Loading...
1996-10-17MINUTES-CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING-OCTOBER 17, 1996-7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bob Polston at 7:35 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Bob Polston; Coun~ilmembers: Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Phyllis Jessen. Absent and Excused: Councilmember Andrea Ahrens. Also Present: Ed Shukle, City Manager; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic DevelOpment Coordinator and the following members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD): President John Thomas, Thomas LaBounty, Monica Gross, Pamela Blixt, Malcolm Reid, Woo&ow Love, Thomas Maple and Gene Strommen, Executive Director of MCWD. Others in attendance: Ceil Strauss, DNR; Ron Peterson, Peterson Environmental; Mike Graham, Peterson Environmental; Rick Johnston, Braun Intertec; Roger Carpenter, Braun Intertec; Louis Smith, MCWD. Attorney; Suzanne Weedman, Assistant Director, MCWD; Andrew Syverson, Wenck and Associates, MCWD Engineer;Kim Polzin, Ceres Communications/MCWD;Gino Businaro, Finance Director; John Cameron, City Engineer; Mike Aspelin, Leah Weycker, State Senator Gen Olson, StanDrahos; Gary Christensen, Mark Brewer, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer, Bill Darling, Tom Casey, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Jo Longpre, Jerry Longpre, Gene Hostetler,. Dave Willette, Rex Alwin and Rodney Beystro. m. .Mayor Pol~ton ~ked eachmember seated at the table to introduce themselves. Mayor Polston stated that this. was a public meeting and not a public hearing and that a public hearing would be held on the federal environmental 'assessment on November 12, 1996. Mayor Polston indicated why the City was proposing the project and what the City hoped it would accomplish with the Lost Lake project. Mayor Polston then introduced Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator, to review what has'beeri done to prepare for the project. Chamberlain indicated that the following has been performed: 4. 5. 6. 7. Biological survey (flora and fauna) of Lost Lake. Sedimem (pollution) analysis of the wetland bottom and post office area. The permanent docking area has not undergone the same analysis because it is not part of the phase one project. When and if that portion of the project is pursued, pollution ..analysis would be conducted as. part of the permit process: Geotechnical testing. Site survey - wetland delineation and topographic, survey in effected areasi' preliminary construction plans and details to review and test construction methods. Environmental review documents. Coordination with permitting agencies including interpretation of rules. Continued City Council Meeting of October 17, 1996 Page 2 Chamberlain asked Rick Johnston, Braun Intertec, to explain the testing procedures of the soils within the project area. Johnston reviewed the tested areas explaining that he had been in close contact with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on the procedures followed and sharing the results of the testing with the MPCA. Chamberlain completed his review of the proposed project and asked the Watershed District to share their comments and concerns. John Thomas, President of the MCWD, indicated that the MCWD was happy to sit down with the officials of the City of Mound to review the proposed project prior to receiving an actual permit application. He indicated that the MCWD operates under a set of rules which apply to this project and the project must meet these rules or will be denied a permit. He asked Gene Strommen, Executive Director, to distribute a handout which contained a summary of those rules applying to this project. Thomas then asked Woodrow Love, a Manager of the MCWD, to review the District's concerns on the proposed project in the context of the MCWD rules. Love pointed out that the proposed excavation of the channel and mm-around would be permittable under the MCWD rules. Excavation of the post office area which is previously filled wetland is acceptable since it completes the historic mm-around. He further indicated that although not in the roles of the MCWD but in the policies, the District has allowed further widening of channels. The MCWD would allow a channel wider than the historic width in cases like Lost Lake where the width is needed for safety. The MCWD would prefer more width as opposed to the pull-outs. The width increase would occur in both the canal and mm-around. Ceil Strauss, DNR, also confirmed this as a suitable approach. Love did express a concern regarding a "racetrack effect" that boats would use the mm-around to race through this area. The DNR supports converting the center of the mm-around from cattails to a lower growing wetland plant species. Love addressed the proposed dredging in the area that has been labeled Phase 2. Since it (the marina), is proposed on existing upland, dredging of the marina area would not be permitted because it is viewed as an extension of riparian rights (an illegal activity). This aspect of the project is not part of phase one construction but the MCWD would like the City to modify its plans in regard to