2. Wetland Permit for a Channel & Boat Turnaround on Lake Lucy property in Lake Lucy Highlands qe , ,
I CITY OF
1 ,,.
,,-, . CHANHASSEN
��t
i l ' .
`'�'?\ -` u Y 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
j" (612) 937-1900
1 __ _
MEMORANDUM _ _
1
TO Don Ashworth, City Manager ,2/S `- _ .w.
.;It:1 ti GC,.1!7.i:;StOri
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
IIDATE: February 3 , 1988 _01 Wee_ ___
IISUBJ: Rivkin Wetland Alteration Permit - Staff Update
On January 25 , 1988 , the City Council tabled action on the
1 wetland alteration permit for the construction of a channel in a
Class A wetland (Attachment #1) . The item was tabled until the
City Attorney could determine whether or not the City has juris-
I diction over dredging within a wetland that is also considered
public waters . Anything below the ordinary high water mark is
considered public waters and is controlled by the DNR. In his
1 letter, the City Attorney has confirmed that the DNR has exclu-
sive jurisdiction over dredging below the ordinary high water
mark (Attachment #2) . If the DNR issues a permit allowing
dredging in public waters , the city has no authority to act on
1 the wetland alteration permit below the ordinary high water mark.
The City' s only jurisdiction is controlling docks below the ori-
dinary high water in wetlands (e.g. Water Surface Ordinance) .
IThe ordinary high water mark at the Rivkin site is 956 .1 and is
shown on the plat (Attachment #3 ) . Attachment #3 "shows that the
proposed ponding area is located partially above the ordinary
I high water mark. The city therefore, does have control over this
ponding area and may act on the wetland alteration permit. The
applicant has already received a permit from the DNR and
1 Watershed District to allow a channel to be dredged within the
Class A wetland below the ordinary high water mark. The City
Council can either approve the wetland alteration permit to
1 dredge the portion of the pond above the ordinary high water mark
with the conditions provided by staff or the City Council can
deny the wetland alteration permit and prevent any alteration
above the ordinary high water mark.
1 A major portion of the channel and turnaround will be constructed
per approval of the DNR permit. The City' s wetland alteration
I permit will provide additional conditions for the dredging or the
pond above the ordinary high water mark.
I
II
r ti
Mr. Don Ashworth 11
February 3 , 1988
Page 2 1
This proposal has raised several issues concerning impacts to
wetlands and has also resulted in several interpretations of the
Wetland Ordinance. The intent of the Wetland Ordinance is to
preserve the existing wetlands in Chanhassen. The Wetland
Ordinance states that the intent of the ordinance is to
"establish a program of sound stewardship through regulations
that strive towards zero degradation of wetlands by conserving,
protecting and enhancing these environmentally sensitive
resources" . The wetland alteration permit process allows the
city to permit alterations to the wetlands and the intent of the
Wetland Ordinance is to permit alterations which improve a
wetland. The wetland alteration permit process should not be a
means of chosing which type of alteration has the least impact to
a wetland.
In the case of the Eric Rivkin proposal, staff did focus more on
which option had the least impact to the wetland to allow the
applicant some type of lake access . By doing this, the true
intent/purpose of the Wetland Ordinance may have been overlooked.
Upon first inspection of the subject wetland, it was clear that
it was a higher quality wetland. The two experts from the Fish
and Wildlife Service may have disagreed on which option, channel
versus dock, had the least impact to the wetland. Neither felt
that either option was necessary to improve the wetland.
RECOMMENDATION
Should the City Council recommend approval of the wetland altera-
tion permit for dredging within a Class A wetland above the ordi-
nary
high water mark of Lake Lucy as shown on the site plan dated
December 1 , 1987 , staff recommends the following conditions:
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) .
6 . Future maintenance of the channel and turnaround shall not
commence prior to receiving permission from the City, DNR,
and the Watershed District.
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
February 3 , 1988
Page 3
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.
I
I
1
I
1
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
VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
VANCE B.GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
PATRICK A. FARRELL MICHAEL J. MAYER
DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG
ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE:(612) 455-1661
February 3, 1988
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen ,
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Eric Rivkin Application
Dear Barb:
The City can regulate dredging up to the ordinary high water
mark. From that point forward, the Department of Natural
Resources has exclusive jurisdiction. As long as Rivkin has a
permit from the DNR, the City cannot prevent him from dredging in
public water.
Minn. Stat. § 105. 38 and § 105. 42 grant the DNR exclusive 1
authority to grant or deny dredging in lake beds of public
waters. Under circumstances similar to the present situation, the
Minnesota Supreme Court in Welsh v. City of Orono, 335 N.W.2d 117
(Minn. 1984 ) , copy enclosed, ruled that the City lacked any
jurisdiction to control dredging in public waters.
Minn. Stat. § 105. 485, subd. (8 ) , does grant the City the
right to regulate more restrictively up to the waters edge.
Minnesota Rules § 6120. 3300 also provides "excavation on
shorelands ( i.e. elevations higher than the ordinary high water
mark) when the intended purpose is connection to a public water
. . . shall be controlled by the Municipal Shoreland Ordinance."
This means the City can regulate dredging up to the ordinary high
water mark. If Rivkin needs to dredge in that area the City can
regulate the dredging.
-ry t ly yours, '
i, Ce► , , GRANNI■, AR"ELL
•ger nutson ,
RNK:srn
cc: Don Ashworth
FEB 41988
CITY OF CHANHASSFN
4 II
116 Mich. 355 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES WELSH v. CITY OP ORONO Minn. 117 ,
Cite as 355 N.W.2d 117(Minn. 1984) I i
KAVANAGH and LEVIN, JJ., would, after at 12% per annum until paid, and(ii) application for conditional use permit to i Bred e a portion of lake adjoining his resi- li
for the reasons set forth in Justice Levin's award interest on weekly payments that Raymond Arthur CASE, Jr., g po 7 g
dissenting opinions in Selk v.Detroit Plas- became or become due or payable on or petitioner, Appellant, dente. The District Court,Hennepin Coun-
tic Products, 419 Mich. 1, 15, 345 N.W.2d after January 1, 1982 at 12% per annum v. ty, Irving C. Iverson,J.,entered summary
184 (1984), and Selk v. Detroit Plastic until paid. judgment in favor of landowner on ground
Products (On Resubmission), 419 Mich. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. that city lacked jurisdiction to regulate lake
t
32, 37-38, 348 N.W.2d 652 (1984), remand C3-83-1139. bed dredging,and it appealed. Subsequent
to the Workers' Compensation A al o !KEY NUMBER SYSTEM to city's appeal,landowner moved for attor-
Board with the direction to (i)award nter T Supreme Court of Minnesota.r-
ney's fees. The District Court denied that
est on weekly payments that were due and Aug. 3, 1984. motion, and he appealed. The Supreme 1
payable before January 1, 1982 at 5% per . Court,Kelley,J.,granted landowner's peti-
annum until December 31, 1981,and there- ORDER Lion for accelerated review, consolidated
AMDAHL, Chief Justice. the appeals,and held that: (1)municipality
P was without jurisdiction,either explicitly or
Based upon all the files, records and jurisdiction, P Y 1
proceedings herein, implicitly, to regulate dredging in public
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the peti- waters because Department of Natural Re-
I lion of Raymond Arthur Case,Jr. for fur-
ther review of the decision of the Court of sources has exclusive jurisdiction to grant •
or deny dredge permits for work in public
Appeals,344 N.W.2d 888,be,and the same waters as provided by legislature; (2) trial
is, granted. Briefs shall be filed in the court erred in ordering city to refrain from
quantity, form and within the time limita- interfering with proposed permanent dock
tions contained in Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 131 and riprapped shoreland protection because
and 132. Counsel will be notified at a later the city has express power to regulate
date of the time for argument before this wharves and docks in shoreland areas; and
court. No requests for extensions of time (3)trial court did not abuse its discretion in
for the filing of briefs will be entertained. denying attorney fees under Civil Rights
Attorney's Fees Awards Act.
