below. The values presented are averages of three samples of each specimen, as reported by Trace Elements, Inc. Sample 1 day 3 days 7 days 28 days 60 days FDN 4 .8 mg. 9 .0 mg. 12 .0 mg. 41.0 mg. 58 .5 mg. LP-22 2 .7 6 .0 8 .7 21.0 30 .0 Discussion: ' All of the statements contained in my previous report on leaching tests which were conducted by PCA are applicable to the present tests. However, I will summarize a few of the more salient points. The following II biological and physical properties of arsenic are relevant to a toxicological evaluation of results from the current leaching study. 1) A minimum fatal adult dose of arsenic upon acute ingestion is approximately, 100 mg. (1/284 ounce) as recorded in the "TOXIC SUBSTANCES LIST," 1973 edition, U. S. Department of Health, Education .and Welfare, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 2 ) Water-soluble arsenic compounds are readily absorbed from the gastro-intestinal tract, as well as from skin exposure. 3 ) Arsenic compounds are extremely persistent; i .e. , they are unaltered in a toxicological sense, when subjected to the usual environmental conditions. 4 ) Arsenic is a cumulative poison. Thus several exposures to sub-lethal doses could result in a fatal body-burden. 5 ) ,The quoted lethal dose is that for an adult. A lethal dose for small children and domestic animals could be considerably lower. 6) The quoted figures are lethal doses. Toxic effects would be expected at I lower doses. 7) Arsenic (and chromate) salts are known as causative agents of serious skin I disorders. i 11 - 3 I . Bureau of Community Environmental Management ' Division of Community Injury Control U.S. Public Health Service 2 ) U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare ' National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 3 ) Environmental Protection Agency Summary: IThe pressure-treated plywood in question contains high levels of arsenic. ,A total basement load of the product represents a massive reservoir of a persistent chemical which is highly toxic. By design, this material will be placed in intimate contact with a human environment. Prior to such use, it Iis imperative that all necessary tests are conducted. Results of those tests must provide conclusive evidence that such use is without hazard to the household occupants. , Although treated plywood has apparently been used Futdoors without incident, several new and unique considerations arise from the roposi new use or the product as a basement foundation. Most notably, itome degree of leaching is acceptable, what is that figure, and upon what body f facts is that decision made? 5 441144( u i, sudts rof the leaching tests performed by Trace Elements, Inc. for the Portland Cement Association confirm the results of previous tests on LP-22 I plywood conducted by PCA. These results show that toxic levels of arsenic can be leached from a single 3x5x5/8 inch sample of treated plywood. The FDN samples released more arsenic tnen aid the LP-22 specimens, which no doubt Ireflects the higher concentration of preservative in FDN labeled plywood. I would urge that one or all of the federal agencies listed in the text be made cognizant of this information. In my opinion, an objective and comprehensive appraisal of this apparent hazar. is warrantee , prior to approval or t e Idescribed use., 1A.Ate.5 Z Ronald L. Foreman, Ph.D. 11 July 10, 1987 y6 �a 5-7-3—° • Russ Widmer Widmer,Inc. Excavating 'G (41'77-CeU PO Box 219 St. Bonifacius, Mn. 55375 Dear Russ: Please send me a written quotation of the construction of the our lake access on lot 5, block 2 in Lake Lucy Highlands, as we discussed. In order to cover all the design possibilities, please quote the three following designs: Plan A.400'long x 16'wide x 4'deep channel and approx.8450 sq.ft.pond as shown on the ' attached scale drawing. Plan B. 400'long channel only, no pond. Plan C.355' long channel with a 45'diameter(1600 sq.ft.) x 4'deep boat turnaround. The following conditions will apply during construction as they apply to each plan: , 1. Spoils from the construction will be disposed of upland in the area shown on the drawing, and will be spread to proposed topography as soon as moisture content of soil will permit. 2. To minimize disturbance to wildlife, and minimize silt entry into the lake,construction will take place in winter months when ice can support equipment. 3. To minimize silt entry into the lake, a barrier will be left at the end of the channel until construction is completed and settling permits removal of the barrier. The channel will be constructed from the lake toward the upland with a dragline. Note: It is not possible to dig the upland end first since that is the area the spoils must be transported through during construction. This will force the machinery operators to trample over mature dogwoods in the wetland and cause a severe safety hazard to the 2 dump trucks and the operators if forced to travel a greater distance over the ice to dump the spoils upland . Silt entry to the lake and damage to the environment are the main concerns, and digging from the lake to the upland will be least disruptive to the environment and safest for the construction crew and machinery. ' A silt ditch of 2'depth will be excavated in area shown. All exposed soil upland will be temporarily seeded with ryegrass mixture and mulched with straw for erosion control. Final seeding will consist of Prairie Restorations, Inc, short prairie grass mix#1 or equivalent. 4. Ingress and egress for the dumptrucks hauling the spoils to the disposal area will be between the existing dogwood hedges indicated on the drawing. These are not to be disturbed. ' The only part that I will be responsible for and you can eliminate from your quote is the mulching and seeding. Please send a quotation soon, so I can proceed to get a plan approved by the DNR.Thank you for your consideration. Since y, Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Trail Mtka, Mn.55345 934-2363/937-4048 I tirriPrigat Page No. of Pages \ WIDMER INC. P.O. Box 219 ST. BONIFACIUS, MINNESOTA 55375 Phone 446-1495 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE E../L-4-c„, ��-.c..it 13 7 -- 'o 4/8 ,yea," 2-7 /"Q 7 STREET JOB NAME ss — T , I' CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE (/ JOB LOCATION 7�-- IARCHITECT c DATE OF PLANS _.I ` e>L JOB PHONE -°"1-***4-77. We hereby submit specifications and estimates for -29,ze-c-4‘ _._.ee_e_z.....77, 7/1„,z_ G:,e ue '?∎< 7. . ----2-e-c e ,.. -- 7J I I I I e reserve the right to file a Mechanics Lien if bill is not paid within the length of time prescribed by law.You agree to pay all cost incurred pertaining Ito lien.We will not be responsible for any underground utilities that cannot be located by the utility companies or the homeowner.Normal clean-up lis included in this proposal.There is no sod figured in this proposal.We will not assume the responsibility for water pipes,trees,tree roots,sprinkler ystems,etc.unless notified to exact location prior to excavating.Frost ripping extra charge.It is expressly stipulated and agreed that the undersigned hall not be held liable for damages to grass,trees,shrubs and any underground obstructions,including pipes,electrical wiring and etc.In bidding job e figure soil to dry. If wet,there will be extra charges based on time and material. H P propose hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: I dollars($ ) Payment to be made as follows: A finance charge of 1.5%per month(18%annual rate)will be charged on past due accounts. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike -' manner according to standard practices.Any alteration or deviation from above specifica- Authorized lions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders,and will become an Signature _/7Z- ?��- extra charge over and above the estimate.All agreements contingent upon strikes,accidents - or delays beyond our control.Owner to carry fire,tornado and other necessary insurance. Note:This proposal may be v/� Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. AC itariti of f rnpnoa1—The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified.Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: Signature Icnou I tw.1 nnovoinur,own_ Aoewe6,n I.n...hoc In, n.ntnn ueee IH Acn / May 16, 1987 1 ,w �/ 77 To: Richard Olson (160 pirL BUG _ 340, - • 15281 County Rd. 40 Carver, Mn. 55315 me i71 + C Dear Richard: Please send me a written quotation of the construction of the our lake access on lot 5, block 2 in Lake Lucy Highlands, as we discussed. In order to cover all the design possibilities, please quote the three following designs: Plan A. 400' long x 16'wide x 4'deep channel and approx. 8450 sq.ft.pond as shown on the attached scale drawing. Plan B. 400'long channel only, no pond. ' Plan C. 355' long channel with a 45'diameter(1600 sq.ft.) x 4'deep boat turnaround. The following conditions will apply during construction as they apply to each plan: ' 1. Spoils from the construction will be disposed of upland in the area shown on the drawing, and will be spread to proposed topography as soon as moisture content of soil will permit. 2. To minimize disturbance to wildlife, and minimize silt entry into the lake, construction will take place in winter months when ice can support equipment. ' 3. To minimize silt entry into the lake,a barrier will be left at the end of the channel until construction is completed and settling permits removal of the barrier. The channel will be constructed from the lake toward the upland with a dragline. Note: It is not possible to dig the upland end first since that is the area the spoils must be transported through during construction. This will force the machinery operators to trample over mature dogwoods in the wetland and cause a severe safety hazard to the 2 dump trucks and the operators if forced to travel a greater distance over the ice to dump the spoils upland . Silt entry to the lake and damage to the environment are the main concerns, and digging from the lake to the upland will be least disruptive to the environment and safest for the construction crew and machinery. ' A silt ditch of 2'depth will be excavated in area shown. All exposed soil upland will be temporarily seeded with ryegrass mixture and mulched with straw for erosion control. Final seeding will consist of Prairie Restorations, Inc, short prairie grass mix#1 or equivalent. 