The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-01-14 CC Packet part 1Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Site Plan: Pebble Park Data Scource: Washington County, MN 5-20-2014 0 100 20050 Feet 1"=100' SSooouurrrcccceee:::EEssrrrii,DDDiigggiittttaaalGGlooobbbeee,GGeeeoooEEyyyeeee,ii-ccuubbbeeeddd,UUSSDDDDAAAA,UUSSGGSS,AAAAEEXX,GGeeettmmaaaappppppiinnggg,AAAAAAeeeeeerrrooooooggggggrriiiddddd,IGGGGGNNNNNNN,IGGGGGPPPPP,sssssssswwwwwiiissssssssssssssttttoooooppppooooo,aaaaaannddddd ttttthheeeee GGGGGISSSSS UUUUssssssseeeeerr CCCCooooommmmmmuuunnniiiitttttyyyyy 12 pt Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community City of Lake Elmo 6-10-2014 Data Scource: Washington County, MN Site Plan: Sanctuary Park K Lily A v e . N . 0 100 20050 Feet 1"=100' Utility Easement Sanctuary Park 55 Ft. Buffer Line Soourrcccee::Esrii,DDiiggiiitaalGloobbee,GeeooEyyeee,ii-cubbeedd,USDDDAAA,USGS,AAEX,Geetmaappppiingg,AAAeeerroooggrriidd,IGN,IGPPP,swisstopo,and tthe GIS User Community LilyAvAAe.N. Sanctuary Park 10' wide ADA compliant paved trail to playset $15,900.00 Playstructure & Swingset $40,000.00 Gravel Connecting Trail $3,000.00 Tetherball Equipment $250.00 6' Bench $450.00 $59,600.00 Pebble Park Zipkrooz $12,630.00 Rocks Playstructure $40,124.00 Picnic Shelter $11,000.00 $63,754.00 Curb & Mulch (Both Parks)$30,000.00 Total $153,354.00 Sanctuary & Pebble Improvement Estimate Zipkrooz (Pebble Park) Themed Playground Structure (Pebble Park) Playground Structure (Sanctuary Park) Pebble & Sanctuary Park Improvements - Proposed Play Equipment PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/23/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4C – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-33 ITEM: Hammes Estates Shoreland Variance – PID 34.029.21.13.0001 SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director MN DNR Stephen Mastey, Landscape Architecture, Inc. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Hammes West, LLC for a variance that would allow for a reduced riparian dedication and setback to the southern channel of Goose Lake. This request is connected to the review of a proposed 163-unit single family subdivision on the Hammes property in the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Hammes West, LLC, 36 Moonlight Bay, Stillwater, MN Property Owners: Ellie Hammes, 1187 Forest Ave., Maplewood, MN 55109, and Dorothy Lyons, 10105 10th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042. Location: Part of Section 34 in Lake Elmo, immediately west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19), approximately 1,300 feet south of 10th Street (CSAH 10), and immediately south of Goose Lake. PID Number 34.029.21.13.0001. Request: Variance – Shoreland Ordinance- Request for reduced riparian dedication. Existing Land Use: Active mining and gravel operation and other vacant land. Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Development Transitional District Surrounding Land Use: North –Goose Lake and Stonegate Residential Estates (RE) subdivision; west – Stonegate RE subdivision; south – Lennar Savona Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) subdivision. Surrounding Zoning: Residential Estates (RE), Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Plan: Urban Low Density Residential (2.5 - less than 4 units/acre) Proposed Zoning: Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) History: The site has been historically used as a gravel mining operation. The City received a Preliminary Plat application for a proposed 163-unit single family subdivision. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat and held a public hearing on 5/12/14. Consideration of the preliminary plat was postponed until PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 2 additional/updated plans were submitted. The applicants have submitted updated plans, which will be reviewed at the meeting on 6/23/14. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/6/14 60 Day Deadline – 8/5/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 10/4/14 Applicable Regulations: 154.450 – Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District 154.109 – Variances (Administration and Enforcement) 154.800 – Shoreland Management Overlay District REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Hammes West, LLC for a variance to allow for reduced riparian dedication around the southern channel or finger (Wetland G) of Goose Lake. The man-made extension of Goose Lake appears to have been dredged in connection with the historic use of the site as a gravel mine. Whereas the applicants and the City originally determined that Wetland G was a man-made incidental wetland, governed under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), the DNR has submitted a review letter to the City requesting that the 150-foot required riparian dedication apply to the southern channel of Goose Lake. Due to this change in course and jurisdiction, the landowner and applicants have now requested a variance to allow for a reduced riparian dedication around the man-made channel portion of Goose Lake, as shown on the Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat. BACKGROUND Hammes West, LLC has submitted a Preliminary Plat application for a proposed 163-unit single family residential subdivision for an approximately 80 acre site in Section 34 of the I-94 Corridor Planning Area. As part of preparing a plat application for this site, the applicants have completed a wetland delineation and report, identifying