1990-09-12 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET - - 9 -12 -90 #1
ilk
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
•
A G E N D A
MOUND
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEBTING
7 :30
P.M. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12. 1990
SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARDROOM[
1.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
2.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 28, 1990
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. Pg.
2636 -2643
3.
PROCLAMATION - CANDLELIGHT VIGILS IN OBSERVANCE OF
WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN. Pg.
2644 -2655
4.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL
PARKING TO SERVE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT. Fig.
2656 -2687
5.
CASE NO, 90 -927: DENNIS HILDEBRANDT, 5229 WATERBURY
ROAD, WHIPPLE, LOTS 6, 7 & 8,
BLOCK 19, PID #25- 117 -24 21 0138.
REQUEST: REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Pg.
2688 -2696
ADDRESS
6.
CA NO, 90 -931: TOM & STACY HINTZ,
UNASSIGNED (BOXWOOD LANE /LYNWOOD
BLVD., LOT 23, KOEHLER'S 2ND
ADDITION, PID #14- 117 -24 43
0005.
REQUEST: VARIANCE: NO FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED
RIGHT -OF -WAY. Pg.
2697 -2713
i.
REQUEST FOR PORTABLE SIGN, QUASI PUBLIC ^UNCTION -
MOUND WESTONKA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION Pg.
2714
8.
REPORT ON WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS. Pg.
2715 -2735
9.
REPORT FROM LMCD REPRESENTATIVE & EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR:
- SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Pg.
2736 -2749
- EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL HARVESTING PROGRAM
- LMCD LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
(PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING COPIES OF MATERIALS
HANDED OUT AT 8/28/90 MEETING ON THIS SUBJECT)
ENCLOSED ARE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND
LETTER TO DR. DAVID ARNDORFER RE: LMCD LONG
TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN, Pg.
2750 -2755
•
- OTHER.
10.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
PAGE 2634
ilk
11. PAYMENT OF BILLS
Pg.
2756 -2769
12. INFORMATIONINIBCELLANEOUS
A.
Department Head Monthly Reports for August.
Pg.
2770 -2786
B.
L.M.C.D. Mailings.
Pg.
2787 -2789
C.
Planning Commission Minutes of 8- 27 -90.
Pg.
2790 -2792
D.
Notice from Triax Cablevision re: rate
increase.
Pg.
2793 -2796
E. Notice from Metro Council on upcoming Regional
Breakfast Meetings. Our breakfast is scheduled
for Wednesday, September 19, 1990, 7:30 A.M. -
9:00 A.M. at T. Wrights, 3310 S. Hwy. 101.
Please let Fran know by Tuesday evening if you
wish to attend. Pg. 279
F. Economic Development Commission Minutes of
August 6, 1990. Pg. 2798
G. Letter of resignation dated September 4, 1990,
from Dell Rudolph, Dock Inspector, effective
October 15, 1990. Dell has been an excellent
Dock Inspector for the City of Mound for the
past 7 years. He will be missed. Jim Fackler,
Park Director, and I will be searching for
a replacement immediately. Pg. 2799
C
PAGE 2635
129
August 28, 1990
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 28, 1990
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, August 28, 1990 in the School
District Boardroom at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea
Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also
present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk
Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron,
City Planner Mark Xoegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland and
the following interested citizens: Tom Casey, Mr. & Mrs. Dennis
Hildebrandt, Gerry & Donna Smith, and Matt Phillippi.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
1.0
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve the
minutes of the August 14, 1990, Regular Meeting and the
August 21, 1990, Committee of the Whole Meeting as
presented. The vote vas unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.1 PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
City Manager Ed Shukle explained that the revised amount was
$3,862.47. Mayor Smith opened the Public Hearing regarding
delinquent utility bills. There was no one present in the
audience who wished to speak on this issue. The Mayor closed the
Public Hearing and turned the item back to the Council.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 90 -98 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT
UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,q+: - .47
AND AUTHORISING THE STAFF TO SHUT -OFF
HATER SERVICE TO THOSE ACCOUNTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.2 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE SEPARATE
DOCUMENT
The City Planner explained that the recommendations made by the
• Planning Commission and the City Council have been incorporated
4434
130
August 28, 1990
into the Draft Plan. The Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the draft plan so that it can be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council for their review.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
The Mayor closed the public !�r
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the
Draft of Mound's Comprehensive plan and authorise Staff to
forward the Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their
review. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.3 CASE NO, 90 -925: CHESTER STUTEVILLE, 4878 EDGEWAT
DRIVE. 102 14, SUED, OF LOTS 1 i 32.