4. Ingress and egress for the dumptrucks hauling the spoils to the disposal area will be between the existing dogwood hedges indicated on the drawing. These are not to be disturbed. ' The only part that I will be responsible for and you can eliminate from your quote is the mulching and seeding. Please send a quotation by June 8, so I can proceed to get a plan approved by the DNR. Thank you for your consideration. Sin fly, (Grip//�l ' 1 Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Trail Mtka, Mn. 55345 934-2363/937-4048 May 31,1987 I To: Serv-a-Dock , 2115 Arboretum Blvd. q4;/, f e7/— '\ Victoria, Mn.55386 Dear Sirs: Please quote the enclosed plan for a dock system on the enclosed drawings, using your company's particular specialty in materials. If your specialty is treated wood pilings, use a single post system. If you use a galvanized metal post system,the post is not to be above the level of the dock. Floating systems are unnacceptable. The dock is expected to be completely permanent,with minimal maintenance anticipated . Please also furnish your estimate of the expected life span of the system system chosen. Considering the length,cost will be of prime consideration. You will be expected to provide materials and labor, as well as visit the site and go over the plan with me before construction. Construction can be in any season you prefer, and please mention it in your quote. ' I am going through the process of getting the required agency approvals to get a permit for alteration of this wetland. My phone numbers are 934-2363 (home) and 937-4048 (work). Enclosed is a map of where the lot is in Chanhassen on Lake Lucy so you can find the site easily. I will be glad to see you at the site if necessary. There ' is no house on the lot as yet, but is due to go in this year. I would like to get the dock in the next 12 months. Thank you for your consideration. Please send a written quote as soon as possible. Sincerely, 1 Eric Rivkin ' 5525 Conifer Trail Minnetonka, Mn. 55345 ,V(/(27-6. // 1 d/9, (9° I 1 eLl., S'cetL CW OA"' I fie 1.1 1 / 111 9„.• 1 TM 1 plc "tN41 1 lit I il- ,. I I gar - UP I / Arnca c 10 sacrra#$ O% 4,6' SAN, 1 / L iUATN-s 41"- -) -- p (--- AVM. wpTw Zed).S7 i/I ilittp 1 i 0 I J �` I SERV-A-DOCK /;, _ L I '�; .T fre HWY. 5-VICTORIA, MN 55386 '� �_� i' �=►� QUOTATION 2115 ARBORETUM BLVD. (612) 443-2811 Walk on Water with Confidence INAME ADDRESS CITY HOME PHONE r I C `'`. 1 i_ F. / ,- -'`-1 i,f Or-I•, i_1',I ~?,-/", , I j73= /C'i �l 2 1/- ? I DATE QUOTED BY BUSINESS PHONE 1/ f., PRESENT CUSTOMER:DOCK SET UP ON SITE FROM PAST YEAR, 1 `� Fr) Jl� j �V f FIRST TIME INSTALLATION INCLUDES:DELIVERY,UNLOADING,ASSEMBLY,AND INSTALLATION. (+ 7 — '7 i`'S" I C FIRST PRESENT DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT PRICE TIME CUSTOMER PRICE INSTALL INSTALL 42"x 96" LONG GALV. DOCK SECTION COMPLETE ,r(.. F�, -rr / <—!(r t. /�,r, 4, I62"x 96" LONG GALV. PLATFORM COMPLETE t 82"x 96" LONG GALV. SUN DECK COMPLETE 16'x 24' LONG CANOPY BOATHOUSE I 16'x 32' LONG CANOPY BOATHOUSE 18'x 40' LONG CANOPY BOATHOUSE/STEEL SLATS I8'WIDE BENCH (OVERHANGS WATER) GALV. LADDER (4 STEPS) 1 2"x 4"x 6' CEDAR BOAT BUMPERS GALV. STARTER BRACKET / A ; (' /(; ` I GALV. 90° CORNER BRACKET 30° STABILIZERS MOORING LINES# IFRAMEWORK 42"x 96" LONG GALV. BLACK FRAMEWORK 62"x 96" LONG IFRAMEWORK 82"x 96" LONG GALV. FABRICATED DOCK BRACKET ICEDAR DECK FOR DOCK SECTION GALV. PIPE FOR DOCK SECTION BENCH BRACKETS ISERVICING BARREL WITH BRACKETS SLEEVE HAMMER FOR INSTALLATION ILEVELING JACK FOR INSTALLATION PIPE JACK FOR REMOVAL I PKG. OF 4 SERVICING TOOLS (FOR SERV-A-DOCK CUSTOMERS ONLY) �//-r-' ( l-! /`r,, j- !-r/` L�x" ('L'n , /r, ,,•) : ,/---)!,:"-L''''' r t. IAl, ('E 101, 1-,5 , ii i r' 1 , P` r.P /7,4.) In[:f /. , ,-1 Li a ti/ IA,/ k T., , c!" ! .5/. 17, I "r+ .5A- /e,„ �J COMMENT S:- Z.�,;fe.//: / ii' !r.. -(c-ri,'l -f- f- PRICE ri` .5 ` / 97r a NfATnON 1 ,P- )u ,, I-/- -, - a < -- c� E., a,Ir� ';y PRESENT CUST. TAX 953 INSTALLATION ix E., ;- ; - 51 :—I( :C r cV/i 1 r rre-tnr, t) QUOTED PRICE GOOD FOR `f (...1 c�� f/0,r SUB TOTAL " /7.�1��2 - I �c f1 _'P *IN CHARGEION /1/7 . 'SERVICE BILLED NET 30 AFTER DATE OF INSTALLATION. /1';'. 4/1.'- '14',`, , TOTAL /J T,, AMOUNT / )' (/r ,C , OFFICE COPY(WHITE)•CUSTOMER COPY(YELLOW) •SALESMAN CO#Y(PINK) - May 27,1987 • r , To: Minnetonka Portable Dredging Co. 500 W. Lake St. Excelsior, Mn. 55331 Dear Sirs: - Please quote the enclosed plan for a dock system on the enclosed drawings,using your company's particular I specialty in materials. If your specialty is treated wood pilings,use a single post system. If you use a galvanized metal post system,the post is not to be above the level of the dock. Floating systems are unnacceptabie. The dock Is expected to be completely permanent,with minimal maintenance anticipated . Please also furnish your estimate of the expected life span of the system system chosen. Considering the length, cost will be of prime consideration.You will be expected to provide materials and labor,as well as visit the site and go over the plan with me before construction. Construction can be in any season you prefer, and please mention it in your quote. I I am going through the process of getting the required agency approvals to get a permit for alteration of this wetland. My phone numbers are 934-2363 (home) and 937-4048 (work). Enclosed is a map of where the lot is in Chanhassen on Lake Lucy so you can find the site easily. I will be glad to see you at the site if necessary. There Is no house on the lot as yet,but is due to go in this year. I would like to get the dock in the next 12 months. Thank you for your consideration. Please send a written quote as soon as possible. 1 Sincerely, • 9 Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Trail , Minnetonka, Mn. 55345 • June 15, 1987 Dear Mr. Rivkin: i Thank you for your recent inquiry for a dock system. We are not interested in bidding at this time. Bill Niccum i 1 I I 1 I May 27, 1987 r r Water-free docks, Inc =� r Minnetonka Plaza Excelsior, Mn. 55331 ' Dear Sirs: Please quote the enclosed plan for a dock system on the enclosed drawings, using your company's particular specialty in materials. If your specialty is treated wood pilings, use a single post system. If you use a galvanized ' metal post system,the post is not to be above the level of the dock. Floating systems are unnacceptable. The dock is expected to be completely permanent,with minimal maintenance anticipated . Please also furnish your estimate of the expected life span of the system system chosen. Considering the length,cost will be of prime consideration. You will be expected to provide materials and labor, as well as visit the site and go over the plan ' with me before construction. Construction can be in any season you prefer, and please mention it in your quote. I am going through the process of getting the required agency approvals to get a permit for alteration of this wetland. My phone numbers are 934-2363 (home) and 937-4048 (work). Enclosed is a map of where the lot is in ' Chanhassen on Lake Lucy so you can find the site easily. I will be glad to see you at the site if necessary. There is no house on the lot as yet, but is due to go in this year. I would like to get the dock in the next 12 months. Thank you for your consideration. Please send a written quote as soon as possible. ' Sincerely, Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Trail Minnetonka, Mn. 55345 I ' ✓'� ,e,f77/7 cfNer6- F-- f-53'crc- PJGlG cYVL 95-4O. • I I 1 II r June 16 , 1987 I Water- I Wat e Free Docks , Inc . 5615 Manitou Road IExcelsior , Minnesota 55331 Eric Rivkin 5525 Conifer Trail I Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Dear Mr. Rivkin; I I , first of all , am very sorry about taking so long in getting back to you about your Docking needs . Bidding your Dock is difficult due to all of the unknowns II at this time that could be involved, until we actually start installing the Dock. I 60 - 8 ' Sections are needed for 430 ' of Dock. Our Dock retails for $194 . 00 per 8 ' Section , with the amount you need , I you could purchase it for $159 . 00 per 8 ' Section. The total cost of the Sections is $9 , 540 . 00. At this time , the labor is unknown. I would have to bid this at this time at $25 . 00 per hour/per man. Time of install would depend on how wet the I conditions are. I will be gone for about 2 -3 weeks and I will give you a call I when I get back. Thank you , I Wm. Gregg Smith I Water-Free Docks , Inc . I l I I II II C ift- I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN I 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 IAPPLICANT: ,C/C t/O4 f k ,2/VklA/ OWNER: e2G .'M.P4 2/Vie#I ADDRESS /4 fr Ore?--e.- 2. Cr' (GO r) ADDRESS S"-5-25- CA()/re-oe 7*#/[- G!-/4it/A4/,/SSLSt/ /WA /L!pviv77D , /lw frsf`S' Zip Code Zip Code I TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 9J7- yoyA TELEPHONE 939-7-363 REQUEST: IZoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan I Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision ILand Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds I Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit IPROJECT NAME ,49/J7 ci GLkf7fh{7 Z Ten .4.4-"ee zdie y IPRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION i?ES/p�71/D-7,L. REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION ke C#4 Lc IPRESENT ZONING IZ"/.4 REQUESTED ZONING LA e (/44-E I USES PROPOSED . ._ _ . ISIZE OF PROPERTY /D, 3 .AG'.¢eS 09 AfC. ,0�d /dr? ,!!