all the wetlands by size, type, vegetation and other characteristics. In relation to the requested variance, the wetland of consequence in this case is Wetland G, the man-made southern channel of Goose Lake. In the preliminary plans submitted, the applicants have provided the required amount of wetland buffering as determined under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) rules. However, the change in jurisdiction from the WCA and VBWD to the Shoreland Ordinance would significantly impact the Preliminary Plat as submitted, as the required riparian dedication would extend around the southern channel of Goose Lake. As shown in the Riparian Dedication Sketch (Attachment #5), riparian dedication around the southern channel would impact 13 lots (Lots 1-6, Block 10 and Lots 1- 5 and 11-12, Block 9) of the proposed Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat. In requesting the variance, the applicants are proposing to proceed with the proposed buffering as determined under the WCA and Valley Branch Watershed District rules. It should be noted that the City updated its shoreland ordinance (Ord. 08-111) on 5/20/14. As part of the shoreland ordinance update, the concept of riparian dedication was introduced. In areas where cities are accommodating sewered growth within shoreland areas, riparian dedications or buffers have been used to ensure natural vegetative buffers for the water body while at the same time allowing for sewered growth with the minimum standards of the base zoning district. As part of the shoreland ordinance update, Goose Lake was identified as a lake requiring riparian dedication for the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 3 previously stated purpose. Providing a riparian dedication will allow the applicant to proceed with planned development, but at the same time provide the protection to protect the natural resource. As part of the Preliminary Plat, riparian dedication is being provided for the southern shore of Goose Lake, but not the southern channel. The applicants are proposing wetland buffering that is consistent with the Valley Branch rules and WCA. Regarding the historical use of the site as a gravel mining operation, it should be noted that there are challenges, mostly related to depressions and wetlands, present on the subject property that are unique compared to other properties guided for development. In terms of how the channel was created, based on historical aerial photography and submitted testimony and evidence, it appears that the channel was originally created to support the mining activities on the site sometime in the late 1960s or early 70s. Over time, it also appears that the channel was likely expanded. For the purpose of reviewing the variance, the important characteristic to consider regarding the channel (Wetland G) is that it is man-made and not a natural part of the original water body. In addition, it should be noted that in staff’s judgment there are positive benefits in transitioning this property from a mining operation to single family residential development. It should be noted that the proposed variance was sent out for review to the DNR and Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). While the VBWD did not provide review comments, the DNR has reviewed the variance request and recommended denial of the variance. The DNR’s review letter and follow-up email are found in Attachment #10. According to the DNR letter and email, the southern channel of Goose Lake is now considered part of the water body and therefore is subject to the same shoreland rules as the rest of the lake. According to the applicant, this decision represents a change in direction or guidance from the DNR as they were working to prepare their plat application. The applicant has provided email correspondence between their environmental consultant, Kelly Bopray, and the Area Hydrologist, Molly Shodeen to provide background information regarding these discussions. The applicant has consistently stated to staff that the DNR originally indicated that they would waive their jurisdiction of the southern channel to the local watershed district. While the email correspondence does provide background of these discussion, it should be noted that it is difficult to make conclusive determinations on this point based upon the correspondence. Finally, it should be highlighted that in the DNR’s email to the City, they suggest that as an alternative to the variance, the southern channel could be blocked off via a berm to restore Goose Lake to its original boundary. As the DNR indicates, this process would require a DNR permit and would be considered a restoration. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES In reviewing the applicable codes that apply to the subject property, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following as it reviews this request: • Comprehensive Plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan guides the Hammes site (PID 34.029.21.13.0001) as Urban Low Density Residential. Within this district, single family residential land uses are permitted at a density of 2.5 to less than 4 units per acre. One of the key arguments presented by the applicant is that if the area surrounding the channel is set aside for riparian dedication, the proposed subdivision would fall below the required density level of 2.5 units per net acre. If the proposed subdivision were reduced by 13 lots, as 13 lots are impacted by the riparian dedication as demonstrated by the applicant, and the net