w
0 B KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
T Affirmed in part; reversed in part and t
remanded.
jik
1. Municipal Corporations 4:=57
C. Rex WELSH, Petitioner, Appellant
4 (C2-83-1276), Respondent A municipality has no inherent powers,
(C3-83-699), but only such powers as are expressly con-
v ferred by statute or are implied as neces-
CITY OF ORONO,A Minnesota munici- sary in aid of those powers which are ex
pal corporation, Respondent (C2-83- Pressly conferred; if the activity is one
1276), Appellant (C3.- 3-ti99). peculiarly subject to local regulation,based
* ill upon nature of activity and its customary
No. C3-83499, C2-83-1276. area of performance,the necessary implied
Supreme Court of Minnesota. powers in aid of carrying out express statu-
tory power is construed liberally, but if a
Aug. 31, 1984. matter presents a statewide problem, the
Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1984. implied necessary powers of a municipality
to regulate are narrowly construed unless
Landowner brought suit for declarato- the legislature has expressly provided oth-
ry and injunctive relief after city denied his erwise.
- - -
I
/ / , I
/ ' ' / / 111/1
•
/ / �' /, / / / /
/ / / / � / / / / / // /
- �l I / / / / I / / � l
/
/ / // / / / / / / // / ,
I / 1 / / / / / // / 11
'/
! / l / / / //f// /,I / / / /2' P 5i -t -C+ \ll / /
/ .'\� / / / / / i////// /i I / 1 /�1/ / �l ; / / / / / � // //
l `,/ /
c A v'64 I j r k- 1 I I il/ I / / / 1/�/�, / // / I I/
l / //,/,////, l t/ e l I / / l / /�:, C. 0/ / / I / / 0,
/ 1 / / ; 1/
l
l, +� l I ' / / /11/ lli I/� - -1 / il l ,l1~- i11 1 _ / / / / / i /
,
J s. - E.S �N 1 ill I ' I l l/ I I�l ' l � I j l 1 1
.., �, lc 1 1 1 i / / / 1 / IIit , 0 ( I
I I , I I ' 1 / / ( I I I li II1I� 1
*' I ! I I 1 1 l r lr I I I r'
{' lel
I 1 I tiII1i1 �Il( II
I k \W
x. Ltc'l , t, I f 1 l mill r cF- G[5C 1 1 ., 1 I I I \ \\ tklllll I
-I� r`.� 1 1,k 1 \ ' �� 1 \ \ i�1t, `, lid; i I
4, \ \ ■ \ \\ \ \t\ \ �\\1I1it
.176E OF ExC�oce-710.1 �\ R c' =••\t \ \ \,,`\\k1\\�`( 1
Gt++A JNNE.i- 5F.Et..EV. „y<.RE(S \ 1
95(...5-957 1 \ RE� \ \\ \ \ \\;-.,\\\\1
\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \`\` \N.,�\```\`\\`\
'd \\ ` \ \ \\\\\ \\\`\
y \ \ \\ \ \\\\ \
� at>e \ \
r jl�l t.- �cb. \�1�\�� \ '\ \ \\\\sr
d - \ \ \ \ � `\o
�� g+„,cIMct .. \ \ \ �s , '
tT QCS GP.A14NE� \ \ \ \
IL d'v.J.1 WAT--r `• \ \ \ \ \.. c
\ i \ \`
I
}i r ' .a1 • \\\s
' S.J4t__ ^ fc
Vs
1
IICity Council Meeting - January 25, 1988
II line was in your preamble and if you had done that, if you would have '
clarified your 2 or 3 page introduction to this better , I think this
would have absolved all of my questions.
IIDon Ashworth : I agree and I will state for future years that we' ll put
this back on track. Not having a second meeting in December definitely
II hurt us this year as far as being able to have a little more work
session opportunity, especially for this item because it has typically
been your second meeting in December where we have done the type of
work that you are talking about.
IMayor Hamilton moved , Councilman Geving seconded to approve the 1988
Position Classification and Pay Compensation with the proviso of having
I continued and future review of the it and if necessary, bringing in an
outside consultant. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 2, BUCHHEIT ADDITION, LOCATED ON
CEDAR CREST COURT, ARNIE HED.
II Resolution #88-10: Councilman Horn moved , Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve the vacation of the utility easement located along the internal
lot line of Lots 5 and 6, Cedar Crest. All voted in favor and motion
icarried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CHANNEL AND BOAT TURNAROUND IN
I A CLASS A WETLAND OF LAKE LUCY ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL
AND LOCATED ON LOT 5, BLOCK 2, LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS , ERIC RIVKIN,
APPLICANT.
IMayor Hamilton : I think we've probably all read the Planning
Commisison ' s Minutes and comments and all this so if we could, after Jo
Ann' s presentation , confine our comments somewhat so we don ' t spend the
Irest of the night talking about it which I suspect we could.
Jo Ann Olsen : The property is located on Lake Lucy in Lake Lucy
I Highlands. A majority of the site is a Class A wetlands . The
applicant is proposing a wetland alteration permit to construct a
channel through the Class A wetlands for a canoe access from his
I property. Staff reviewed this site with the proposal last year . We
had the DNR, the Fish and Wildlife Service and several other services
review this site. Dr . Rockwell , who we' ve used in the past for wetland
review, and she felt strongly that a boardwalk would be preferred over
Ia channel with the impact to the wetland from a channel . Therefore ,
staff also in interpretting the ordinance felt that a boardwalk would
be of less impact to the wetland . We therefore recommended denial .
I The Planning Commission also recommended denial of the channel . They
did not act on the boardwalk option because the applicant did not feel
that that was a feasible alternative. We then visited the site again
with Mr. Jim Leech from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. Rockwell ,..6
Ireceived another job out east. His feeling was quite the opposite.