/l, /z919 e'LEV, -7742 ) LOCATION .LOS S, 6-xec Z f z i,x LILY f/Lz4,44 /p5 (3.4, it4t�� IREASONS FOR THIS REQUEST T'i ,' dV/per' ,, SECI_L/DL-x. G10 -4/iviifve / r" 1 o r P i¢ k/.4-T E I C 1'O G t J L *' 'sS/25L,E 1/4S1°•9w "- -1/77=v ,i7Z ,��iL F/s/i. I S,EGUVa,42ey 415E ALO /9"e/169Te: G S fcrt o f Cftlfie . (AA,re. ,¢CC ES 5 7D 7te' ,fiyfK,S'J/ ICY Gcyu 7Z, EQ V,,,7..(G�'r' G4.C/ dNL`''?C` poly!{ 1 ?J/i(.�4R 87, Sd F .k17-444/l7".5 QST-f-r t/ED ,W' '' ''"23r. J I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LoT 5 , $LK 2 1 LAKE i.,.oc• 14-Ktrq-44 NDS I IA--rrrte0114e7UT°`7 City of Chanhassen II Land Development Application Page 2 II FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be typewritten, or II 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 II to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . II FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies I that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . II Signed By i��'�1 Date t M/7 I Applicant . II The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein II described . II Signed By Date Fee Owner II ll Date Application Received / 5_� , 1 ' ; r Application Fee Paid `� II City Receipt No. , 11 A,(j) II II - -* This Application will be considered by thetPlanning_ Commission Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their Sr—A ) ' meeting. JI _ 1 \ os. / ��`` �\ la h _ Zy L id 10 6. ,ii \ ./ i't " V if! yr tnIF lLl I 0 1� ^33 tl ' '.- §-I . co ;'t` \ \ r jaJJi f3�' Tp f u F r. AS A ft �' ,o n iI9,4, ° i1/of k \ Id // •�' _sue n s �z rIi1U' n �on3z _ _ // „ .' ",_.... . ry i — �7 ce� --a i ■ Q -Z."-.`,. . I IA a. ■� H I�S�vTA 1-00 u I 58.4 J /1,- ' i,�.'. , II I �� 4 tee' �\ �'' , ;`�"• � 5 `1i J° \ 1 I' I/ — ; a\ %i- ,ua 1 ii @ _tea° /sS' 'c \ i ''' 0'5 L-g a pol 1\. \'*, 7 PI 11 ,off •• ;2 C N � r ' $� a ,\N 1 `0 b'HS. nauvt�s;�t �: \\V �' ( } � y S rte; '\ .. 1 I.I tr,„... ra Zi '' tli �k dH a r) )•t�\ ii. :?'' ., t �y`'0 f,:� �3rq.."+`` ✓ ! 1 r.,.-1 lu i ,LI ' ,7A / , ,*01 . \ ..,; • _ _ s, '3tt 2G,r,S ""v. ' • t 5114.1. 0 Silo= r «° $._$ -s;. `' , `\. \• I �nAww Y1 QN1JlVM/U.1'04? _ •�u•wox• I:s y.t'1dvtc 1:7 ESL•!'xa� `,' 3 \\ � \ ' \ t•TJl1IaQIS3Ii _ ,�_ ,.m.6. 2 \ \ NIX tt Iii _ >,,,,,,,,4,:v 'w'-t%r ' I \ \ `\ \•\ \ T3 N W a Q •Taf�'., I ,t, � •, �j44i Ct a \gc\-1 `S\ \\ \ Q OXIS . \ \\\\ 111\\��\ ` ` \ \ ' `�''*"°...,,,,/' s\\\1\11\�11,,..\x�\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \1 1\ \� ,, A 1 \,\ \\1\\\\\ \ s'fAl I 1 '+.3•,3 J�V•5s'Y3YY4N0 o°""e GYeI!`- 1010,100\\ \ \ 11 u'!' \''..,, (401.1'71,7/3/3 do aa:2 441.aov13e 11111\11\0\1\ 1 \ \ \ wins.* Q�Q • - III \\\\\\\'\\1 \ \ \ \ 1 11 T • -1 .'1d30 DNINNYld N3SSYHNVH3 \ ► 1 1 .. t+hk�671114A.211 ux A4.aa. -717 •,.' , 1 \ \ I I I 1 LEibi LO3dU �^ .ox !'�. t. 1 j l I 1 1 j I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 11 I I I I ' i I� I, 1111 , i11 �)1i1 011 1 1 1 1 I I I ".[?."3a I` I�I,1) °' ;I 11 1111 1 1. i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 %'', N3SSYHNYFI3 d0 Ally 1 111 11 I I I I -73NNbH-j � r 1 I I I I I l l l 1 r I I ► I I I III li III / j I 1I I�I'rrriJul�� / / / / I '�` r I �j1 ) 7?. l /�(IlrIt l // / /[� rro,o{ r �, I �► _ 522714. - r , `, : =_. 1 r �INtivit 001-0 kiwi."Zd EZIS O 11 l , ,/,/l // / / / A : —ra a / I,�I r1 ti •,o� a7soiO�ld `/so %/ 'k.,.', I//I /I// / // / / /.-say i II/ a 1Tr4i d cam_- / 1---,-T.,--- % o _ "' 11//ll/l//l/�/ / / / /l / I Ir /0) i. .--•. 'i• _ ,46° 0 a oTCQ - .--\.,, U o, 1 i , 1/ll 111 11//// / / / 14.;; `• l 1�,); " ' \ \ ' �! �� 1 . \ i �ip//;O / /l Vin`, // , ��' iC r• I ////// / ! / / �` ;� yl' u.`,a� �• \ tit us / /�/ //// / / / /., , > I / / / j " .• e' N 4�. 11pI.. r!.. li of�� ' Y e 11//i, /4/// l / l /;F,y,.;./ l\- r .\",'� /, ,.•..; /i3; I /I1 4 • oe Zo \ `.\\ a.1; li////8//l// I 1 Via ,,. /, / /\l i ,cad rnsd33,,t /..1.^ / �- - II //1////l l / l / 1;7 l j / 1 / / ' �_ ./s ' iy `\' I //,,,,,////// / / , /y,x; ,, % i , / I 0 /.,I � r, ' ,'- (` p1j i. v i°""°_�q.',>,'\.\ //7///1/ /1// / l / /''"",:%d" I / / / / t'/,,,,,i,,..--.:.5, %.f ,% .,, �7 /j � -..--:_:-.7...-1.7.—.::-..-...-..--:-.: • _ t '. //////////l/ ;7 /i{ / 1•d° 1. i ,� � % 1 / "�„r. ca �' ' .'' /I' �- - — - � i! I �`ii I l ., i•"�� / , of i+ 1 •-- ' q r /y '„ a' '" 9D3;, •, 1 L �_ IME 11111111 111. NM 1101111 IIIII 11.11 MN 1111111 111.11 MO 111.111 MI =I 1111. NM 111111 MI MI rCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING I C. JANUARY 6, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad and David Headla IMEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel , Howard Noziska and James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner; Roger Knutson, City Attorney; and Larry Brown, Asst. City I Engineer If WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHANNEL AND BOAT TURNAROUND IN A CLASS A WETLAND ON LAKE LUCY ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ,, AND LOCATED ON LOT 5, BLOCK 2, LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS, ERIC RIVKIN, APPLICANT. IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit request. IErhart: On Lake Minnewashta we allowed docks to go through an existing wetland there recently? A boardwalk and docks. How wide was that Iwetland or how far from the high water mark? Olsen: I don't have the exact number but it wasn't this long... IErhart : Do you have a better map that shows the whole area of the surround lots with you? Show where the wetland, is it the black line there? IOlsen : Yes . He has this high land . Erhart: Okay, so the colored area is the wetland. Okay, so all the lots in that area essentially have the same problem of getting through to water? I Olsen: These are existing lots. These are not part of the subdivision. IErhart : Part of what subdivision? Olsen: Part of Lake Lucy Highlands . IErhart: And all the letters that we received or that were submitted with this in favor of it, can you mark those lots on there. I Olsen: I believe those are mostly from Lake Lucy Highlands. The only other one have the wetlands is Lot 4. . . lik Erhart: And all the other lot owners on the right there and on the east and south were notified? I ti . Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 2 Olsen: Yes. A few of them were going to come tonight. I don't know g if they did. Erhart : We' re not having a public hearing for what reason? Conrad: It ' s not a public hearing but I plan on entertaining comments. I Erhart: Wouldn't it be a little more interesting to have any comments first and then handle our discussion? Conrad : I kind of thought that we may bring up some issues that the public would like to hear and they can react to so I was going through the Commission first . Erhart: Okay, that's one thing I'd like to hear what anybody here on the shoreline, what their thoughts were. Much more so than the people not on the lake. I don't know if that has a significant influence on what my opinion would be on this . Joe Monnens : I live on the lake and I did in fact submit one of the letters in favor of the proposed channel. I guess my reason for that is I think a channel would be less of an impact on the aesthetics of the area than would a boardwalk. I can see a 400 foot dock deteriorating over not too many years plus the dangers to deer and other kind of wildlife and snowmobiles and cross country skiers, people that use the area. So that was my reason for supporting the proposed alteration. Erhart: Joe, it appears from the letters that all the comments were comparing a dock versus a channel and given the question of anything at all , what would be your response? I think you have to have a permit to do a dock or a channel . Joe Monnens : It seems a person with lakeshore has a right to access ' the lake so one way or the other something has to be approved . Erhart: I don't know if that's true is it? Something has to be approved? Conrad: Legally a person has the riparian right to get to the water. Roger do you want to help me on that? Roger Knutson: Generally speaking if you own a abutting lot, you have certain rights but you have the right to regulate that to not damage the wetland . Joe Monnens: I don't know if there's any legal rationale but I felt in the sense of justice that a person should have access and either be a boardwalk or a channel so I thought a channel would be better . L ' ' Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 3 I Erhart: So this whole issue then, is it coming down to we either approve the channel or dock? Is that what you're saying because that isn ' t the way I remember this discussion the last time? Conrad: We can actually reject all options and say that the wetland and the ordinance is to maintain a Class A wetland and no degregati.on to it at all . Options to that are as requested by the applicant. ' Erhart: I think what I'm hearing though is that if it comes to it and Eric wants to build a dock out here across 400 feet of this, he can do that? ' Conrad: I don't think we have to grant that but I think we're finding technical support to say that it's not that detrimental to a wetland and we also have precedent saying we have granted docks over wetlands ' in the past. We haven't granted any dredging to a wetland yet since our ordinance went in so what this is, it's really a precedent on how we want to treat wetlands in Chanhassen. Obviously, the applicant has some cause for requesting it. It's a unique situation. We've never ' seen one like this before and applied the ordinance to it but it would set a precedent and I think that ' s really what the issue is Tim. ' Emmings: Can I just ask as a follow up, because this is right on the same subject, has he asked us to consider a boardwalk if we're not willing to give him the channel? Olsen: No, that was staff's option for providing some means of access. He ' s always wanted a channel and not necessarily a boardwalk. ' Conrad : Mr . Rivkin , do you want to talk about that? Eric Rivkin: This is a copy of a letter from a neighbor to the west. He was