HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: MCWD permit application \���NpHq �9� ��1'�����,�..�1.t�1�,�-� �d'5�.C,!'� . �,����,.,,.,.,...�, N
� � �I/����Si��D ���'��33���' � 44,
9�`
R
, � MINIy�cy 9
9 '. _..`-� �� 15500 Wayzata Boulevard 4y�9FFr
��'9S►{Ep 0�`'�Q Suite 611 Twelve Oaks Center
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 �AKENWNEfONKA
offtce:(8�2�a��-�s�o rax:(612)476-7973
MINNESOTA Fi1VER
BOARD OF MANAGEAS: Thomas Maple.Jr.,Pres.•C.Woodrow love•John E.Thomas
Clarkson Lindiey•Thomas W.LaBounry•Martha S.HartSel•Pamela G.Blixt
7une 26, 1995 2� ��`?�'
Permit A,.polication No. 95-129: ��N
f
Applicant: T. Johnson - _
3105 North Shore Drive
Wayzata, NIN 55391
Location: City of Orono, T117, R23W, Section 9, SW 1/4
Purpose: Shoreline improvement involving the installation of steel anchors to
stabilize the shoreline and provide erosion control.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
At the regularly scheduled June 22, 1995 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject
permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits:
1. Permit application number 95-129 received May 24, 1995.
2. Site location plan received May 24, 1995.
3. Letter of transmittal from applicant received May 24, 1995.
4. Typical cross section received May 24, 1995.
This permit application was denied by the Minnetonka Creek Watershed District Board of
Managers at the regularly scheduled monthly meeting on June 22, 1995.
Sincerely,
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC-
gineers for the District
Kri tin M. George
� KMG/ljv
. . t
Permit Application No. 95-129 November 2, 1995
Applicant: T. Johnson
3105 North Shore Drive
Wayzata, MN 55391
Location: City of Orono, T117, R23W, Section 9, SW 1/4
Purpose: Shoreline improvement involving the installation of steel plates and anchors
to stabilize the shoreline and provide erosion control.
Aaqlicable Rules: Rule F - Shoreline Improvement
Rule M- Shoreline Contractor's License
Exhibits Reviewed:
1. Permit application number 95-129 received May 24, 1995.
2. Site location plan received May 24, 1995.
3. Letter of transmittal from applicant received May 24, 1995.
4. Typical cross section received May 24, 1995.
5. Revised application submitted to the DNR received August 17, 1995.
6. Revised cross-section submitted to MCWD received October 12, 1995.
Stat�'Review and Summarv:
The original application involved the installation of steel plates and anchors to provide shoreline
erosion control protection along appro�cimately 1001ineal feet of shoreline on Lake Minnetonka.
This is an unconventional method for shoreline stabilization, and it is the policy of the MCWD
Board of Managers to "Preserve the natural appearance and alignment of shoreline areas." This
application was denied at the regularly scheduled June 22, 1995 meeting of the Board of
Managers. -
The revised application involves the installation of only 50 lineal feet of steel plates and anchors in
lieu of conventional rip rap. The revised application also includes covering the steel plates with
red rock. It appears likely that the small diameter red rock will not be stable as placed on the
proposed steel plates and may require significant maintenance to retain its natural appearance.
The applicant has stated he will remove the plates and replace them with conventional rip rap if
the project proves deleterious or unstable in its purpose. It is recommended that this experimental
shoreline stabilization permit application be discussed at the Board Meeting. The applicant has
submitted loading calculations as a structural analysis of the proposed design. The site is located
within Subwatershed Planning Unit U-10, LM-38. The applicant also wishes to extend the
shoreline erosion control appro�mately 7 feet waterward from the ordinary high water elevation
(OIiW) of Lake Minnetonka. The licensed shoreline contractor doing the work is Landview
Landscaping.
���t � 1996
. . �
Carl T. Johnson
Pernut Application No. 95-129
November 2, 1995
Page 2
Recommendations:
Denial on the basis that it does not comply with normally accepted engineering standards, has
additional stability problems and the inclusion of steel plates does not appear to be beneficial in
the design. An experimental design of this sort does not present a benefit to the property owner
or the District.
Proiect Review Status bv Other Governmental Units:
The DNR has not commented on the submitted application, but a permit from the DNR is
required for the project.