That a channel would be preferred over the boardwalk. He felt that
both of them had the same amount of impact to the wetland but he felt
I .
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988 II
that a channel might be somewhat more beneficial because II
water . There is cause of the open
purple loosestrife in the wetland and it is a noxious
weed so it has to be transported elsewhere. It has to be pulled so we '
are adding a condition. If the channel is approved that he must comply
with any conditions of the Department of Agriculture. I did speak with
a person from the Department of Agriculture. Mr . Rivkin will have to
receive a permit from the Department of Agriculture to transport or to
properly dispose of fill because it will have purple loosestrife in it.
We have provided 11 conditions should the City Council recommend
approval of the channel . II
Mayor Hamilton: I 'll just make one comment and that is , it seems to
me, based on everybody's input into this thing. People who are
II
supposed to be supposed experts , and know more about it than those of
us sitting here, that they don't know anymore about it than we do and
that their opinions seem to be based on nothing more than what we know.
I guess, I have a hard time with that. Elizabeth Rockwell doesn' t
want it and her replacement comes in and says it ' s just fine. It' s not
going to hurt anything. I think that 's kind of ludicrous. When you
have one agency says they think a channel would be fine and the next
II
agency says it wouldn' t be fine. The advice that we get from outside
agencies are supposed to know what they' re talking about , virtually
does us absolutely no good. I think it 's rather ironic. So we're down
to the basics of deciding what we like or don ' t like personally. The II
3 7 professional input really hasn' t lent itself to help us at all I don' t
think.
Councilman Boyt : Sort of distilling down the many pages that II read, I think that for me the heart of it was , we ' re going to be had to
setting a precedence that I don ' t want to set without input from the
community. More input than we got. I think the community spent a
great deal of time and effort in coming up with a wetlands preservation
ordinance and I see us about to torpedo a major section of that when we
allow people to dredge through a Class A wetland . I don' t happen to
think a Class A wetland is in need of improvement so, if we do propose
to pass this , that before we pass it , we should go back and review the
ordinance itself and amend that ordinance. I think that' s basically
II
what we would doing and I would anticipate that a good many other
people who are currently locked in by wetlands would come and ask for
some sort of channel . I can like of Lotus Lake for example that has
several people who are locked out right now by a wetland. Then, the II
other item. So my intention would be, unless swayed by other members
of the Council , to vote against this item. If we propose to vote for
it, that we should consider the size of it. I understand that the
II
residents have some concern about a boardwalk . I too have some
concerns about a boardwalk. They mentioned it crossing a deer trail
and how that would certainly provide some difficulties for the deer . I
II
consider 16 feet of open water 4 feet deep, providing some difficulties
for the deer. I am amazed that the DNR would approve a 400 foot long
channel , 16 feet wide and 4 feet deep. We might as well dig the Erie
Canal . That ' s all I ' ve got. .
Councilman Horn : I 'm as disturbed as you are Mr. Mayor , about this and
this isn ' t the only agency or the first time that this has happened to
I
I
IICity Council Meeting - January 25, 1988
IIus . I guess it comes down to we have to tr y can
common sense and I think that we would have at much ebetterw chance wofhnot ;
disturbing the area with a type of boardwalk, dock than what we would
I canby dredging a channel . We 've all heard horror stories of what dreed i
do. In fact, we changed our boat access on Lotus ng
the fear of dredging and I don ' t think we know enough aboutbtheuim a t
of that at this point to allow this channel to be dredged and I would
1 be for some alternate method . impact
Councilman Geving: I happen to work with Dr. Rockwell for about 8
IIyears now and I really respected Elizabeth in a lot of the decisions
that she ' s helped us with over the last 8 or 10 years that she ' s been
around this area. When I first read her report I said that 's
much how I feel about this n
I quite well . particular project and I know Jim Leech
tY
I 've worked with him for the last 10 years as well.
very surprised that our service would do a flip flop to that magnitude
although I was
g I do recall some instances where the DNR has done some similar
U things to us . Where we 'd get a memorandum in one case totally opposed
to this particular item and a week later, or two weeks later, we 'd me
on it and find that they PP ed
on it through y had completely changed their mind . meet
IIpressure or whatever means, so I 'm a Maybe
the vacilating by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the bag disturbed 'v by
worked with for 14 years. I find Lake Lucy to be a very that I 've
lake. I think there ' s only a couple really b nice, small
III I 've been fishing there a couple times , Y g°°d sized boats on it.
afraid of what a channel might do to that llake aon �the northwest side
quiet lake and I 'm
the lake. That bothers me a lot. of 1
I understand at s That' s an awful long channel and q
II
' just for a canoe access . Is that correct? It seems
to me, if I was really an environmentalist and conservationist
I 'd almost carry my carnoe to the lake somehow. I think
awful lot of disturbance to the lake just for thathkindeofsani access an
and I really don ' t think that we have all the cards played yet .
don ' t think they' re all showing on the table as to what this is I
going
to do to Lake Lucy. I 'm afraid that the opinions of the various
experts don ' t mean a whole lot because I look at the lake as being
I something kind of different than what an expert like
preserve Lake Lucy. As far as I 'm concerned, i would I 'd like to
'proposal . That ' s all I have. I would vote no for this
Councilman Johnson : I 'm also, again concerned but
Ithat two experts in any one field disagree with each other surprised
PPosite ends of the spectrum. That happens 100%
"agree more towards Dr. Rockwell . I can not see ehow yaf4efoot I tend to
is going to have as much disturbance to a wetland as a t wide dock
I(
anal . That, to me, makes very little sense. 1I can wide
00 and some feet of dock going through there. However, I can not see
can not see 40 foot by 40 foot, and I think it would been
horrible.
recommended by DNR, 40 foot by 40 foot . Y have been
o Ann
Olsen: That 's the maximum.
It .
ouncilman Johnson : That 's the max, okay. Now I personally
uld turn around a canoe in a 40 foot by think I
act, somehow I think I could get in a littlefsmalleraareasandmI de like `of
iI
II
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988 1
to see this get smaller because the canoes that I 'v I
e usually been i.n,
7 you basically turn around in the seat and you' re going the other
direction. I think I could manage it in a 20 by 20 area. I 'd like to
see that pond reduced considerably. I 'd also like to see the wetlands
maintained. The pond not be brought right up to the shore. That we
have a compromise here where we have some dock going out , not 400 feet.
We have to be somewhat reasonable here. I don 't want to see a canal
going all the way to the shore that will allow short circuiting of
pollutants from the shore all the way out to the lake without having
any filtration by the wetland area . So I don ' t want to totally destroy I
the wetland area. I 'd like to see a dock going out and I don' t know
how far . Maybe 50 feet to the point and have this at such a point that
the neighboring adjoining lot can bring a dock out to that'-same 20 foot 1
turnaround and they can put their canoe in. I think that the 4 foot of
depth is more than a canoe needs but I think that' s also so vegetation
doesn ' t come back. You get much shallower than that, and we' ll have
vegetation to grow back. I 'd also like to see something in here about II
loosestrife control . I understand one of the methods of loosestrife
control is when it very first starts coming up that you hand pull it.