unable to attend but he had some comments about the issue. Last time we met the Planning Commission concurred that I was going to have to bring something up to give me a permit so that there was no argument as to which had an impact, which was detrimental and which was minimal ' and so forth. I was told that I had to give one plan that was approved that settled the technical issues and I did. There is a permit. We shouldn't have to stand here and argue whether fish and wildlife and ' plantlife are endangered. We shouldn't have to argue whether which construction method, erosion control methods are better. We shouldn't have to argue whether loosestrife is going to run rampant. We shouldn't argue whether a channel has less or more detrimental impact ' than the dock or which method is more reasonable under my rightful access to the lake. Because the DNR and the Watershed have reviewed these issues and settled those arguments which conform with the permit ' and special provisions. Between the two agencies there were 6 to 10, maybe even 12 experts in fish and wildlife and plants and hydrology and engineering that reviewed my proposal. I myself would not recommend a channel if I had thought this project or subsequents projects under the precedent would cause any major environmental loses. Planning Commission Meeting II January 6, 1988 - Page 4 If I had a short distance to go, a dock wo II be certainly more reasonable but planning staff had onlytone• o It would One person. Dr. Rockwell, in o only Pinion. I opposition to the opinion of many, many other experts. I'm not at all in agreement with her comments. If you look at her letter, I believe it's page 1-B or item 1-B in the package, she states, "The proposed channel would destroy a substantial portion II of emergent wetland associated with Lake Lucy at the project site." She also states that a single access channel would probably not significantly reduce resources for fish and wildlife who's reproduction depends on the wetland. However, the cumulative effect from more than I one such project could cause major losses that cannot be replaced or mitigated. Her key words here are significant and major. I'd like to look at the scenario on the overhead here. As the plan stated, this is I the designated wetlands around Lake Lucy. The area is approximately 60 acres. My lot is right here. I believe she is incorrect in saying that all the lots would have the same problem of access. That is not II true. I superimposed the lot lines, existing lot lines on the wetland area map to show exactly, and I went door to door at each one of these lots talking about this proposal and asking their opinions of a dock versus a channel and soliciting opinions and I asked them if they had I access or not. Out of all the lots that have solid lines around here, are existing lots that either have access, either with clean lakeshore or an existing channel which is grandfathered in before the wetlands I ordinance was passed, or they have, in this case, let's say of this lot here that hasn't sold yet, this outlot, it has such a short distance to go that there's no question, it's only about 50 feet to open water, that a dock is obviously the solution for them. All these residents II around here, except this one, all of them around here have access. Even if this island were divided into lots , that would have access so there's no option for them. If there's no residence there now, there's no reason why they wouldn't need a dock or a channel in some cases. The lots that are starred, existing lots that are starred, are lots with potential access with channels because there is a long way to go. Lot 4, Lot 5, have the longest to go, roughly 400 feet. The other I potential lots, let's say if Prince subdivides and with the 10 acre minimum rule in effect, I drew in dotted lines here to simulate proposed lots. Okay, let's take that scenario. Let's add up all the I channels. If every one of these lots had a channel, worse case, we added them all up. The wetland area is 60 acres, there's 2 1/2 million square feet. If we add up all the lenghts of the channels multiplied I by the width of my proposed channel which is 16 feet, that's 20,000 square feet. That's 8/l0th's on 1 percent of the total of the designated area. I hardly call that major or substantial impact. If you're talking about my lot, which is only 7,600 square feet and nobody I else puts in channels, we're only talking about 3/10th's of 1 percent. That's not even close to being substantial or major. Now I confronted Dr. Rockwell at the lot. She came and visited the lot and I was , supposed to meet her. I confronted her with this information. I didn't have the numbers but I had the same opinion and she said that's for the DNR to decide. Whether that's minimal or detrimental. It's not my jurisdiction. She says I've been just asked to come out here 1 IPlanning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 5 Iand give my opinion. So the DNR has decided and they decided it is minimal. She also states in reference to concern over pollution from Itreated wood docks from boardwalks. She submitted Biologic and Economic Assessment of Pentachlorophenol, Inorganic Arsenicals. These are hazardous chemicals that are found in treated wood. I also I submitted the same type of information from the EPA in my report and she says available information suggests that pollution from pressure treated wood material for docks and boardwalks is minimal. This is like saying that the available information on DDT and aebestos was safe I at the time the information was available but now we know better and have learned from the past before it's too late. There is no safe level of any hazardous substance. It just depends on the various I levels of harm. So I believe that with the DNR, with their staff, we're in an excellent position to assess the environmental impact of this plan. That the opinion of the planning staff doesn't carry much weight and I think that a channel should be allowed to proceed. Any I questions? I have some direct comments about the dock itself but I submitted some reports, comments about the dock and if you have questions about those directly I can answer those. IErhart: Explain the materials that you are removing here? Can you walk on this in the summertime now or you can't? You can't. Is it cattails? t- Eric Rivkin: It's cattails and soft grass. There are little mounds of dirt and I took a core sample in the summertime. The soil gradually I goes down and slopes off at about 4 feet at the water , 4 to 6 feet at the waterline, and starts from 0 at the high water mark. It's roughly 80% water . All these spoils would be removed upland . IIErhart: Okay, so this is really a process of nutrification? I Eric Rivkin : That issue is kind of moot now. Erhart: Why? I Eric Rivkin: Last time we argued about nutrification and fate of the lake and we were not in any position to argue that because we said we're not experts so we had to get the DNR experts to decide this. So I I took the arguments to the DNR, they got a copy of the city's reports and the Minutes of the last meeting , it was all put in and . . . I Erhart: That's not the reason I'm questioning it. I'm not trying to get into a technical discussion . Eric Rivkin: I don't want to be put in the awkward position of trying Ito defend . . . Erhart: I'm just trying to understand what this area is like. To me this whole question is one of more practical things like aesthetics and if you're going to allow channels or if you're going to allow I 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 6 essentially landscaping, which you have there, as opposed to a dock, than you're dealing, I think with aesthetic issues and to me, exchanging this nutrification area for open water, who's going to argue whether that's better or worse for wildlife. My opinion, in that particular area you could use a little more open water. So from a wildlife standpoint, I'd favor the proposal. What I'm trying to understand is, are you really removing nutrification or are you going in and creating a new pond here? Eric Rivkin: I'm creating more open water by virtue of the fact that I'm taking out solid materials and adding material and taking it away. But that end of the lake is so choked with vegetation...If you want to get into that kind of argument. . . Erhart: What you're proposing isn't a whole lot different than a guy coming along and saying I want clean lakeshore which I think , is that not a common practice? If someone buys a lot on the lake, they can get approval to go in there. Olsen : Clearing ' s not allowed unless you have a permit . Erhart: What's the issue when a guy goes in and buys a lot and essentially it's real swampy and he wants to put in a beach. Can he do that today in the City of Chanhassen? ( Olsen : Not in the wetlands . Erhart: What happens if it's just a lake and it's a of weedy ? Can he do that then? g eedy shore. Olsen: He has to get permission from the DNR. There's a difference between a weedy shore and wetland . Erhart: You might find this case, a weedy shore supports more wildlife 1 than this . It ' s a different type of wildlife. Eric Rivkin: The issue of supporting wildlife, was addressed at the DNR and I had to remove some pond in this cases because the Fisheries Department feared that because the pond was maybe better than the lake, in terms of oxygen and cleanliness , that the fish would want to go there, spawn, stay all winter and die. So they said, you've got to keep things real shallow and you ' ve got to keep them unliveable. . . Erhart: I guess I question in this particular thing that perhaps it is ' a better alternative. Perhaps it is a better alternative than a dock. My concern is probably, if we're going to look at this as an alternative to a dock in these situations, is to review what the worse case would be if these things, if we start seeing a lot of these. Do we need to sit down and perhaps write up a