developable acreage remained the same, the density would be reduced to 2.37 units per acre. When removing the acreage of land in the riparian dedication that is considered unbuildable in addition to the land already in wetland buffers, the resulting net density calculation is 2.46 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 4 units per acre. No matter how it is calculated, the applicants are correct in that the proposed project would no longer be technically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Access to Keats Ave. N. (CSAH 19). As the applicants prepared multiple iterations of the Sketch Plan for Hammes Estates, one of the critical points of review was the location of the proposed access to Keats Ave. N. (CSAH 19). In reviewing the various iterations of the Sketch Plan, Washington County required the applicants to move the proposed access to Keats Ave. to the north to account for access spacing considerations from the future minor collector road 5th Street. In addition, when the access was proposed more to the south, the increased grade in that area also presented a concern for the County, necessitating the northern access location near the northern property boundary. The reason that this component of the development review is critical in the consideration of the variance request is that the northern access location requires that the nearby street (Street 1 in the Preliminary Plat) be located within proximity or parallel to the southern channel of Goose Lake. The applicant notes in the provided narrative that shifting the entrance street further to the south would have significant impacts on the plat, either leading to a long stretches of roads (Street 1 and Street 4) with lots on only one side of the road, or likely lot loss in other areas of the proposed plat. The applicants have presented access road location as a unique circumstance not created by the landowner. In reviewing this aspect of the variance application, staff has found merit in the access location fulfilling the requirement of unique circumstances for the granting of a variance. • Wetland Buffering. As shown on the plat and described in the wetland delineation report, Wetland G requires an average buffer of 75 feet per Valley Branch Watershed District rules. Per the Preliminary Wetland Buffer Plan (Attachment #2), the applicants are proposing to increase the existing wetland buffer from 92,054 square feet to 95,313 square feet, with an average buffer width of 85.3 linear feet. While not meeting the 150-foot riparian dedication, it should be noted that the applicants are providing buffering that meets the watershed’s requirements per wetland type/classification. In addition, if the variance is granted, staff is recommending that the applicants install and maintain additional vegetation and/or prairie mix to prevent or mitigate any potential erosion or surface runoff into the southern channel. The recommended planting schedule is outlined in the memorandum from the City’s landscape architect consultant (Attachment #9). Staff would recommend that if the variance moves forward, the recommendations of the City’s landscape architect consultant are incorporated into the updated Landscape Plan for the Hammes Estates development. • Shoreland Setbacks. The newly adopted shoreland ordinance requires a 200-foot structure setback for areas subject to riparian dedication requirements. Given the request for a reduced riparian dedication, a request for a reduced structure setback would also be included. Per the newly adopted ordinance, the structure setback for a sewered property without riparian dedication would be 100 feet. In reviewing the 13 lots impacted by riparian dedication, 8 would be able to meet a 100-foot structure setback in staff’s judgment, while the other 5 (Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 10 and Lot 3, Block 9) may have difficulty meeting a 100-foot setback to Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). However, it should be noted that without a riparian dedication, the minimum lot sizes would need to be larger to be eligible for the reduced setback. • Infrastructure and Planning Efforts. One additional aspect for consideration of the variance application relates to the significant efforts of the City to plan and install the current infrastructure that will serve the site. Currently, water and sewer has already been extended PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 5 to the northeast corner of the site just to the north of the access road (Street 1), and a lift station has been installed in this location as well. In addition to the City expending significant resources planning and bonding for these improvements, the landowners are being assessed for the sewer and water improvements. Staff offers these points of consideration to highlight the fact that significant efforts have been made to plan for these improvements, the location of which was selected to serve the proposed development on the Hammes site, including the areas around the southern channel. Finally, it should be noted that the City has planned for growth on this site since the adoption of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Staff offers these considerations to the Planning Commission as they weigh their recommended action. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request. 