I 'd like to see some kind of stipulation in here that the canal is
II
policed for loosestrife and that that loosestrife is properly disposed
of. I 'm not ready to see a canal all the way to the shore. I think
there is some room to compromise. What I really wished had happened is II
that this lot didn ' t go all the way to the lake. If at the platting of
this lot, which is past and gone, that the end of it should have been
1 an outlot that the City could have had it . Then there would be no
riparian rights to this lot but this is a riparian lot because it goes II
all the way out to the lake. We have to provide some reasonable, as he
said, reasonable access. I 'd also like to hear from the City Attorney
on the points made in the various Planning Commission meetings on
reasonable access . Is reasonable access , if we decide that 400 feet of
dock at $8 , 000. 00 is access , whether that ' s reasonable access or the
applicant 's contention that a canal all the way to the shore is the
only reasonable access , which I don ' t personally see. What ' s II
reasonable access and is there a State Law that says that he has the
right to access Lake Lucy from his property?
Mayor Hamilton: I have just a couple of comments. There are some I
things that I didn ' t see , some information that I didn ' t see us getting
here and one of the things is, I think Mr. Rivkin eluded to how big an
I
area , it was in the Planning Commission notes or Minutes about the
amount of wetland area. That was wetland area or did that include
other non-wetland area in your calculations?
Eric Rivkin: That was designated area on Lake Lucy. I
Mayor Hamilton : That ' s good . That was a considerable amount of I
wetland and I think the thing that I would need to find out then is
. how much wetland is needed to keep that lake in a healthy condition.
1 We do need some wetland area for some filtration but we don' t certainly
need to have every piece of shoreland to be wetland in order to filter
out what we don' t need to have in there. I think Bill ' s comment that
perhaps other people on other lakes will be coming back for permits on
their lake. I think this is a key point because if we' ve got; I don' t
II
II
a
1___ Li
G
IICity Council Meeting - January 25, 1988
IIremember the number right off hand but do you remember what the number ;'-_
was, the total amount of wetland?
IIEric Rivkin: 50 to 60 acres.
Mayor Hamilton : We' ve got 50 to 60 acres of wetland on Lake Lucy,
I there may be 1 acre left on Lotus and that was 1 acre that we
protected . There ' s a significant difference there. That' s where I
guess I don' t have a problem with any precedence. We get into this
very often about precedent on issues and I don ' t have as much hang-up
Ion it as most of you I guess because I like to look at each item, issue
by issue. To say that if we grant a digging of a channel on Lake Lucy,
which is rather insignificant when you look at the amount of wetland
I that there is on that lake, and then if someone came in and asked for
the same type of permit for Lotus Lake, it ' s a totally different issue
because they don ' t have the same amount of wetland . It' s nearly all
Igone on that lake. So I think i.t ' s a totally different issue and it ' s
not a precedent setting item. Unless it' s exactly the same issue. I
think another thing I don ' t know is how good is the wetland that ' s on
Lake Lucy? Wetlands do tend to fill up, deteriorate, it ' s just a
Inormal growth cycle for a wetland so what condition is that wetland in
at the present time? I 'm also not convinced that you can ' t improve on
a wetland. Just because i.t's a Class A doesn' t mean that with the
I technology available to us today, that that can ' t be improved upon and
if by digging a channel in there it allows some of that material that ' s
in there to spread out , loosen up and to grow and to have a longer
life, perhaps that better for the wetland than leaving as it is
II currently. But those are things that I don ' t have answers to and I
think those are things that I 'd like to see if we can ' t find answers to
and try to find two people that can agree on the same type of issue. I
Iwould feel a lot more comfortable with it. Personally I don' t have any
problem with putting the channel in . I don ' t think it ' s going to hurt
the lake and I don' t think it' s going to hurt the wetland. I don ' t
Ithink it' s going to cause any deterioration whatsoever . To allow a
resident or two to have access to the lake and enjoy the lake and it
may even open it up for some other wildlife to come in there and use
part of that lake and that wetland that they can ' t use today. Those
I are my comments and those are some issues that I 'd like to have answers
to before I 'd be ready to vote on this. Mr. Rivkin, maybe you 'd like
to add a few comments . We ' ve read all your comments to the Planning
ICommission so if you wanted to maybe summarize them or add something
new that you haven ' t presented in the past , why we would be happy to
have that.
Eric Rivkin : It hasn ' t been easy to being the first to test your new
law. I can tell you, I ' ve been through hell and back and it ' s not fun
seeing agencies go back and forth on this but I think I can shed a lot
Iof light on the comments that you made about the flip flop that the
U. S. Fish people made. First of all , there are two people in the U. S.
Fish that do agree. That' s Mr. Leech and his boss and they said that
Iin writing in a letter that ' s in the report so there are two people
that do agree, okay. They both reviewed it and Mr. Leech was out to
s
tl
ee the site. There are some comments that I had made to the Planning
Commission the last time about the arguments that Ms. Rockwell put
II
a ,
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988
/
/
/
forth and it seems to me that I
t it doesn' t make a lot more sense on the
impact of the wetland , the comments that Mr . Leech made rather than the
comments that Ms. Rockwell made. I know they are both highly respected
I
and I 'm sure she ' s quite knowledgeable as a wetlands expert but I want
to demonstrate for you, show you again the overhead that I saw which
will shed light on that argument because it ' s real important to
understand what it is she' s arguing against. This map, you should have
a copy of it in your report . The green areas are the designated
wetlands on Lake Lucy. I superimposed the lot lines on the lake. All
the shore around here and here, even though this isn ' t developed yet , I
all have lake access currently. As far as a precedent or impact is
concerned , my one little channel here would take up approximately
3/10th' s of 1% of solid material away from this wetland. If everybody
on this lake who could qualify for access through dredging , if they
optioned that, it would only go up to 8/10th' s of 1% so this is not,
and Ms. Rockwell said that it ' s going to have a major and significant
impact. Those were key words in her statements. This is not major and I
it ' s not significant and Mr . Leech and his boss agree with that. I
asked them point blank , Jo Ann was there with me, will this have an
adverse affect upon this wetland as it sits and he said no . Now,
do have two people that agree on that. The criteria for acceptance by the DNR was that it somehow be shared with the lot next door. The
people next door I know pretty well . It was meant to be a private
agreement because legally we just could not have this really set in I,
Iconcrete. It was not feasible. There were too many if's and but ' s
about this but the point is that the DNR was making , in order to reduce
it and make it minimal , they wanted it shared somehow legally with a
guarantee that if this lot owner wanted access , this guarantee is that I
this is public waters. That they will not have to dig a channel all I
the way from their high water mark all the way out to the open water
which is longer than mine, by the way. If they were to apply for it, ,I
they requested to go this way. Follow it across parallel with mine. I
We didn ' t want that so I want it minimal too . And they can ' t dredge
here because in order to get dredging equipment across to that site,
IF
they have to go across two property owners to get there so eventually
I 'm going to restore this bogland to prairie . I 'm not going to let
them do it so they can put in a dock, which is very minimal . They
would only have 50 to 100 feet to go here. So again , that is minimal . 111
Did I shed some light on that? Okay. I don ' t want to see the wetland
hurt either and it is designed to have minimum impact on the wetland .