IYARP 6 LINDOUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-
117-24 41 0043, SIMARD SETBACK
VARIANCE
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning
Commission recommended approval.
Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -99 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIDE YARD SETBACK •
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE ADDITION AT
4878 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 14,
SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 i 32 SLURP i
LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD PID #13-117-24 41
0043, P i 2 CASE #90 -925
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion. carried.
1.4 CASE NO. 90 -926: MELVIN SUCKMAN, 5012 TUXED BLVD., RLS
1150, TRACT A. PID #24- 117 -24 43 0034,
MINOR SUBDIVISION
The City Manager explained that this item was withdrawn by the
applicant's attorney. No action was taken.
1.5 CASE NO, 90 - 927: DENNIS HUDEBRANDT, 5229 WATERBURY ROAD,
WHIPPLE, LOTS 6, 7 i 8, BLOCK 19, PID
#25- 117 -24 21 0138. REAR YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE
The Building Official reviewed the applicant's request and stated
that he recommended approval of the variance of 8.5 feet to the
required property line setback of 15 feet contingent on the
applicant submitting plans in conformance with the 840 square
feet as required by Ordinance. Over 840 square feet would
A 631
131
August 28, 1990
require a conditional use permit.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request and did not
recommend approval because they felt there were other
alternatives and there was not hardship.
Mr. Hildebrandt was present and presented a revised plan that
would make the proposed accessory building conform to the 840
square frat requirement.
The Council discussed the request and asked if the applicant
could reduce the width of the garage and add to the length. The
applicant stated that he thought the topography would not be
conducive to adding to the length because of the hill and the
trees.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to able this item
until the next meeting so that the Staff and Council can
look at what effect the addition of length would have on the
topography and trees. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
I 1 - Y - • • 1
ITT I f W L T _ -
The City Plannft: explained the applicant's request. The Planning
Commission recommended approval. The Council discussed a free
standing sign versus a wall sign. The Planner stated that
language could be added to the proposed resolution allowing
maintenance or replacement of the existing free standing sign but
no enlargement of the sign in the future. The Council asked that
the language be added to the resolution.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -100 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
CONXISSION TO ALLOW SIGN VARIANCES FOR
808 PRINTING, 2361 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS
29 -36, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F,
PID #13- 117 -24 34 0051 /0058, P i S CASE
#90 -930
•
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
A439
132
The City Manager presented and highlighted the preliminary 1991
proposed Budget to the Council. He explained that under the
truth in taxation law the City must certify a preliminary levy to
Hennepin County by September 1, 1990. He proposed November 20
and 27, 1990, as dates for the public hearings on the proposed
1991 Budget.
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -101 RESOLUTION APPROVING TEE PRELIMINARY
1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN TEE AMOUNT
OF $2,264 BETTING TEE LEVY AT
$1,644 APPROVING THE OVERALL
PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR 1991; AND SETTING
PUBLIC EEARINGS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
i 1- c •
Mir]
The City Manager reviewed the lease extension and option to
purchase prepared by City Attorney, Curt Pearson; the letter from
Dakota Rail, dated August 24, 1990, including their proposed
lease extension and option to purchase; letter from Mr. Mills*
attorney granting an extension of the lease extension and option
to purchase agreement to September 14, 1990; letter from Johnson
i Wood dated August 22, 1990, stating agreement to purchase
certain properties adjacent to their property (Coast to Coast) ;
land values of the parcels in question as prepared by William A.
Schwab of Penfield, Inc.
The City Manager further stated that the attorneys are not
interested in purchasing the property next to their office in
Mound at this time.
Negotiations are continuing with Mr. Eli Mills.