1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Under this standard, the City would need to find that allowance for a reduced riparian dedication or buffering around the man-made channel of Goose Lake is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under an official control. Proposed findings related to this criterion are as follows: FINDINGS: That the proposed use of thirteen single family residential lots with a reduced riparian dedication and structure setback to Ordinary High Water Level around the southern channel is reasonable because the applicants are planning for a significant riparian dedication along the southern shore of Goose Lake to meet the intent of the City’s shoreland ordinance. In addition, the access location to Keats Ave. N. as required by Washington County represents a unique circumstance to the individual property. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan guides the Hammes site as Urban Low Density Residential, and the variance would meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning Commission would need to identify those aspects of the applicant’s property that are unique and not created by the landowner. In this case, staff has identified two circumstances related to the required location of the access road to Keats Ave. N. (CSAH 19) that are not created by the landowner. Again, Staff is suggesting some findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission as follows: FINDINGS: That the applicant’s property is unique in that the required access road to Keats Ave. N. needed to serve the proposed development must be located at the northern boundary of the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 6 property. The access location circumstance is not created by the landowners, as 1) the access must meet County access spacing guidelines to 5th Street, the location of which was not selected by the landowner, and 2) the steeper grades along Keats Ave. N. to the south of the proposed access also prevents a more southerly access location. The access location to Keats Ave. N. has been directed and approved by Washington County. 3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Compared to other water bodies in urban sections of other communities, the vast majority of the land uses around Goose Lake are a residential estates subdivision, an Open Space Preservation (OP) subdivision, and other open/agricultural land. If the City were to grant the variance application, the vast majority of the land around Goose Lake will remain low impact rural land uses. In the judgment of staff, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Proposed findings related to this standard is suggested as follows: FINDINGS: As the subject parcel is planned for Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) development, and the provided wetland buffering consistent with Valley Branch Watershed District rules should protect the southern made-man channel of Goose Lake, the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Proposed findings for this criterion are as follows: FINDINGS. No impacts to the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties would be expected should the variance be granted. In addition, the proposed variance would not substantially increase congestion of public streets or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. Please note that the applicant has also provided a set of findings as part of the attached narrative and supporting documentation included with the application. Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1-4 above and with conditions of approval related to the continued protection, preservation and maintenance of the southern man-made channel (Wetland G). DRAFT FINDINGS Please refer to the comments in the previous section. Staff will be reviewing these findings with the Commission at its meeting. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Hammes West, LLC for a variance to allow a reduced riparian dedication and reduced structure setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) around the southern channel of Goose Lake for Lots 1-6, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 7 Block 10 and Lots 1-5 and 11-12, Block 9 of the Hammes Plat. This recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The applicant shall provide the required wetland buffering for the southern channel (Wetland G) per the rules Valley Branch Watershed District and Wetland Conservation Act. 2) Any and all buffering around the southern channel of Goose Lake shall be marked and monumented to prevent encroachment of the channel (Wetland G), as recommended by the DNR. 3) The applicant shall landscape the buffer area around the southern channel as specified in the review memorandum by the City’s landscape architect consultant (Attachment #9). The recommended treatments and plantings for the southern channel buffer area shall be incorporated into the updated Landscape Plan for the Hammes Estates development. The suggestion motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows: “Move to recommend approval of the request for a variance to allow a reduced riparian dedication around the southern channel of Goose Lake and reduced structure setbacks from OHWL for Lots 1-6, Block 10 and Lots 1-5 and 11-12, Block 9 of the Hammes Estates Plat based on the findings of fact outlined in the Staff Report, and subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application and Project Narrative 3. Wetland Delineation Report 4. Historical Aerial Photography 5. Riparian Dedication Sketch 6. Applicant Email Correspondence w/DNR 7. Hammes Estates Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Wetland Buffer Plan 