It is the minimum size required in order to support the slope that will ' ,
not want to fill back in. All the experts , the wetland experts and all !
the agencies that I talked to that knew anything about hydraulogy and
wetlands , said that the 4 foot depth would not encourage regrowth for r
many, many, many years , in this kind of wetland and they all visited
the site . It ' s the minimum required to keep the channel from sluffi.ng
in. This slope is designed to do that. I ' ve been around and around
with the hydraulogy experts . I talked to Clifford Reed , a shoreline I
consultant. I talked to the people, the vice president at Braun
Engineering who excavates channels and big time stuff as well as little
stuff and he recommended that I go with a 3 to 1 slope but that meant
that I 'd have a 24 to 30 foot wide top surface and I said no way,
that' s not minimal . i said, what can I cut it down to so we agreed at
a compromise at 16 foot top width and 4 foot deep with a 2 to'- 1 -slope
II
IICity Council Meeting - January 25, 1988
IIso it is the minimum required, engineering wise. Hydraulogy wise.
I hope that puts you at ease about the big dredging project here. This v
is not a big dredging project. It does not take away a significant
II amount of wetland area . The experts that do agree, agree that it won ' t
have an adverse affect upon the wetland. It will also be constructed
in a manner not to harm the wetland and the surrounding vegetation.
Provisions of the DNR permit pretty well spell that out and the
II loosestrife issue, I did get verbal approval from the Department of
Agriculture about the wetland , about the loosestrife disposal. They
basically recommended that I take the spoils , they agree with the
I provisions of the DNR, to put them in one place and at such a time when
you spread them out , is to mix them up with clay around there and seed
it with grasses, not with the prairie grass mixture that I wanted to
I but to seed it to sod and maintain it with water and make sure it grows
very strongly so the loosestrife does not have a chance to establish
itself. So you keep mowing it and these provisions are going to be in
their permit. I wrote a letter to them, and I didn ' t make copies of it
Ibut I can give it to you here. It basically says , thank you for the
information on the verbal approval of the permit on the loosestrife
disposal for my channel project. I sent them a copy of the plan. This
I was Mr. Chuck Hale from the DOA. The reason this permit is late is
because I didn ' t hear about this until one business day ago , that I had
to get approval from the DOA on the loosestrife issue so he did give me
I verbal approval on that. As far as the dock is concerned , none of the
members of the Planning Commission were in favor the dock. They agreed
with my arguments that it was not a favorable thing. It would have a
worse impact on the wetlands than a channel would . The design of the a
Ichannel is like a meandering creek that goes through that area . The
dock is so long and so big that it will deteriorate over time. It can
not be maintained reasonably by any homeowner that lives there. It
II will fall apart. Whether it ' s a floating dock or an elevated type and
it' s not feasible to engineer it and install it . By law I do have
rights to reasonable access to the lake because I 'm a riparian
II homeowner . I have to have access from the high water mark. That ' s the
law. From the high water mark, that the DNR has established and that
is on the plan . The end of the channel comes right to the high water
mark and I went minimal . When it comes to the dangers imposed by the
111 dock itself , there ' s a letter in there about one of the homeowners who
has witnessed a deer getting his antlers caught , being chased by a dog
and it is an obstacle in the way. There are snowmobilers that do cross
Ithe path all the time. They trespass . Can ' t help it. They will do
that and they' ll just run right over that dock and when it ' s cold ,
plastic will just shatter so if I put a floating dock out there, bam,
it ' s gone in one shot. $19 , 000. 00 out the window with one snowmobile.
IIf I put a wooden dock out there, which costs more than a floating
dock, it will end up like the dock that ' s out there now. That went out
to the island , that the Wildlife Heritage Foundation put in. It ' s just
Ia mess. You can ' t walk on it . It' s broken apart. Being left to the
elements, it will just become a big eyesore and a hazard as well as a
liability. An extreme liability. As far as the deer getting caught in
Ithe channel, I know and Jo Ann and the people who have visited the site
have witnessed deer tracks . The deer trail goes right through here
along the upland. The deer have been witnessed by all the residents
who live there now in the whole wetland area around here. This is not
1
1
,, .
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988 1
,, I a major path in the summertime for the deer. This is 1 to 2 feet of
A
II
water as it is and the natural path they take, there ' s a bog down to
the southeast of this location about 1, 000 feet and they bed down there II
in the wintertime. When they move around they move around just along
the high water mark around here. That ' s where we witnessed foot prints
when we went out there 2 weeks ago. I ' ve been out there for 3 years
now and every single time I 've gone out, there are footprints every
II
single day right along this path . If you go there right now, you' ll
see a beaten path right here. This is eye witness accounts and real
life and that ' s where the deer go . In addition to the comments that I
you 've seen from the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, let me summarize what they said here about the impact.
Considering that I have agreed to, as a part of the disposable II excavated material from channel construction, adverse fill and related
impacts to the associated wetland and habitat would be neglible. As
far as the erosion control plans and everything , I plan to meet any
engineering requirements on that. We' re going to use hay bales staked
I
with snow fence around the spoils area . We' re going to be bringing
them upland so there' s no disposal in the wetlands of that. Since I
will compile the provisions identified in the DNR permit and given the
general design of the channel , he liked meandering on the adjacent II
property line , we believe the channel can be accomplish in an
environmentally acceptable manner . In addition to these comments , II which I did not write down but I did take notes , and Mr . Leech said to
the following here. I asked him if the channel would create a
i protected open water habitat for nesting sights of migrating water fowl
and he said, yes it will . It' s open water . They come in and land, II they like adjacent nesting sights . There ' s wetland there. They will
come in and nest. He said it ' s more natural and aesthetically
pleasing than a dock would be. He said that a dock versus a channel ,
Iif he were doing it or if he had the decision to decide one or the
other , he said he would prefer a channel . We asked him, what about a
combination dock and channel and he said, absolutely not. If you ' re
going to do it , do one or the other . You can ' t complicate things or
I
complicate the impact on the wetland by having two methods out there.