guideline? If there are some real bad ramifications that happen, not Eric's by himself, but let's say the next guy who wants to do it and the next guy and think I r Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 7 ii (7 that process through. I think that's the question I'm not opposed to this q ' in my mind here. pp project because I think it's potentially better ' than a dock. The concern would be, where do we go from here. Maybe after talking some more, it might be a question. Emmings: I'm opposed to the channel and I'm going to try and explain my reasons why. This, like last time, is a very difficult issue in my mind. I had a hard time coming to a decision on this one. Mr. Rivkin has done a lot of work preparing his case. Mobilizing neighborhood support, making graphics and everything else and in a way I almost feel like rewarding him for his effort alone because it's impressive. On the other hand, I'm totally not persuaded by his arguments that there ' are many experts on the one hand and one expert on the other because we can choose to believe whichever expert we think makes the most sense no matter how many there are on one side or the other. I'm also not persuaded by the fact that there have been other agency approvals because I think we have the right to be stricter than those agencies in our own backyard. I don't really like a dock going over 400 feet. It seems like it's too darn long to me. I think it may be a liability ' hazard. May be a hazard to snowmobiles, deer, whatever. I don't really like the dock. In a way I like the canal, in this particular case maybe better than a dock but I'm against a canal for the sole ' reason that we've got a wetland policy that says we're going to protect the wetland and we're not going to allow dredging. We never have allowed dredging and I don't think we ought to open it up. I think what we did on Lake Minnewashta on the subdivision right across from ' the entrance to the Arboretum and it would seem to me that if we give Mr. Rivkin his canal on this case, we would have no way to defend not giving it to a developer there. It seemed very clear I think, there was nobody on the commission who supported allowing any dredgin on Lake Minnewashta in a cattail area where they were g openings. The Commission was very unified in not wanting them to do r 5 dredging in that type of an area. I can see no distinction between ' that case and this one. I think given the statement on intent of the wetland protection regulation, given our past actions, we simply have no choice here but to deny the channel. If that means that his only access then is by dock, then I'm in favor of that because I think he should have access to the lake. That's basically my position and rationale for it. Headla : I see so many people taking wetlands away from us and not putting anything back. Why is it you want to put in a channel but you didn't create like donut that we see in so many slews for like geese or an isolated island? Only if you were really interested in wildlife, that would have been an ideal setup with a channel . ' Eric Rivkin: My first proposal . . . Headla : That wasn ' t your first proposal . IL Eric Rivkin: Not to have an island in the middle but. . . I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 8 C Headla : That ' s what I 'm talking about . An island there for wildlife . Eric Rivkin: It's extremely costly. The DNR said that I had to go a minimum of 150 feet in diameter to do that... I have the right to reasonable access. If I have to pay $8,000.00 to dig.—it would be about 3 acres plus the channel according to department standards to create an island . . . Headla : I see you are using economics as one of your rationales why it should be a channel. $22.00 a foot for the mucking and $44.00 per foot for the dock. Why did you have the dock almost twice as long as the channel? Eric Rivkin: I had a bid , I was amazed at how high it was myself but I didn't want to fool around. I wanted to present valid information so I sent the letter out with a sketch of the plan and had those. ' Headla: As I understand the bids, you asked for 430 foot dock but a 230 foot channel . Eric Rivkin : ...and with a dock I don' t want to o straight 9 g t out. I want it to sidestep over a bit so you have to pull back a little bit plus you have to have some out in the water to put a boat. So the equivalent of 430 feet. Headla : So that mucking cost estimate is for 400 feet? Eric Rivkin: That ' s because there ' s 400 feet of swamp. Headla: There you're getting down to roughly $10.00 a foot to muck ' that out but it costs $44 . 00 a foot to put in a dock . Eric Rivkin : I got a solid bid. . . ' Headla: I couldn't get ahold of Sery-a-Dock but I did talk to two other dock builders who thought that was an extremely high cost. ' Eric Rivkin : Serv-a-Dock did not give me a bid . Headla : I think they gave you the bid and Bill Niccum was the one who refused . Eric Rivkin: Bill Niccum refused and Waterfree did not, they gave me an estimate but they would not give me a written estimate so it was invalid. Headla: It just seems awfully strange to me that you could do mucking ' for one-fourth the cost of putting in a dock. Eric Rivkin: It's about 3 days worth of work and at these rates, I had a professional who's been doing dredging and has the product for many, 1 .. I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 9 ' many years. Is very well qualified to do this and has done work with Carver County. I have all the confidence in the world that he was right with these figures . Headla: You were concerned about putting in some treated wood into the wetlands? Eric Rivkin: I said, with the $19,000.00 dock, it would be a dock without poisoning. . . Headla: We've talked about putting treated wood into the wetlands and we've had concerns about it. There's no documented data to say it is not safe. We have not been able to substantiate to say you can't do it and until that becomes available we've got to say, hey, it is permissible. Eric Rivkin: I realize that if you want to have a dock. I care for the environment. I don't want to put arsenicals in the lake. That's my choice. I 'd rather put galvanized metal posts in. Headla: We're all for that. Everyone on the commission, I think that's why we're here, partly, because we do support that type of thing. Anyway, I look at that classy dock, 42 inches wide and I think you went first class on that. I have a hard time doing that. Overall , ' I support the dock over the channel. If we put in one channel, how in the world can we deny it to other people? We've laid the baseline, I think it ' s reasonable and I think we ' ve got to stick with it . ' Conrad: Roger, let me put you on the spot a little bit with Larry, and advise us on that. I'm concerned, as others are, about the precedent. How we've stayed away from channels and we've guided most people to use docks. Here we have an extended situation. Mr. Rivkin really has a long wetland to go through and I think we all empathize with him . I don't think we're trying to say don't use the lake and you can't get ' there but what kind of advice can you offer? Maybe it's not advice but do you see any rationale based on our ordinance that would allow an exception in this case and allow us to not grant the same right to ' others on that lake or others who want to dredge? Is there any rationale? ' Roger Knutson: You talked about precedent and treating similarly situated people similarly. When you really get down to it, it's a matter of argument as much as anything else. Everything is similar but everything is dissimilar. When you try drawing lines, you could draw ' a line and say anything over a 200 foot dock is unreasonable or 100 or 300 or whatever you have. My own druthers, if you're going to do something like that, I'd prefer an ordinance amendment. If you've got a rule, put it in an ordinance. If you want to allow docks of a certain length or open channels if it goes too far, put it down in the ordinance and say it. Then you've protected yourself. On this situation, my own judgment would be, if your conclusion is that Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 10 ' allowing an open channel is going to have significant adverse affect on that wetland, than you ought to turn it down. On the other hand, if you think it will not have a significant adverse affect on that wetland, then by all means approve the open channel . Erhart: Dave, you hit on a line of thought there that I'd like to pursue and that is, the concept of improving wetlands. Say given a situation where there's a small pond and it's been almost totally nutrified and all that's left is just the tiniest little spot in the center where there's a little open water and somebody comes in here with a proposal to essentially go in with a dragline and clean it all out and make it into an area now, and puts an island in the middle and has the DNR okayed it and approved the plan and I'm sure Elizabeth Rockwell would approve it. Make it big enough so ducks and geese would nest in it yet it started out as a Class A wetland. Are we going to turn that down just because we've got an ordinance that says you can't disturb cattails? Olsen: The difference would be determining the condition of that ' wetland. And the one that you just described, even though that would be a Class A wetland, it's in a detriorating state and needs to be improved. Where this wetland, it might be a little cattail clogged and some of it could be cleared out, Dr. Rockwell felt that it was a good wetland and that dredging it out for a channel . . . Erhart: The one I'm talking about is 200 feet in diameter. The f wetland he's got is 400 feet. What I'm getting to here, I'm not trying to get anybody, but what I'm trying to get to here is maybe the rule that we're looking for, rather than Eric coming in here or anybody else coming in with a plan to get access to a lot , maybe what we ought to look at or seek out people