The City Engineer presented his preliminary engineering report
for acquisition and improvements of CBD parking lots dated August
1990. He presented several alternatives for assessing the
project to be spread over 15 years at 81 interest.
•
A34
133
August 28, 1990
He recommended that the Council accept the preliminary
engineering report and set September 12, 1990, for a public
hearing on this project.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -102 RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING REPORT FOR ACQUISITION AND
IMPROVSMENTB OF CBD PARKING TATS FOR THE
CITY OF MOUND AND CALLING A HEARING ON
BUCK 1 FOR SEPTEMBER 12 1990
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24.000 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION. PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF MBA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR _1991
The City Manager explained that the :IRA has asked that the City
levy an amount not to exceed $24,000 to defray the cost of
operation at Indian Knoll Manor, 2020 Commerce Blvd.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -103 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO
EXCEED $24 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION,
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MBA 469
OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE
YEAR 1991
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The City Manager reviewed the City Attorney's letters regarding
the resolution and ordinance for nature conservation areas as
proposed by Tom Casey. The City Attorney recommended that the
Council not adopt such a program until it is well thought out
both from the standpoint of goals and the financial implications
imposed upon public and private properties..
Councilmember Jessen stated that the Park i Open Space Commission
will be discussing this issue at their September 13, 1990,
meeting.
C]
4a` Y6
134
August 28, 1990
Tom Casey was present and stated that he would like the Council
to tell the Park i Open Space Commission if they are in favor of
nature conservation areas.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to table until
such time as the Park i Open space Commission forwards, to
the Council, their recommendations regarding: 1)
definition, potential locations and restrictions for nature
conservation areas as per their Minutes of August 9, 1990;
also their recommendations regarding how to maintain these
nature conservation areas as a neighborhood asset; and their
overall view on how these nature conservation areas fitwith
other open space. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.10 LICENOR RANIVANA
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to renew the On-
Sale Beer License of Mound Lanes, 2346 Cypress Lane
contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being
turned in. License period 7/1/90 to 6/30/91. The vote vas
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.11 PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorise the 1 0
payment of bills as presented on the pre -list in the amount
of $280 when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADD -ON ITEM@
1.12 DRI MY ENTRANCE - PHILLIPPI PROPERTY
The City Engineer explained the background of these parcels.
Mr. Phillippi started to put in a new driveway on parcel (0118)
to one of the two structures on parcel (0059) without a permit.
He is recommending that Mr. Phillippi be granted a driveway
permit with the following conditions:
1. Combine parcels (0059) and (0118).
2. Provide signed easement documents. Note: the City
should have proof that it is recorded.
3. New drawing of proposed driveway with sufficient
information.
0
XL41
135
0 August 28, 1990
4. Some type of guarantee that work will be done to the
City's satisfaction. Note: the normal permit is a
street excavation permit, which requires a $5,000 bond.
He did not think that large of an amount was necessary
in this case.
Mr. Phillippi was present and stated he wants his driveway permit
but that he will not combine parcels (0059) and (0118). He
stated if the Council would subdivide parcel (0059) with the two
structures on it, then he would combine the leftover parcel with
one house on it with the buildable parcel that the driveway would
come across. If the Council will not subdivide parcel (0059), he
stated he would sell parcel (0118) for a buildable site and still
install a driveway on the property to the one home on parcel
(0059).
The Council explained that they will not subdivide parcel (0059)
because the result would be an undersized lot (approximately
4,000 square feet) with a home on it.
No action was taken on this item.
1.13 DEMBIGN ROAR STRAIT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The City Engineer presented the preliminary assessment roll for
the 1989 street improvements on Denbigh Road. The total to be
assessed is $44,840.00. He suggested that the Council set a
September 25, 1990, for a public hearing on these.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #90 -104 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF THE 1989 STREET
IMPROVEMENTS ON DENBIGH ROAD TO BE SET
FOR SEPTEKBER 2S, 1990
The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried.
A. July 1990 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman,
Finance Director.
B. Proposed Amendment to National Municipal Policy, National
League of Cities in relation to Annual Conference, Houston,
Texas 12 -1 -90 - 12 -5 -90. If we want to submit policy
proposals and resolutions for consideration at the
conference, we need to submit these by October 12, 1990.