As far as the overall impact , it ' s kind of a toss up but it ' s more in
favor of the channel . The construction is feasible and acceptable to I
go lakeward to the land rather than the opposite way the DNR
recommended . I called Judy Boudreau of the DNR and asked her, what do
you really mean by this because in order to get out to the wetland , to
dredge it, you have to put mats down on the ice and you have to follow
II
it along and you can' t go from the land out because then you' re
crossing over water so you can ' t do that . She said, well that ' s fine ,
all we were concerned about is the siltation into the lake . As long as
you provide a manner in which prevents that or minimize that, it' s
okay. Now, it' s pretty frozen solid out there and when we dig the
first time, make the first dig , if it ' s solid ice, there' s not going to II
be any silt going through yet if there is a little bit of water that
starts coming in, we throw some haybales and take them out when the
2 whole thing is done and melts away in the spring . In addition to his
1 .
comments, I have some of my own that have to do with whether, having a
positive impact on the wetland . First of all I want to say that
anything you do. I have rights to access and I want to do the most
minimal impact solution there i.s . Reasonably. Now we seek the advice
II
II
G,
z'
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988
IIof others , of experts , to get hopefully help us on this. He agreed
that the amount of material removed is minimal and he said that it
won 't have any percent impact on it looking at the map. In it's own
I small way, the extra water in the channel will increase the water
holding capacity of the lake by approximately 105,000 gallons. That ' s
positive. Anything we do here is not going to have, seemingly is
I always going to be negative so you've
got to lay something down so a
riparian homeowner has access to the open water . So what has less
impact here? Another positive thing is that the channel will increase
access by fish to. eat mosquito larvae in the adjacent wetland . It will
Ialso provide a drinking spot along the shore where there is the deer
trail . The people along Lot 4 saw a fox there last week and I found
the fox holes on my property. There ' s rabbits and pheasants in there
Iand it will provide them with a convenient place to stop and drink too.
The channel in itself will not pollute the water. It ' s a gently
winding design and the long boardwalk over time, shifting ice and
Ivandalism, weather associated, will deteriorate and become a piece of
pollution in the wetland. Yet , the channel will always stay a part of
the natural landscape. Other things about the dock, in this wetland
in Roseville, environmentalists like docks and I 'm and environmentalist
II belong to about 15 organizations . This is a floating dock in
Roseville and as you can see, it ' s a floating type. You can ' t just lay
this down through 3 feet high of cattails and expect to walk by. You
Ihave to side cut 3 feet to either side of this so you' ve got this big
ribbon of plastic plus 6 feet of cut out cattails that you have to
maintain throughout the entire summer which I believe is an alteration
of the wetland. You might even have to get a permit to go cut down
Isome cattails which is unreasonable. So to make it passable, you have
to do something like this. It 's not pretty. I already mentioned that
a 430 foot dock is too big. Maintenance costs are prohibitive.
IReplacement costs are also going to be prohibitive. We talked about
the liability. Because the dock is a privately owned structure
accessible by the public and creates conditions highly susceptible to
Ipersonal injury which the owner is liable for whereas a channel is
legally considered a public waterway. Those who suffer injury by water
alone will not likely sue. If huge dock systems are put on this
property and others, they can not be shared by adjacent landowners
Ibecause they' re private . Therefore, if the owners on Lot 4 and others
who want lake access, put a half dozen or more or so of these huge and
natural scars on this small lake where this problem exists , the
Icumlative effect of all these things on the west end is going to become
an abonimal eyesore. So that 's the precedent if you say, let everybody
have docks on the west end of Lake Lucy. All the problems of liability
associated with huge dock systems are kind of multiplied and none of
Ithe residents on the lakeshore community that have submitted written
comments, feel a dock is the right solution either . So there is
positive effect on the wetland.
" Mayor Hamilton : I guess on Mr. Ri.vki.n' s behalf , I would like to ask
councilmembers what it would take for him to receive approval of this
or if there is nothing that could be done to gain approval . I think to
his benefit, so he would know he' s either going to be able to continue
and perhaps get approval or he can just
quit dragging this thing on forever. stop the process right now and
I
__
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988 '
Councilman Boyt: Briefly I can state that first, I am impressed with
the amount of homework you've done. I think the Planning Commission
was also impressed from reading their notes. For me, your individual
logic is not the particular issue for me. Whether I agree or disagree
with that, my real concern is our wetlands ordinance overall . I
suspect that however we go on this , we need to be prepared to defend
it. I know the Mayor and I have a bit of a disagreement about how
vulnerable we become should we approve this but personally, I don ' t
think that this is something that you need to do more work on. I think
you've done more than enough already. I would like to see maybe the
group that initially put the wetlands ordinance together or a
comparable group, make a detailed investigation of the issue of
dredging through our wetlands. They talk about it in the wetlands
ordinance but they don 't really provide any kind of guidelines that I
see workable. You clearly have a difficult situation. I can see that.
I don' t like the dock either . I' ll tell you, if you came in with a
dock, I 'd vote against it. So for me to vote for this , what I need is
a clear examination by the community of the issue of how do people with
wetlands in front of them get to open water. I need the larger issue
dealt with.
Councilman Horn: My position is always that you don ' t bend the rules
to go along with a situation. You modify your ordinances to update new
issues that you hadn' t addressed before. I think the proper way to
handle this would be to go through an ordinance revision that would
allow this sort of thing . I have trouble, since we lack information
from our experts, I have trouble believing that there is a safe way to
dredge a channel through a wetland . I know all the issues we went
through when we looked at dredging for a boat access on Lotus Lake and
all the concerns and I quite frankly don ' t believe that there is enough
good, technical data available to give us a good answer on that. You
raised the issue that you needed certain questions answered and I agree
with that. My question back would say, who is qualified to give us
those answers? I don' t think even our experts are. I don' t deny that
we have to give Mr. Rivkin riparian rights . He obviously has those but
in my opinion, that doesn ' t give anyone the right to cut a channel in a
public body of water and I have a real problem with that. The other -=
problem I have is with some of the logic that ' s applied . In one case, '
the channel is such a small percentage of the overall wetland but in
the other case a dock becomes a major issue. I fail to see where if
you take areawise for areawise, it' s that much different. It might be
what appeals to somebody' s sense of aesthetics but to me the logic is
reversed in those two things . I have trouble with that. I have a real
problem with dredging in general and I would much more go along with
some alternate proposal that didn 't require dredging.
Councilman Geving : I don' t want to be personal with you Mr. Rivkin
because this is not a personal matter. I think it' s one where we have
to judge the facts of the situation regardless of where it happens to
be in the City of Chanhassen and quite frankly, to answer the Mayor' s
question on what it would take for us to have you move along with this
proposal or to forget it, in my view I can not bend on this issue. I
can ' t even bend a little bit. I'm very much not in favor of you
dredging or anyone else dredging through a wetland area. It' s_ in an
1
t.„2, ,
. . .