to come in with plans for improving wetland areas . Headla: We visited one this fall and that's why I asked Jo Ann to speak. Now I don't remember it being that big. Do you remember the dimensions of that? Olsen: That was a wetland in a poor state where the duck pond they were proposing was going to improve it. Whereas this wetland is already in a good state and altering it might harm i.t. Erhart: I guess what I'm having a hard time with is you're saying that continuous 400 feet of cattails is better than a broken up area where you have some open water and some cattails and some islands and I don' t think that ' s correct . Olsen : The dredging out of that wetland . Erhart: I'm not talking about Eric's proposal anymore. I'm talking about a fictious issue. If you were to go in and say, we have 400 feet of cattails here and we have 600 feet of width to work with and we L ' Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 11 1C wanted to come in and just simply improve the wetlands for wildlife. ' This is designed to be an access rather than a wetland improvement and maybe the thing , as a Commission, is that what we would like to see or invite people in these types of situations to come in with wetland improvement proposals that had Rockwell's support. And yes, if it could be used as an access , that 's great too. Conrad: I think you're right. Theoretically, the things that we have approved and wetland modification, at least the way I've tried to direct them, have been improvements. That's got to be the attitude to playing around with the wetland and there are ways to improve them. There are ways to fill in a wetland and make another one. So just ' preserving for the sake of preserving, I think that's why we have Rockwell going out. I don't think, at least I'm not trying to preserve just to preserve. I think I'm trying, in my attitude is to maintain ' and to improve and if there's a better alternative, to take a look at that and not to administer it, no tampering. That's why there's a permit process. If we felt that wetlands should never be gotten into, ' we wouldn't have a permit process. We'd simply say don't go into a Class A wetland but because there are ways of improving it, that's one of the rationales for the permit. Just two points Tim, for your consideration and my memory is giving way up here trying to remember I certain elements about the wetlands and how we drafted the ordinance and what we were trying to do and preserve. You heard a lot of testimony and a lot of reports several years ago when the ordinance went in. Two things, however, were extremely critical. The Class A ' wetlands are typically an extremely good filter. One of the things we heard is when you tamper with a little bit, it can make an entire wetland ineffective. Therefore, that whole wetland can be negated. Even though we're only dealing, and I assume that's what Rockwell's, Eric brings up some good points here in Dr. Rockwell's comments about a substantial. Well, it's obviously not areawise, a substantial impact, ' but I think if I were to read between the lines and I haven't talked to her , but I think her point could have been that by tampering with a little bit, you can really make a lot more ineffective than just that ' little bit. The other side of the thing is, as you tamper with wetlands it's real evident, as you take a look at the purple loosestrife takeover , it's not just where you tamper with the wetland, it's that purple loosestrife all of a sudden choke out the entire wetland. They keep going and going and one of the things that I heard years ago that as you do disturb the wetland, you have a great tendency for encouraging purple loosestrife and there's really not a real ' effective way of keeping the loosestrife from taking over. The chemicals have not been , unless on a spot basis with over and over again, been able to control that. Those were just two technical things that I recall about why the wetlands , we didn't want dredging in the ' wetlands. Going back to your point, I think the improvement to the wetland is what we're always been looking for. Especially in a Class A. In a Class B we've been pretty liberal in how those have been 1 ' treated and I think overall Dr. Rockwell , I haven't found her to be real unreasonable. She takes a look at a wetland and if it's not good, Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 12 1 she will tell us that and we have been a lot less stringent , a lot less `_rict on what goes on based on how valuable she feels that wetland is. ' before we wrap things up here , there are others of you that maybe haven't said anything tonight and if you've got a comment on what we've said or what Mr. Rivkin has said, I'd sure entertain your comments right now. If it's something that pertinent that we can mull into our decision making. Eric Rivkin: I don't know if anybody else wants to go first but I think I ' ve got to say some things. Conrad : Alright , go ahead . ' Eric Rivkin: Regarding the issue of aesthetics. I designed it to be a natural benefit. If they have to put in a channel, design it to be a natural looking channel. Not a straight shot. When you're on :he lake you will not be able to see through. When you're on the shore you won't be able to see through so it will be like a weaving in... Other benefits are, regarding the purple loosestrife issue, there is some purple loosestrife on Lake Lucy and whether you dredge the channel or not, purple loosestrife may take over the whole lake. Without a channel , I wouldn't have access to go pick purple loosestrife. If everybody else doesn't have channels, they wouldn't have access to the purple loosestrife either. ...and you've got long access channels, it would be easier to pick the stuff rather than harmful herbacides to poison the fish and downstream the beach at Lake Ann where our kids ( aim. As far as the minimal impact is concerned, doing absolutely -._ thing to the wetland, as in Mrs. Rockwell's words, may be intellectually.—but I don't believe that. ...which is my lawful right of water access. I agree that, and I tried last time to try and convince you that the pond and the channel would be a benefit instead of just providing the access but you saw it more as just for my benefit 111 and I pulled back on the second go around with the DNR and said, look, let's just go minimal here. You tell me what's minimal and they told me and gave me a permit. Now, if you're willing to fund me going to hire an engineering expertise and hiring Dr. Rockwell and getting all kinds of approvals and going to landscape designers and wetland designers and coming up with one plan to improve Lake Lucy and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to do a bang up job on my lot , on my 8 acres of wetland, okay but if I have to fund it, it's unreasonable access. I have lawful rights to reasonable access to open water on Lake Lucy. You have to grant me that. It's state law. It's the law. Now, a dock versus a channel, let's talk about a dock for a minute here. Aesthetically, a ribbon of plastic or wood going out on the dock, the wood is very high maintenance. Anybody that tells you a dock does not require maintenance is blowing smoke. There are floating dock systems that may be cheaper but have no less liability than a wooden dock in which people can fall off , drown off of, run into and deer trip over so I don't think that a dock from that standpoint and because, addressing the issue about why it's so expensive. You've got dozens and dozens of posts to pound down. Many of them have to go 20 planning. Commission Meeting IJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 13 I feet or more just to hit solid ground in order to support it. You :n't take the posts out for 400 feet of dock. You can't even take the docks out. It's not a seasonal dock. That's going to stay there year around. It's not practical to remove 400 feet of dock ever I You're forcing, through some of your every year. y provisions, that they have to work in the wintertime. That's why it's so expensive. You've got to go pound 100 posts out there. The access problems. These guys are not Igoing to want to work. They work by the hour and it's very expensive to put a dock in the winter that long. So me and residents around the lake feel it's going to be a piece of junk on the wetland. Now that Ihas an impact. Regarding the City's comments, this Attorney said that if the applicant is concerned with liability, he can choose to leave the property alone and not do anything. I'm not concerned with liability as I am with my right for reasonable access. You say that Istaff can not base recommendations on the cost of the outcome. Cost to the applicant is an element because access, denial of access, would be in effect denial of my rights to open water and denying me because Iresources are beyond my reach. That's true in cases where I can design a big fancy improvement to the wetland too. If it's my expense, it's unreasonable. I can't afford it. No way. That's in violation of Istate law. Reasonable 'access to open water. You say that Item C states that the size of the dredged area should be the minimum requirement of the proposed action. The purpose of the channel is to provide the property owner with his access to Lake Lucy. You have to Iqualify the word access to reasonable access. Taking out acres and adding my own ponds and lakes and there's no way that I'm going to put i7-1 a $19,000.410 dock. The other question I had for all of you is, the Ik_ 4R has addressed all of these issues. We've got experts, like Mrs. Rockwell but broader because they have crossed all boundaries besides Fish and Wildlife which Mrs. Rockwell is an expert in. But they are in contrary opinions to Mrs. Rockwell. Now, the DNR has already spoken to Ithese issues and considered the dock proposal. They considered the impact. They considered all the issues. They have experience on thousands of channels dredged on hundreds of lakes