RE_ Agency Review Request - 7052 Minnewashta Parkway - Planning Case 2017-19BFrom:Skancke, Jennie (DNR)
To:Walters, MacKenzie; Generous, Bob
Cc:Strong, Vanessa; Petrik, Daniel (DNR)
Subject:RE: Agency Review Request - 7052 Minnewashta Parkway - Planning Case 2017-19
Date:Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:07:32 AM
Attachments:image006.pngimage007.png
Bob, I received a call from Mr. Kirt today. I am happy to assist the City in this matter, I am here
to support the City in the administration of your shoreland ordinance. I’d appreciate it if you
would keep me in the loop on the City’s approach to this and you might want to copy me on
correspondence with landowners as needed so that I understand what the City is asking. Have
you instructed Mr. Kirt that he’s in need of a supplemental survey? Will this still be heard in
front of your upcoming Planning Commission?
Thank you,
Jennie
Jennie Skancke - Area Hydrologist (Scott, Dakota and Carver Counties)
MnDNR | 1200 Warner Road | St. Paul, MN 55106 | T: 651-259-5790 |
Jennie.Skancke@state.mn.us
From: Skancke, Jennie (DNR)
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:57 PM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Cc: Archer, Jessica <JArcher@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Bender, George
<GBender@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Smith, Stephanie <sbsmith@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Sinclair, Jill
<jsinclair@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Hoffman, Todd <thoffman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Strong,
Vanessa <VStrong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; 'kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us'
<kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Katherine Sylvia <ksylvia@minnehahacreek.org>; Petrik, Daniel
(DNR) <daniel.petrik@state.mn.us>; Daniels, Jeanne M (DNR) <jeanne.daniels@state.mn.us>
Subject: RE: Agency Review Request - 7052 Minnewashta Parkway - Planning Case 2017-19
Hello,
I’ve been reviewing this parcel’s history in my permit file along with our OHW determination
from 1984. I also made a field visit to the site on 11/15 to view the conditions on the ground. I
do support the delineated wetland boundary.
With regards to the OHW, I have reason to believe that the extent of the public waters is more
in keeping with the attached marked aerial imagery. The public waters inventory GIS layer is
not intended to be an indication of the boundary extent or OHW of public waters. The extent
of public waters is determined by real surveyed elevations on the ground. As far as I can tell,
the survey provided with the variance request has elevations at the delineated wetland
boundary that appear to be at least a foot higher than a small open water stream-like feature
that is adjacent to the wetland boundary (see attached photo). I believe that this stream-like
feature may also be part of the public waters extent of the basin.
Further, the 1984 OHW survey indicates that the wetland fringe, at least at that time, was
within DNR jurisdiction. I am aware that the outlets from Lake St. Joe to Minnewashta have
changed since our OHW survey and the OHW elevation may have changed slightly. When we
don’t have an actual elevation determined, we use extent of open water or furthest extent of
cattails, whichever is further, which is what leads me to believe that the open water, which
extends nearly to the delineated wetland boundary, is also the DNR jurisdictional extent.
As you likely understand, structure setbacks should be measured from the actual OHW on the
landscape, not an estimated boundary from a lidar contour. This area is highly variable and
lidar is not accurate enough for these purposes. I believe that actual surveyed elevations at
the low point within the open water channel area could determine where the OHW lies. DNR
frequently asks that contours on a survey follow surveyed elevations when landowners aim to
keep work above the OHW.
I’ve marked on the attached aerial imagery, in black, the location that I believe is the minimum
extent of hydrologic connection, though it could extend all the way back to the wetland
boundary.
In conclusion, I don’t believe the survey provided by the landowner accurately shows the
OHW and setback. It would be upon the applicant to demonstrate otherwise with real
surveyed elevations throughout the area.
I also worry about potential erosion issues that could result if the house were raised up so that
it met floodplain requirements, but is located so near the wetland fringe of Lake St. Joe.
However, with the information provided I couldn’t fully determine how steep the final slopes
would be around the home.
Please call or reply to my email if you have additional questions.
Best,
Jennie
Jennie Skancke - Area Hydrologist (Scott, Dakota and Carver Counties)
MnDNR | 1200 Warner Road | St. Paul, MN 55106 | T: 651-259-5790 |
Jennie.Skancke@state.mn.us
From: Potter, Jenny [mailto:JPotter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Skancke, Jennie (DNR) <jennie.skancke@state.mn.us>; schristopher@minnehahacreek.org
Cc: Archer, Jessica <JArcher@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Bender, George
<GBender@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Smith, Stephanie <sbsmith@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Nutter, Don
<DNutter@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Sinclair, Jill <jsinclair@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Hoffman, Todd
<thoffman@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Strong, Vanessa <VStrong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Walters,
MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Generous, Bob <bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: Agency Review Request - 7052 Minnewashta Parkway - Planning Case 2017-19
Development Plan Review Agencies:
Please review the attached request and respond with your comments (if any) no later than
November 21, 2017 to:
MacKenzie Walters
City of Chanhassen
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-227-1132
mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Replies to this email will be automatically copied to MacKenzie.
You can view the project web page that includes a link to the project documents HERE and then
clicking on Project Documents under the Related Resources header. Thank you.
Jenny Potter
Senior Administrative
Support Specialist
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1106
FX. 952.227.1110
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us