AuCouncil Meeting - January 25 , 1988
:� that we haven't spent a lot of time on. At don' t believe
elievetwI 've got [—
single case where we've done this before.
Ale of. So in that respect, I don' t want to start by doing the first
Ilion Lake Lucy.
Rivkin: But you can learn by doing it.
3 cilman Geving: It' s possible but we could also have a disaster as
311 . I 'm afraid that sometimes the disasters are irreversable. Once
.i ' re done, they' re done and when you destroy a piece of wetland, it
a doesn' t come back. Not in your lifetime so I guess to answer the
ayor' s question positively, I would say that no amount of further work
t1 n our part would help me to make this decision because my decision' s
ady been made. I would request that we deny this.
o Gilman Johnson: I 'd first like to say, that the Planning
o ission in their meetings did not say that a dock was a worse impact
n he wetlands. I sat through the Planning Commission twice last year
nd then again this year when they went through and discussed this wit
and there was no way that they ever made that comment . One
1 ning Commissioner may have stumbled across something that may have
1
ounded similar to that but in general they never came to that
clusion. Several things that have been said I don' t think 100%
ee with fact. Therefore, when I hear somebody quoting somebody from
,nother meeting, I 'd rather hear that from Mr. Leech. I have in
iriting here that the Service typically encourages the use of removable
ating docks and in this case, they didn ' t like it because of the
gth. I still think that there is some room to compromise . I don' t
_i.ke cutting into a wetlands. I know Hennepin County Parks puts
ating docks into wetlands. Some of them quite lengthy and they
1lIntain the cattails at the edge of the docks. I never saw this 3
foot separation that they do and I go out and walk Carver Park all the
• e, walking on these floating docks and i.t' stile
ust not done. I don' t
c w where that' s coming from. Maybe it i.s , picture you even
3 wed us, I believe the cattails are right up close to the edge.
:Allot Hamilton : No, they' re cut . t".77:.
Councilman Johnson : They' re cut . . .Carver County does not do that . I
d t know why these people are.
Eric Rivkin: Where do they have floating docks at Carver Park?
C ncilman Johnson: There are several series of floating docks at
C ver Park if you walk the trails out there. Cutting through several
wetlands . I 'm not going to show you a map or anything but I ' ll
rantee you there, my feet are wet from walking on them. I feel that
t very unusual situation. I don' t know where
t s is probably a very, Y
else in the city we' re going to find 400 feet of wetlands. It' s one of
largest wetlands in our city. Before we go changing the ordinance
'd better find out how many more of these wetlands there are and if
t is turns out to really be the only one that we' ve got this magnitude,
6
t., ::
I don't think we change one situation.
haveonesituati
11 on that
' what a
ImmimmmommIMMS
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988 1
Mayor Hamilton: That' s true, it goes down to the high water mark and
beyond actually.
Eric Rivkin : The plot says it' s over 2 acres, 10. 1 acres and there' s
only 2 1/2 acres . 8 of that is wetland. From what the DNR told me,
once a channel is dug to open water , the channel then becomes public
waterway by State Law.
Roger Knutson : That's the issue that I was trying to get at. Is it
public waters right now? Through the wetland to the land. Is that
part of public waters now or is it now?
Eric Rivkin: The County or whatever. '
Councilman Horn : Not if it' s below the ordinary high water mark.
Eric Rivkin: Then why are lots platted to include wetlands as a part '
of the lot? I pay taxes on it don ' t forget .
Roger Knutson: That goes into a whole new subject of why counties do.
Counties go in cycles as to where they want lots to go. For a long
period we had all sorts of pie shaped lots going out to the middle of
the lakes . Then we went through a long period of time where that
wasn ' t done. Now that' s coming back in vogue with folks and why they
do it, I guess they' re concerned about fluctuating water lines and
marks and meandering streams and things.
Councilman Johnson: I believe, looking at the plats here , that his lot
ends at where they believe the lake was.
Eric Rivkin: Is . Is there too . The plat was drawn a couple years
ago.
Councilman Johnson : Yes, these wetlands in another 5 years will '
probably march out into the lake. This lake is constantly getting
smaller so at this point, his lot ends probably where they thought the
wetlands ended and the lake began.
Roger Knutson: Does he have to cut through the wetland to get to
public water? '
Mayor Hamilton : Yes.
Roger Knutson : Is all that wetland part of public water? ,
Mayor Hamilton: From the plat, all the wetland is a part of his
property. '
Roger Knutson: It' s not a part of public water?
Mayor Hamilton: Right. That probably needs to be clarified with the
County as to where that lot really is . If he owns the wetland and
purchased it and is paying taxes on that land, it's his and why can' t
he cut a channel through it? '
• `
�
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988
IF
Roger Knutson: If this is
� public water, where he wants to dredge, only
' in public water , then the DNR has exclusive jurisdiction over dredging
if that's strictly public water. I don' t know the answer. I think we
ought to look into that and get it clarified .
Councilman Horn: So the question then is, you don't know if the public
water starts at the ordinary high water mark? My understanding is that
it does.
Roger Knutson : I think that ' s right .
Councilman Horn: If that's the case, and you say your channel ends at
the ordinary high water mark, then everything you' re dealing with is
public water.
' Eric Rivkin : Then why am I here? If I went through all of this , why
didn 't one of these agencies speak up and say State law says that you
have no right to do anything? State law says that I 'm a riparian
' homeowner and I do have the right to open water access. Whatever is
there.
It Roger Knutson: I 'm not familiar with any State law that says that
myself.
If- Eric Rivkin : The DNR has moved it along this way with assumptions that
these laws are still in effect. I 'm paying taxes on that land.
Roger Knutson : People pay taxes , that ' s another issue .
' Councilman Horn: I think in addition to the questions you asked, I
think this is a key issue for us. Whether we even have jurisdiction
here.
Mayor Hamilton: Can you determine that Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes .
Mayor Hamilton: I think you 've heard the flavor from the Council .
We've probably got three that would possibly be in favor and two who
probably are not . So I think you need to go from there. One is a
complete no, apparently closed minded and the other one is possible to
' convince.
Eric Rivkin : I agree with the fact that maybe Jim Leech should have
been here to testify but I found when I asked someone to come in and
testify about the channel access , they back off real adamantly when
I say the DNR is involved, I don 't want any part of that. Even
Attorney' s say that. But he may come. He seemed to be a nice guy.
The guidelines do need to be changed. The process, the laws not
perfect. No new law ever is and it ' s not within my means to find out
all the answers to the technical questions raised either. Let's say I
do have right to access, if Mr . Knutson finds out that I do and the
technical questions still come back, who answers them? Well , it ' s me
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988 '
to find that out and I really feel that I should not have to do that.