and ponds around IMinnesota and they've given their opinion. They've given me a permit. You said I had to go back and get a permit. I got a permit. That should have settled all the arguments . IConrad: Not true and that's why we have an ordinance. We have an ordinance that we're looking at that we spent, you keep talking about that and the DNR is one of the things. The last time you were in, Ithere were a lot of missing pieces and we got confused. We didn't say, if you get those missing pieces back to us you're automatically granted the permit. There were a lot of missing pieces in what we saw and we Iasked you and staff to go back and collect some comments. You came back with this. You've done a nice job of coming back but we have an ordinance. Mr. Rivkin you don't understand that there is a wetland ordinance in this town and we are looking at that. It's more strict Ithan the DNR. That's why we have that ordinance and we had a group of seven people construct that ordinance over 3 or 4 years a couple years back so that's what we're looking at now. We're not looking at the ,(- I II Planning Commission Meeting . January 6, 1988 - Page 14 1 DNR. They've given you their opinion. They've granted the permit but have to take a look at our ordinance and that's what we're kind of truggling over right now. That's why we have a legal staff here to kind of guide that. So the DNR is one piece of the pie. We wanted them to be in concurrence with the things that they look at, and they only look at a few of the things. They are not the most strict body when it gets to wetlands. They just aren't. That's why Chanhassen took a look at it and said we have a lot of wetlands in Chanhassen, it covers a lot of territority and we wanted to take a look at it ourselves and put in an ordinance ourselves and that's what we're struggling with. Emmings: In addition Ladd, I'd like to point out that his P ermit from the DNR is specifically conditioned upon complying with all rules, regulations, requirements and standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other applicable federal, state and local agencies and that' s us . We' re a local agency. Conrad: I just didn't want you to keep drumming in that fact because we're looking at other things, just not that. Did you have any other concluding things? Eric Rivkin: Yes, I don't hear any expert, I mean everybody has the right to their opinions but you brought up issues that were left unanswered about the fact about the quality of life in the wetlands. There is no conclusive evidence by you in favor of the channel.—just s='opositions . Conrad: The Wetland Ordinance does say that it's up to the applicant to persuade us, not the staff. It's up to the applicant to persuade us that there is minimal or no impact to the wetland alteration so it's on your shoulders to do that and you've presented information that we have to review. If we believe that there is zero degregation or minimal impact, then I think you'll have easy sailing in this regard through us or through City Council . ' Eric Rivkin: ...What expert testimony do you have that it's going to degrade the wetland? Conrad: Simply by dredging is taking part of the wetland away and that ' s what we ' re looking at. Eric Rivkin : But how do you know taking some of the wetland is detrimental in this case? Conrad: I guess, and I'm answering for myself, at this point in time ' you haven't persuaded me that it's not and our technical expert is saying that she can see no rationale for harming that wetland at this time that wouldn't be detrimental. Those are the two things that I'm looking at. IIPlanning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 15 IC Eric Rivkin : I could put in a dock and you could say the same thing . IJoe Monnens: I really appreciate the problem you guys are struggling with here in your efforts to want to enforce a stricter ordinance than I most communities. I really applaud that and I also share your concern about not wanting developers to come in and dredge up the wetlands in this area but my gosh, this is just a guy that wants to get a canoe out on the lake. He's just asking for a little channel. You got to find a Iway to let that happen. Conrad: Roger, you wanted to talk a few seconds ago. Do you remember Iwhat you were going to say? Roger Knutson: Yes, but you said it. I was just going to ask if you had discussed, I haven't been participating in the discussions earlier, I the fact the purpose of wetlands, nutrient stripping and all that good stuff. Apparently you had gone over that. Obviously it's a lot more than just wildlife nesting areas . Conrad: Generally, here's my opinion, I think Mr. Rivkin has done a nice job of revising his plan and giving us more information. As Steve II said, I'd like to find a way of solving a problem. I really do like and agree with access to the lake for any riparian homeowner. The plan is a lot more reasonable than it was before but I see on the other ,� side, I still see some technical advice telling me that it is negative II and this technical advice typically is not looking at letter of the laws. In the past has always been real reasonable on how they've advised us so I feel sensitive to the technical advice. I think I'm I still concerned with impact on that wetland as you disturb it. The comments that I said about making a small change could impact the entire wetland and the impact of loosestrife. It's not just this one. It's other channels and I think the whole precedent issue is the one Ithat I'm struggling with the most. I think Mr. Rivkin has a real valid argument to get out there but I don' t know how to control it in other issues just like this one. I think when we have other accesses on Lake I Lucy that we'll have to look at, and I think every dock that we've look at so far that we've asked every access to a wetland, will be back here wanting to channel. Not everyone, that's an overstatement but many Iwill. Many wanted to and we tended to keep the rules prett that regard. I think a dock might be a reasonable al ernative. It in don't know that the costs are that different as you are suspecting I Dave. I think maintenance on both issues might be a long term , whether it be redredging or reworking the dock but I don't know that the costs are that prohibited. I guess in my mind the only alternative right now that I see, the only recommendation I can make is to turn down the II channel and possibly to review, as Roger said, the wetland ordinance. I'd be real apprehensive about granting a variance because of the impact. I would have a tendency to want to take a look at the lkordinance. It doesn't help Mr. Rivkin right now. He wants to go out and do the thing in the winter based on ordinance but I think revising the ordinance is the only thing that I could do and I think if the City I II Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 16 (-Council wanted to take a look at that again, we certainly could have a, I don't know if you call it a blue ribbon, but we could have some kind of a group take a look at it. Maybe there is a way to review this issue in situations when you've got 400 feet to get to the lake. I emphathize with what you're trying to do. I just really do but I also feel that I don't have a good enough way to grant that at this time other than taking a look at the ordinance itself and saying, is there any possible way of altering that so we still don't impact that wetland but give you that right and that ' s the only thing I can see right now. Eric Rivkin: Maybe the ordinance does need a change but I would suggest that you have all lakeshore owners notified and this blue ribbon panel or whatever it is should include select homeowners or maybe representatives of homeowners could form lake homeowners associations to represent that way. But the ordinance does need changing. If you're saying that it's on the burden of a mere homeowner to provide a convincing argument that we have staffs and state agencies for , that's a hell of a burden. I've got to convince you that the wetland's not to be touched. That's ridiculous. I went to seek the opinions of others and I'm of the position that I probably could have done 10 times more than the next guy out there but take the average guy coming in here trying to get a dock or channel, he hasn't got a chance in front of you guys . Emmings : Dr. Rockwell has come back to us on several times when she's I gone out to review wetlands , she comes back and says I think what they're proposing to do is an improvement to the wetland. She gives us that information. She didn't in your case but she's done that on lots of them. Eric Rivkin: It seems a little inconsistent here. First, she made an opinion.—and it is very choked out with these weeds and stuff. The last time I came here, I wanted to dredge I think more , there were more members up here than before, but three of them are on record in favor of the channel upon thinking that it was an improvement. I didn' t bring up those arguments again here because they were mentioned before and I had the DNR backing me now saying that okay, it would be less than minimal. It's a very awkward position for a homeowner to come in and defend . . .maybe it 's a problem the ordinance like you' re saying . Conrad: In fact, when the ordinance went in, I sure knew where there were going to be problems. When we had wetlands that were as big as the ones that are in front of your house and the committee, 2 to 3 years ago did look at that and at that time they couldn' t find a solution for us. It's a real problem but I think the point was that we were really trying to make it hard for somebody to modify a Class A wetland. They are so valuable. They are eaten up, in Minnesota more are eaten up proportionally than should be. Water is such an important asset to Minnesota but we have really, the State's done a really bad job of preserving wetlands. Not only for habitat but for water control and runoff and all that. They've really done a miserable job. That's I Planning Commission Meeting IIJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 17 why we don't have a whole lot of respect for what the DNR is out there doing. They can do certain things but they're not doing a real good job in terms of some of these things that we think are important . IIEric Rivkin: If you wanted to table this so I don't feel like you're denying my right to lawful access . 