•
4ty2
136
August 28, 1990
C. Planning Commission Minutes of 7- 23 -90.
D. Planning Commission Minutes of 8- 13 -90.
E. L.M.C.D. Mailings.
F. Park and open Space Commission Meeting Minutes of 8 -9 -90.
G. Letter from Denice Rogers who had written "Letter to the
Editor" in a recent LW= issue. The letter is a thank you
to Chief Harrell about how this matter was handled.
H. REMINDER: The August 28, 1990 Council Meeting will be held
at the School District Board Room at 5600 Lynwood Blvd.
Parking lot South of Pond Arena, enter North doors of
District Building, follow signs.
I. Notice from Association of Metropolitan Municipalities,
(ANN) on Special Membership Meeting, Thursday, September 6,
1990. Please let Fran know ASAP if you want to attend.
J. L.M.C.D. MAILINGS
NOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to adjourn at +
10:20 P.K. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion
carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
0
aVi 3
� SEF''i'EMBER 23 • 1990
in observance of
'U c a dk World Su mmit for Children
�uturr o� itildmt
rtrnyfi�•rr'
Proclamation
Whereas 40,000 children die worldwide every day from malnutrition and
disease, and over 50 million of the deaths during the decade of the
1990s are easily preventable with today's technology;
Whereas U.S. child poverty, infant mortality and school achievement are
among the worst of all industrialized countries, with 40,000
children dying in this country every year;
Whereas in Minnesota, 186,000 children live in poverty, and 25 percent of
the homeless in shelters are children;
4D Whereas leaders of six countries have called for a World Summit for
Children at the United Nations on September 29- 30,1990, to address
the prestsing needs of children;
Whereas 60 Heads of State have committed to attending the World Summit
for Children, including President George Bush, making this the
largaa: summit in the history of the world;
Whereas our citizens are concerned about the health, education and
welfare of children everywhere;
Whereas adults and children of this community are holding a Candlelight
Vigil on Sunday September 23, 1990 to mobilize our leaders to
participate fully in the World Summit for Children;
Now, there I do proclaim this to be World Summit for Children Week.
•
anvy
1605 Eustis Street Saint Paul, MN 55108 Nlake Donations to ('JI.S.M.Can( ielight Vigils 646-7579
( W ) SEPTEMBER 23 • 1990
wM
in observance of
• World Summit for Children Alt,
1h. of dliWml
nr�ynfirrr• W1 AUG 2 91990
" , , «4 " 1 August 23.1990
raft i arq ae.
ftm GomM Fad
Dear Community Leader.
us.awfa.al.w.
This Is to alert you to an event taking pace on Sept. 23 — the Minnesota Children's
" e"kaft
Candlelight Vigil — that will make a significant In the well of children. Your
community is urged to be a part of this
k-
On Sept. 29 and 30 at the United Nations, there will be a World Summit for Children. So
U&M yaRWAIa
far 69 Heads of State have committed to attend, Including President George Bush, making
CAM
this the largest summk in history. For two days, world leaders will discuss the rights of
CMW :mod
children to a healthy, drug -free, dean, peaceful and secure world. Leaders have been
c . Doknw FWW
urged to determine what goals to meet for children in their own country .
ClrlAan CMWw'a Fwd
DWI
Ffte" +• Pbn
To focus attentoh: on the Summit, and to demonstrate public demand for action on the
w, c w u t
urgent needs of dAdren, candlelight vigils will be held throughout the world on Sunday,
Hoeft
Sept. 23. Currently, over 1000 candlelight vigils are panned In 58 countries, beginning in
Ae.rw lAie.r.�iw
Australia and sweeping around the globe. More than 400 vigils are scheduled throughout
RESULTS ,
the United States.
Educmom Fwd
ow Chll*"
UA Conme for urSCEF
The enclosures will provide complete details and the Information you need to get started in
Mlarld W'"""r
Made
support of the vigil in your own community.
Governor Perpich has already endorsed the Minnesota Vigil and has issued a
W "Wwyc"""
Proclamation that the week of September 23-30 be World Summit for Children Week
Luwm Nyc
(enclosed).