I also don ' t feel that I should be put off years more to wait until we
find out whether dredging this wetland, or any wetland, is going to
hurt it. If knew that now, we wouldn' t have laws that permit dredging
or maybe you wouldn' t have an ordinance that does permit dredging. As
far as the 40 foot by 40 foot canoe turnaround , I think I could
compromise and reduce that. A canoe, you do not simply turn around and
paddle the other way because the seats are not designed that way. You
have to turn around and this is minimum DNR standard they allow.
Councilman Johnson : It 's maximum DNR standards. Not minimum. '
Eric Rivkin: Right. It' s the maximum for a boat turnaround. Motor
boats are going to come in there. You can' t enforce that. It' s public
waterway. I can put a sign up there and it says restricted
access. . .that says restricted to non-motorized traffic . they' re going
to come in there and they've got to turn around. So it ' s logical for
me, you don ' t want them stuck in there.
Councilman Johnson: If they' re stuck in there, you call the cops. If
it' s posted as non-motorized and they' re motorized .
Eric Rivkin: I don' t think it' s reasonable to wait. I think this is a
major thing . It' s not reasonable, even though I 'm the first , it ' s
still not reasonable to make me wait more years until you guys come up
with an answer to whether the technical issues are right or wrong . You
do learn by doing and the experts do say, do concur that there' s not
going to be an adverse effect on this wetland . If you go back to them
another time, ask them again, really grill them with a blue ribbon
committee or whatever , fine. I agree with that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we' re
Y going back over things that have been
discussed and I guess my thought was , my view is not to put this off
for years or even months but to accomplish it as quickly as possible.
If that ' s something you don ' t want to do, I 'm trying to get this passed
for you because I think it' s something that you should hav and I 'd like
to see done there and have a channel in there. I think it ' s the fair
thing to do and the best thing for the environment. If you' re not
willing to do that , to wait to have the answers to some of these
questions we can take a vote on the issue tonight as it stands before
us and I ' ll guarantee you that it will be defeated . That ' s your '
choice.
Eric Rivkin : I 'd rather you table it pending some of these decisions
about the legal issues and some more advice.
Mayor Hamilton : That' s all I 'm trying to accomplish. We ' re not going
to put it off for years. We are going to try and accomplish this as
quickly as possible.
Councilman Johnson: What you' re asking for , Mr . Mayor is basically an
environmental assessment worksheet which any RGU, Regulating
Governmental Unit can have what' s called a discretionary environmental
assessment worksheet requested by anybody doing anything that may have
IICity Council Meeting - January 25 , 1988
IITry to cut some of our costs there for a lot of dirt moving. Their
response , which the City received a while back and somehow or another
Ididn' t get to me too quickly, but is that they are already booked in
1988 and they would love to work with us in 1989 . It says , this type
of project supports our training efforts and develops a better
relationship with the community. They are really looking forward to it
I
and what I 'd like to do is proceed with looking at 1989 and the sooner
you can get on their training schedules , I 'd like to work the City
Engineer and Park and Rec, and look at where can, they have the basic
IIearth moving equipment to cut trails and flatten out for ballfields and
parking lots and things like that. I don't want any building
foundation work or this type of stuff . I think it ' s a different than
Iwhat Roger served with in Viet Nam. So it's good news but it's too bad
they can' t do anything this year . On Public Safety, I'm getting more
and more responses from people at various meetings and whatever on
public safety issues . I really thing that we need to replace some of
Ithe positions that we lost this last year, as far as we lost our one
officer . It looks like we' re down to less than half time on the CSO
side of it. Our CSO is also our fire marshall most of the time so now
Iwe' re down to even our basic animal control is limited . Is that
correct, Don?
IDon Ashworth: That ' s correct.
Councilman Johnson : We ' re getting into what I consider a very
uncomfortable position for public safety. I thought last year we did a
Ivery good job of park patrolling . We went out there and were visible.
We had our vehicle driving around to the parks in the evenings . We did
a very good job of maintaining our parks clear of beer parties and
IIeverything that we didn ' t want to see in our parks. Now we ' re talking
this year of opening Greenwood Shores back up and we don' t have the
patrol anymore. This is a basic required service that I think that if
we have to delay our City Hall expansion , that ' s one of my first ideas
Ito do this. Let ' s not expand City Hall , let ' s provide public service.
Mayor Hamilton : I encourage you then to take this item to the Public
ISafety Commission meeting and present your ideas to them so they can
review it and make recommendations back to the Council .
ICouncilman Johnson: Okay.
Mayor Hamilton : That ' s through Jim Chaffee . That ' s a good idea . I
think we always need to, continually need to review that.
ICouncilman Johnson : I 'd like to hear from the rest of the councilmen
to see if they all agree with that. Take this to Public Safety.
ICouncilman Geving : I agree .
' Councilman Boyt : Yes . ,6
Councilman Geving: Yesterday afternoon Jay and I met with the
Ihomeowners from Red Cedar Point at the fire station #2 at Minnewashta
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1988 II
I
an effect upon the environment. It does not have to meet all the
categorical requirements of the State law that requires EAW' s. Certain
subdivisions, etc. require that they have to have it by law. But any
II
governmental unit can request that an EAW be performed in accordance
with State standards to decide upon the environmental, whether there is
a need for an environmental impact statement. We have some unknown II problems here that seem to have some. . .
Mayor Hamilton : I 'm not asking an environmental assessment to be done
because I think it' s too lengthy and I have some specific questions
I
that I asked to be answered and I think if we receive answers to those,
we' ll be able to make a better decision. Rather than going through
that whole lengthy process . I
Councilman Horn: I think where the ownership ends and the ordinary
high water mark issue may make this all moot to this body. We need to II find that out too .
Mayor Hamilton : Jo Ann can clarify that with the County and be
specific with them. Find out exactly on this specific piece of property I
how they' re assessing it. Where the line is and maybe on the whole
lake, I suppose you have to determine that.
Eric Rivkin : I want to know what my rights are. What are my rights? I
I
Councilman Horn: Would the County determine it or Roger who would
k determine that?
I
Councilman Boyt : DNR assessed .
Roger Knutson: We' ll get the job done. 1
Larry Brown: I talked with Ted Kim, the County Surveyor about this and I
I think it 's going to boil down to what Roger finds out.
Councilman Geving : I think the motion is obvious . If we stay with
what 's before us, we have a proposal here to construct a channel and
I
boat turnaround in a Class A wetland . That ' s the proposal . If we vote
on that proposal , that' s what we have to vote on. Either to approve
that channel or not to . No other variations . I
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table the Wetland
Alteration Request to construct a channel and boat turnaround in a II Class A wetland on Lake Lucy for Eric Rivkin until the questions raised
at the meeting are answered . All voted in favor except Councilman
Johnson who opposed and motion carried .
II
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
L. Councilman Johnson: As you all may have noticed , I 've had some
comments on it, that I wrote a letter to the Army requesting that we
get some consideration from them, from their engineers to do some work
in our parks and trail issue and specifically the Lake Ann expansion.
I