The Stearns County Planning Commission on Oct. 23 recommended that the County Board approve a major shoreland alteration permit allowing three retaining walls and related grading near Rice Lake on property owned by Mitch Mickelson in Eden Lake Township.

The commission’s vote, 5–2, follows a staff report, conservation-district comments and public testimony. The recommended permit would allow three retaining walls located on steep slope within the shore impact zone, limited excavation and a requirement for silt fencing and a native-seeding plan as conditions of approval. The county board will review the commission’s recommendation on Nov. 4.

Why it matters: The work lies inside the shore impact zone of Rice Lake and in mapped floodplain. Commission members and the Stearns Conservation District discussed potential effects on runoff and whether the project addresses an existing erosion problem. Because the work is on a steep slope that runs directly from the house to the lake, commissioners said safeguards are needed to limit sediment delivery to the water.

Staff described the proposal as a major shoreland alteration under Sections 10.2.14(d) and 10.2.14 of Stearns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance No. 4-39. The property is Lot 1, Block 1 of Eden Heights Subdivision, 18173 Dove Hill Road, Eden Valley. The lot is about 9.61 acres with 0.61 acres above ordinary high water; impervious coverage is roughly 17.5 percent. Soils on the slope were described as highly erodible loam.

Project details: The proposal includes three separate boulder retaining walls and associated grading and sand placement. Staff and the applicant described the dimensions and siting as follows: Wall 1 — about 1.5 feet high and 20 feet long, proposed roughly 5 feet from the ordinary high water level; Wall 2 — about 3 feet high and 35 feet long, proposed about 20 feet from the water; Wall 3 — about 4 feet high and 74 feet long, proposed approximately 40–45 feet from the ordinary high water level. Excavation and grading were estimated at about 100 cubic yards; the plan includes a 5-inch sand blanket behind part of the walls and a proposed nonnative fescue mix for revegetation (the applicant agreed to provide a native seed mix and origin information).

Conservation district concerns: Greg Berg of the Stearns Conservation District, in a written site assessment read by staff, said the site is a developed lot with mowed lawn and a natural shoreline buffer and that there was no indication of active erosion. Berg wrote that the proposal does not address an existing erosion problem and, as designed, could destabilize the slope and direct additional runoff and sediment into Rice Lake. The conservation district recommended preserving and expanding the existing flatter area by the patio and home as an alternative that would leave the slope undisturbed.

Applicant response and erosion controls: Applicant Mitch Mickelson and contractor Michael (Mike) Dokener (G and M Outdoor Services) told commissioners they will retain two rows of sediment-control logs and install silt fence for the duration of the work, maintain erosion controls until vegetation achieves at least 75 percent cover and supply native-seed specifications. Dokener said their crews have extensive experience installing boulder retaining walls and described additional measures (boulder row and sand blanket) intended to keep sand and sediment from reaching the lake.

Public comment and local support: Neighbor John Hansen, who said he represents himself though he has served on lake and watershed boards, told the commission he and the neighbors he contacted (16 people) did not object and supported the family’s desire for a flatter, safer space near the lake.

Decision and conditions: Commissioner Dave Ventrude moved to recommend approval to the County Board, with a second by Commissioner Jason Kron. The motion included two conditions: the erosion-control measures described by staff (including installation of silt fence in addition to sediment-control logs) and a modified seeding requirement specifying native vegetation rather than the originally proposed nonnative fescue. The planning commission voted 5–2 to recommend approval; the matter will be considered by the County Board on Nov. 4.

What remains: The conservation district’s recommendation for an alternative that avoids slope disturbance was noted repeatedly in the record. Commissioners stressed the watershed-scale implications of shoreline alterations and the need for construction to follow the approved plans and for monitoring to ensure controls perform as intended. The County Board will consider the commission’s recommendation and conditions on Nov. 4.