1 Conrad: I think what you should do is go to City Council. I think you have to hear what they have to say. I think you have a presentable proposal at this time and because we turn it down, which you may have II gotten the drift but that doesn't mean that you can't come back later on and bring it back up. What is the limit? If it does get turned down by us and City Council, Mr. Rivkin certainly has the opportunity to bring back a different scenario at any time he'd like right? But I ' think it's really worthwhile that you hear City Council on this one because if they want us to look at the wetland ordinance, I'd like to have their direction to do that. Then we get some kind of concurrence Ibetween them and us . Eric Rivkin: You' ll point out this report to them? IIConrad: They' re going to hear everything that I just said. Emmings: Before we make a motion, are we just going to vote on the II proposal for the channel or are we also going to consider the alternative for the boardwalk? I II 'Conrad: I didn't hear Mr. Rivkin ask for the boardwalk. He's asking for the channel. I think that's the one he wants to pursue to City Council and I think we should just react to that . IHeadla: I would prefer to table it and see if he couldn't come back. Work with the different groups where it's a benefit to the wetland as well as to himself. Apparently the feeling is that he's better off Igoing right to the Council. I think he can win if he sits down and talks and how can the wetlands benefit besides him. I find it hard to believe there is no way to do it. That's why I would prefer tabling I it. If you feel time is of the essence and you want to gamble that way because it ' s . . . Conrad : Do you want to make a motion to table it? IIHeadla moved, Erhart seconded to table the wetland alteration permit request and ask Mr. Rivkin to work with the City Staff and the Iappropriate people to see can be done to benefit the wetlands as well as himself. The motion was later withdrawn. II Erhart: I guess I'd like to ask a question before we vote on that. Are you interested in coming back here once again with a proposal to improve the wetland? You've sat there now and said it doesn't hurt and doesn't hurt and the DNR says it hasn't hurt the wetland. You're not 1 II Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 18 /going to sell that in the City right and I think what you have to sell 1 i .s how you're going to come in here and show us how you're going to improve the wetlands and then I think you'll get it through. There's no sense tabling it if you don't want to come back but I think I agree with Dave, if you want to come back with a proposal and have Dr. Rockwell review, perhaps put an island and make the pond bigger, that sounds really funny at this point I know, and put an island in it. . . Eric Rivkin: Who ' s going to pay for it? Erhart: Well , we're not going to pay for it. Reasonable access is to put a dock. You basically heard the argument. You can put a dock in. Eric Rivkin: You haven ' t convinced me that a dock is cheaper . Erhart: We don't have to. That's irrelevant. We don't have to give you a channel . You can put a dock in. Joe Monnens: I hope if he comes back with a proposal for a dock, that you deny that . I 'd much rather see a channel than a dock. Erhart: I'm not sure we can though because we've allowed it in other similar situations . Joe Monnens: A 400 foot dock. . . ' r 'rhart : We don ' t have an ordinance that prohibits a 400 foot dock. Joe Monnens: That would be a good mofidication to your existing ordinance then . Erhart: Maybe, if a dock is over 400 feet, then look at a channel or something but. . . Eric Rivkin : I would want to come back year and do this if the , ordinance is improved but it's not within my means to go back and hire people and find out why an affordable channel is going to improve the wetlands . 1 Erhart : I don ' t think you ' re that far away. Eric Rivkin: With who? I Erhart : Rockwell . Eric Rivkin : She was very adamant about doing anything . Emmings: Is she available anymore? Olsen: She moved to New Jersey. There's another person in her ' that is available. P office 1 - Planning Commission Meeting IIJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 19 1 Ceadla : Does the staff feel that we can work something out? Olsen: At this time, again just interpretting the ordinance, we Iinterpret it as minimal impact or alteration—with the channel but there are other alternatives. Just from hearing, even people from the DNR, it is a good wetland and I don't know if it needs to be improved with a channel and a pond . IConrad: I think it sure should go to City Council. Although you've made a motion that it's being tabled. I think Mr. Rivkin should take I it to them and get their opinion. He'll be there in two weeks and he'll hear what they have to say. If they believe what we're saying or if they don't. If nothing else, if they believe that the ordinance, I have to believe that they're going to reinforce what we're saying. I But they may be interested in other alternatives like changing the ordinance and that's the most reasonable way of solving of the problem. So I think it's really to his benefit to get it up there rather than 1 spinning around with us and coming back. Headla: Maybe you're right. Mr. Rivkin isn't that interested in pursuing it. IConrad : Costwise it ' s going to be g more . A different solution I think. IIHeadla : Okay, how do we withdraw that motion? onrad : You can withdraw it . II Headla : Okay, I withdraw my motion. Conrad : Do you withdraw your second? IErhart: Sure. IHeadla moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the wetland alteration permit to construct a channel and turnaround . All voted in favor and motion carried . Conrad: Do we any special instructions as we send this forward? I think our comments as they get to City Council will be , the last few ilminutes of discussion will be clear for them as they read our Minutes . Emmings : Maybe if they want us to look at the ordinance , and it seems IIto me maybe we should , they should give us some clear indication of how we cna fit this particular case into the general thing with the ordinance because I can't see how we're going to do it. I think I'd like some direction . I I- I ad i itg Fi l e �l►6NT Or Ty QPp United States Department of the Interior y ' � FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER YO: - 1 ° 5rF0 sop 2 ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE, (ES) 50 Park Square Court 400 Sibley Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 January 21 , 1988 1 Mrs . JoAnn Olson City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , Minnesota 55313 Dear Mrs. Olson: ' On January 14, 1988, !Mr, Jim Leach of my staff met with you and Mr. Eric Rivkin, an applicant for a lake access permit from the Cit=y of Chanhassen. At question concerning this permit was the meted of lake access , i . e. , channel vs . elevated walkway con- struction . Mr. Rivkin owns property adjacent to Lake Lucy, Carver County , and wishes to dredge a 400-foot channel through a cattail fringe of the lake to gain open water access . In response to your questions concerning the environmental ier. acts associated with these two construction options , we off 'r the following comments, for your consideration: 1 . Considering the fact that Mr. Rivkin has agreed to ' and is required to dispose of all excavated material from channel construction on an upland site , adverse fill -related impacts to the associated wetland habitats would be negligible. The reduced dimensions of the proposed cannel eaximum 15 foot top width , depth of no greater than 4 feet and 2: 1 side slopes , as identified in the Minnesota Department of Natural aesources (MDMR) permit) could obviously further reduce adverse impacts associated altar this action. To address remaining adverse impacts , we recommend teat construction limits for channel excavation be e&tabllshed within the wetland area . The con- tractor should be regiired to stay within those limits to construct the channel , thereby minimizing impacts to adjacent wetland habitats. In addition , we strongly support the use of erosion control practices , i .e. , hay bales , silt screen , turf establishment, to stabilize excavated materials and prevent them from re-entering the wetland system. CITY OF CHANHASSEN I JAN 22 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP i { 2 114 2. The Service typically encourages use of removable floating docks or elevated walkways to gain lake access through wetland habitat. In this particular instance, however , the first of these two options is , in our opinion , not feasible due to the length of construction. The feasibility question would not appear to be at issue for a permanent elevated walkway. Should Mr. Rivkin agree to and assure compliance with provisions identified in the MDNR permit and given the general design ' of the channel ( i . e. , meandering on an adjacent property line) , we believe the channel alternative can be accomplished in an environmentally acceptable manner. If you have any questions concerning these comments or require additional information, please contact Mr. Jim Leach N at 612/290-3131 at your convenience. We compliment the City of Chanhanssen on its wetland protection ordinance and offer our assistance on future wetland protection issues. Sincerely, • Stanle y ('. Smith Acting Field Supervisor cc: Mr. Eric Rivkin , 5525 Conifer Trail , Minnetonka , MN f, I i I r I 1 I