8. Site Visit Photos, 6/18/14 9. Landscape Architect Review Memorandum 10. DNR Review Letter and Email ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Data Source: Washington County, MN 5-9-2014 Location Map: Hammes Estates Plat (PID: 34.029.21.13.0001) KHammes Property 0 500 1,000250 Feet 1"=500' Savona Stonegate Keats Ave N.10th St. N. Goose Lake HAMMES ESTATES VARIANCE NARRATIVE a. Contact Information: Owner: Hammes West, LLC c/o Brian McGoldrick 36 Moonlight Bay Stillwater, MN 55082 651-387-1000 Owner: Eleanor Hammes 1187 Frost Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 With Copy to: The Afton Law Office 3121 St. Croix Trail South Afton, MN 55001 651-436-8656 Owner: Dorothy Lyons 10105 – 10th Street Lake Elmo, MN 55042 With Copy to: Brian D. Chmielewski 6043 Hudson Road, Suite 340 Woodbury, MN 55125 651-330-7191 Engineer: Westwood Professional Services Attention: Ryan Bluhm, PE, LEED, AP 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-906-7432 b. Site Data. Parcel Size: The parcel size is 78 acres (3,397,680 square feet) PID: 34.029.21.13.0001 Zoning: Rural Development Transitional District and guided Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan, Planned Use section Legal Description: South ½ of the Northeast Quarter, Section 34, Township 29, Range 21, except the East 60 feet of the North 967 feet, and except Parcel 3 of Washington County Highway Right of Way Plat 49-19B, Washington County, Minnesota. c. Variance Request: Hammes Estates would like a variance to the Shoreland Ordinance, and the DNR request, of a 150-foot buffer around the manmade channel (wetland G) off the southern portion of Goose Lake. d. Proposal. To provide a 75-foot average buffer around the manmade channel in Goose Lake as required by Valley Branch watershed. e. Pre-Application Discussions with Staff. On June 3rd, 2014, we met with staff to discuss the 150-foot buffer requested by the DNR, and how it would impact the project. Our site plan has always intended a buffer from the existing southern shoreline of the lake, but the channel, being as it is manmade (see attached Wetland Delineation report), was believed to be held to alternate buffer requirements. After reviewing the impact of the 150-foot buffer to the proposed site plan (see attached DNR buffer sketch), and based on our discussions with city staff, it was agreed that a variance of shoreland ordinance would be appropriate in this case. f and g. Practical Difficulties of this site/Circumstances Unique to the property The buffer would impact approximately 13 lots, which will limit the overall density of the project to levels below what was required by the Met Council. Due to the presence of additional onsite wetlands, required wetland buffers, and a 100-foot green space buffer, the additional density cannot be made up onsite. Additionally, the location of the project entrance along Keats Avenue was required by Washington County. The proximity of this entrance location to that of the proposed buffer creates further difficulties. Street 1 would need to be redesigned to be shifted further south, and a number of streets would no longer have lots on both sides of the street. The resulting design would no longer have the neighborhood feel that was intended. Please refer to the attached DNR Setback sketch shows the proposed impact of the 150’ foot buffer for additional information. h. Granting of this Variance. By granting this variance, we would be able to design this project to the concept plan supported by city staff. The project would not change from what has previously been reviewed. i. The proposed project does not conflict with any of the nearby land uses. Significant efforts have been made to minimize disturbance to the adjoining development to the north and west. By granting this variance, we would be able to comply with the density requirements of the city and met council of this parcel. We are only hoping to preserve our project density, not increase it beyond what has been previously proposed. A 75’ foot average buffer would be placed around the man-made channel. The buffer would be planted with native grasses, and would comply with Valley Branch watershed district. Our project would provide a 150-foot buffer from the southern shoreline of Goose Lake, excluding the man made channel. 7699 Anagram DriveEden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150FAX952-937-5822TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 From:Kelly Bopray To:Ryan M. Bluhm Subject:Fw: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:28:30 PM 1 of 5 Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com 715-307-4577 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Shodeen, Molly (DNR)" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us> To: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 3:05 PM Subject: RE: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation Kelly, do we have any idea when the channel was excavated? I can’t believe we would issue a permit for it From: Kelly Bopray [mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:16 PM To: Shodeen, Molly (DNR) Cc: Kevin Wold Subject: Fw: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation Molly, Karen Wold copied you on the NOA for the Hammes site in Lake Elmo that I'm working on. Karen's email includes a link to where you can down load the whole wetland report if you want it. I've attached a couple of the pertinent documents for you to review. Wetland G on the site includes a man-made channel that connects Goose Lake to a