the marina prior to submitting a permit. Strauss then addressed the proposed fishing pier to the west of the turnaround area. She indicated that the DNR is not supportive of the proposed fishing pier. A structure, such as this, which extends over the water is not permitted under DNR rules. The DNR classifies the proposed pier as a structure and structures, by policy, are not allowed to extend over the water. Strauss also commented on the proposed sea walls. She indicated that the sea walls proposed for the south end of the canal from the mouth to the bridge are permissible. Continued City Council Meeting of October 17, 1996 Page 3 Another concem expressed by Love and Strauss was the impact that the transient docks in the area of the fishing pier had on the project. Strauss and Love suggested in order to minimize the impact to the wetland, transient docks would be better located somewhere within the mm-around area rather than the wing configuration as proposed. Thomas LaBounty, MCWD Manager, stated his concem regarding the Bartlett Blvd. bridge and the height of the bridge. He suggested that the City of Mound address how to deal with the inevitable future pressure by large boat owners to raise the bridge. Larger boats will have greater negative impacts on the wetland and the current design of the canal (primarily depth and maneuvering area) will not easily accommodate larger boats. Love brought up the idea of having a gauge placed in the water at the mouth of the canal indicating bridge clearance. Other issues discussed included the following: The vegetation in the center of the mm-around should be protected from boat encroachment by buoys or other methods. If the transient docks are moved to the tm-around area, the MCWD would be very favorable to and be an active partner in vegetation restoration within the currently proposed docking area. The goals of the MCWD are for the City to begin preparing a surface water management plan with regional sub-watershed ponding as part of the plan, the cleanup of Lake Langdon and the cooperative resolution (along with the LMCD) of issues raised earlier. Mayor Polston thanked the MCWD for attending this meeting and reviewing their comments with the City Council and staff. Mayor Polston indicated that the staffwould be reviewing the comments and suggested alternatives and would be discussing those in more detail prior to submitting a permit application to the MCWD and the DNR. It was then'moved by Hanus, seconded by Jensen and carded unanimously to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.  ctfully submitted, Edward J ~'hutOe, Jr. ~ City Manager //76, Minnehaha Creek 0 Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin@mnwatershed.org Web Site: www. mnwatershed.org Board of Managers: E. Thomas resident Pamela G. Blixt Vice President Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Treasurer C. Woodrow Love Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Eugene R. Strommen District Director Suzanne M. Weedman ~st. District Director Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% post consumer waste. RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1996 November 12, 1996 Ed Shukle, Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, As follow-up to your Mound City Council Meeting attended on 10/17, the MCWD submits the following comments in relation to the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project. Please include these comments as part of the public record. 1. Dredging of the historical channel - · depth - would be permitted to 923.6' for common use channel · width - unstable side soils of the channel are conducive to sloughing; concerned with safety and also the turbidity and potential for dredging frequency due to boat traffic · spoil disposal site(s) needs to be identified · the proposed turn around loop could exacerbate erosion. We encourage the City to consider a walkway to the island to eliminate the circular boat path 2. District Rules do not allow dredging for the purpose of creating a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes (such as is proposed to accommodate the transient docks & fishing pier in Phase I). 3. District Rules do not allow dredging above the ordinary high water level or into upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse. Upland dredging to create riparian access for the marina as proposed in Phase II is prohibited by the MCWD and the DNR. Mr. Ed Shukle, Mayor City of Mound Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project November 12, 1996 Page 2 MCWD Rules protect water quality and diminish flooding. The applicable District rules are Rule C - Floodplain Alteration, Rule E - Dredging, and Rule F - Shoreline Improvement. MCWD supports the goal of revitalizing downtown Mound. We look forward to working with the City on its stormwater management plan. Sincerely, C. Woodrow Love Board Manager CCi Bob Polston, Mayor Councilmember Mark Hanus Councilmember Liz Jensen Councilmember Phyllis Jessen Senator Gen Olson Ceil Strauss, DNR - Division of Waters Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Louis Smith, Smith Parker P.A. Andrew Syverson, Wenck Associates, Inc.