preexisting wetland in a gravel mined area of the site. For WCA purposes wetlands created by mining are not regulated. But the channel area was created below the OHW of Goose Lake so that would be under DNR regulations unless you are inclined to defer jurisdiction to the LGU. The engineer is starting to work on site designs and one thought was to cut the channel off from the lake again as one way to improve water quality of the lake by protecting it from stormwater run off the development of the site. I'd like to have a discussion with you at your earliest convenience about how you like to proceed with jurisdiction and and if the DNR keeps jurisdiction how this man-made channel might be treated in the permitting process. When you can could you give me a call or respond to this email? Thanks Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com> 715-307-4577 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Karen Wold <KWold@barr.com <mailto:KWold@barr.com> > To: 'Jed Chesnut' <jchesnut@mnwcd.org <mailto:jchesnut@mnwcd.org> >; "'Rodacker, Dennis (BWSR)'" <Dennis.Rodacker@state.mn.us <mailto:Dennis.Rodacker@state.mn.us> >; "Kelly Bopray (kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com> )" <kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com> >; "'Shodeen, Molly (DNR)'" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us <mailto:molly.shodeen@state.mn.us> >; "'Hingsberger, Thomas J MVP'" <thomas.j.hingsberger@usace.army.mil <mailto:thomas.j.hingsberger@usace.army.mil> > Cc: John P. Hanson <JHanson@barr.com <mailto:JHanson@barr.com> >; "'jbg@aftonlaw.net'" <jbg@aftonlaw.net <mailto:jbg@aftonlaw.net> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 2:28 PM Subject: Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation Attached is the Notice of Application for the Hammes Sand & Gravel Site wetland delineation within Valley Branch Watershed District in Lake Elmo, Washington County. The site location map is also attached. The wetland delineation report is too large to send through email. It is available on my ftp site at: ftp://user.barr.com/ user name: ksw password: ftpksw in the Hammes Site wetland delineation folder If you would like a paper copy of the report, please contact Kelly Bopray at kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com> Please contact me if you are interested in participating in a site review of the delineation. Let me know when you are available within the next couple of weeks. Karen Wold Senior Environmental Scientist Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- office: 952.832.2707 toll-free: 800.632.2277 cell: 651.307.4394 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- kwold@barr.com <mailto:kwold@barr.com> www.barr.com <http://www.barr.com/> From:Kelly Bopray To:Ryan M. Bluhm Subject:Fw: Hammes sand and gravel Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:28:48 PM 2 of 5 Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com 715-307-4577 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com> To: molly.shodeen@state.mn.us Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:03 PM Subject: Hammes sand and gravel Molly, I'm not sure on when the channel was excavated. I think in the mid to late 60's. I included some historical aerials in my last email, and you can clearly see it's not there in 57 and 64. I 'm in the field and don't recall what year the channel shows up. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone From:Kelly Bopray To:Ryan M. Bluhm Subject:Fw: Hammes gravell mine Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:26:17 PM Attachments:3 figure 1.doc 7 figure 5.doc 3 of 5 Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com 715-307-4577 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com> To: "molly.shodeen@state.mn.us" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 1:56 PM Subject: Hammes gravell mine Molly, Aattached are a couple more maps. The Figure 1 shows the general location of the site and Goose lake to the north in Lake Elmo, just north of I94 and near the intersection of Keats Ave and 10th St. The DNR number is 113w. At this point they are beginning concept planning for the development of the site. They would like to separate the excavated channel from Goose lake so that stormwater ponding could be done in the area before the water discharges to Goose Lake. If the DNR retaines jurisdiction and takes the position that fill can not be placed below the OHW obviously the property owner will have to make other plans. If the DNR waves jurisdiction of the channel to the LGU then part of the channel would be incidental and a berm could be built across the channel and the surrounding uplands would be excavated for ponding purposes. I'll try to call you tomorrow morning. Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com 715-307-4577 From:Kelly Bopray To:Ryan M. Bluhm Subject:Fw: Hammes gravell mine Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:31:04 PM 4 of 5 Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com 715-307-4577 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Shodeen, Molly (DNR)" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us> To: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 2:02 PM Subject: RE: Hammes gravell mine Let’s talk tomorrow, I have a meeting now From: Kelly Bopray [mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:56 PM To: Shodeen, Molly (DNR) Subject: Hammes gravell mine Molly, Aattached are a couple more maps. The Figure 1 shows the general location of the site and Goose lake to the north in Lake Elmo, just north of I94 and near the intersection of Keats Ave and 10th St. The DNR number is 113w. At this point they are beginning concept planning for the development of the site. They would like to separate the excavated channel from Goose lake so that stormwater ponding could be done in the area before the water discharges to Goose Lake. If the DNR retaines jurisdiction and takes the position that fill can not be placed below the OHW obviously the property owner will have to make other plans. If the DNR waves jurisdiction of the channel to the LGU then part of the channel would be incidental and a berm could be built across the channel and the surrounding uplands would be excavated for ponding purposes. I'll try to call you tomorrow morning. Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com <mailto:kjbopray@yahoo.com> 715-307-4577 From:Kelly Bopray To:Ryan M. Bluhm Subject:Fw: Hammes Gravel Site Date:Friday, May 30, 2014 3:31:13 PM 5 of 5 Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com 715-307-4577 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kelly Bopray <kjbopray@yahoo.com> To: "jbg@aftonlaw.net" <jbg@aftonlaw.net>; Todd Erickson <terickson@ffe-inc.com> Cc: "kwold@barr.com" <kwold@barr.com>; "molly.shodeen@state.mn.us" <molly.shodeen@state.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 1:20 PM Subject: Hammes Gravel Site Jim, Todd, After playing phone tag for a week or so, I was finally able to talk to Molly Shodeen (DNR Area Hydrologist) about the Hammes site and specifically the excavated channel from Goose Lake to Wetland G. I said we did not have any firm plans yet but we were forming our development strategy for the site. Ideally we would like to isolate the channel from Goose Lake for as part of the stormwater management when the site is developed. We believe this will help improve water qualtity for the lake as opposed to preserving the channel and it's direct discharge to the lake. As we discussed, Molly indicated the DNR would likely waive their jurisdiction over the channel to the WCA LGU. That would allow the opportunity to impact the incidental portions of Wetland G (the excavated channel) to achieve the site development water management goals. Kelly Bopray Bopray Environmental Services, LLC kjbopray@yahoo.com 715-307-4577 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Looking west across southern channel Looking south down southern channel Looking north up southern channel into towards Goose Lake Southern tip of southern channel (Wetland G) Goose Lake Southern Channel: Site Visit, 6/18/14 From:Shodeen, Molly (DNR) To:Nick Johnson Cc:Kyle Klatt; Dean Zuleger; Petrik, Daniel (DNR) Subject:RE: June Land Use Review Date:Monday, June 16, 2014 12:07:19 PM Attachments:image002.jpg Thanks Nick, as I said in my last letter, we believe that the 150’ riparian dedication must be applied to the manmade channel/southern extension of the lake. DNR permit rules consider anything that is dredged and attached to the lake to be part of the lake, and as such must meet any setback requirements, as well as in this case, the 150’ buffer requirement. We do not see that there are practical difficulties beyond financial for issuing the variance and we recommend that the variance be denied. We consider the Met Council argument to be a bit weak as there are other developments coming up that will get you to your projections. As an alternative, we would request that a berm be placed across the access channel to restore the Goose Lake basin to what it was. The photos show that it was excavated sometime between the 60’s and 90’s without any DNR permits. A permit would be needed to close it off, but we would consider it to be a restoration. The photos also show that originally in 1991 there was a very narrow connection which was again illegally widened since 1991 to its current configuration. As far as the ordinance goes, we need to meet to discuss any and all changes that you have made unless you have a strike through version to show the changes. I need to discuss your reaction to my suggested changes that were not made in the final ordinance. For any buffer implementation, we request that it be marked and monumented to prevent encroachment over time. As previously stated, we would like to see that right in the ordinance. You also need to request implementation flexibility as part of the request to approve the ordinance. It is a letter asking that we consider allowing flexibility for the city to deviate from the statewide standards. The letter needs to detail what the request is, and how it will afford additional protection for the resources to justify the flexibility. From: Nick Johnson [mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:NJohnson@lakeelmo.org> ] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:07 PM To: Shodeen, Molly (DNR); John Hanson (jhanson@barr.com <mailto:jhanson@barr.com> ) Cc: Kyle Klatt; Dean Zuleger Subject: June Land Use Review Molly and John, Please see the attached land use review for the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting. If possible, please send review comments by Wednesday, June 18th. Hard copies are being placed in the mail today to your office. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Nick M. Johnson | City Planner City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota njohnson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:njohnson@lakeelmo.org> (w) 651-747-3912 | (f) 651-747-3901 www.lakeelmo.org <http://www.lakeelmo.org>