Gov. Walt' pool
u Gw. '1 - 1 Mwa+
a a. of sale Jam am..
We ask that you (1) endorse the Proclamation, (2) publicize the Proclamation and the vigil
SL fto M y°"""'`"
in your local media and to key individuals and groups, (3) urge people to either hold a vigil
Mo sa L wor RW �
ew.wwo. Dwow .bean
in your town or to send a delegation to the State Capitol on Sept. 23 at 5 p.m.
Shan s. -ear
o" Pk"
We further suggest you get in touch with your local public school and /or the early children
Im e a
family education program. They have also been sent vigil information.
Tan Nation
SaW May Madomr A~
T" e.na+ro
The time to act is NOW. Act to show that the people of Minnesota wish to make children a
%W Vwme" SPIt or = WM
p�ntY in the 1 99o s.
%woor z ed"
Wa Gann
U.S. Pp. Trno" J. P"
us. Rep. Gary S&MW
For more information, please feel free to contact the Minnesota Candlelight 1r. lil office at
(612) 646 -7579.
MN Caft" co-clulra
r+or, wow Monea,a
Sincerel
ANn Papa
cwa.. N..ai..
-�)' C
TIM sPeawm
l ara Riscol
o F m w .n KiM W
C c Semc ". an+cw. W.
State Director. Minnesota Children's Candlelight Vigil
9 ht Vi 9
A44S
1605 Eustis Street Saint Paul, MN 55108 Make Donations to: C.H.S.M. Candlelight Vigils 646-7579
SEPTEMBER 23 a 1990
...........
DX • n • i m m • P ei •
in observance of
%1 gfit a can World Summit for Children .. .. ....
br the
hdure of c1iddr Y1
e'rnwh`►r* Fact Sheet D
Minnesota Children's Candlelight Vigil
What is it?
a
September 23, on the grounds of the Stag► Capitol, an event will take place that will make a significant
difference In the well-being of the world's children. Yea can be a part of this.
Why are there Candlelight Vigils?
Last February, U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar announced a World Summit for Children
to be convened Sept. 29 and 30 at the United Nations. So far 69 Heads of State have committed to
attend, Including President George Bush, making this the largest summit in the history of the world.
For two days the world leaders will discuss the rights of chikJren to a healthy, drug -free, dean, peaceful
and secure world, and leaders have been urged to determine what objectives to meet for children In
their own country.
To focus attention on this Summit and to demonstrate public demand for action on the urgent needs of
children, candlelight vigils will be held throughout the world on Sunday, Sept. 23. Currently, over 530
vigils are planned in 53 countries, beginning in Australia and sweeping around the globe. More than
375 vigils are scheduled throughout the United States,
The Minnesota Children's Candlelight Vigil:
This is where you come In. The Minnesota Vigil will be held at the State Capitol grounds in St.
Paul, starting at 5:00 p.m. with music, dance and activities, and culminating with the lighting of
candles at 7:30 p.m. More than 10,000 children and adults are expected to participate, making
the Minnesota Vigil one of the largest vigils worldwide.
How to get involved:
o ATTEND! This historic event will not happen without people. You as an individual or the
organization to which you belong are urged to attend the Minnesota Vigil at the State Capitol on
Sept. 23 Bring your family, bring your friends, and especially bring your children.
o � )LUNTEER! You are needed for planning, implementing, statfi ^g and on the day of the event.
A volunteer orientation meeting is held every Wednesday night at 1605 Eustis Street in St. Paul.
o SPONSOR or ENDORSE the event -- ass!st by providing volunteers, cash or in -kind contribution.
o SPREAD THE WORD! Tell everyone you know about the Children's Candlelight Vigil, and urge
them to participate.
Who should we contact?
For further information, or to sponsor or donate to this event, contact the Vigil Office at 646 -7579. OU44
1605 Eustis Street Saint Paul, ;N1\ 55108 Make Donations to (: tS M. Candlelight Vigils 1616_5
What are the objeictives the Candlelight Vigils?
N" I N : The oNe*n of the candlelight vigils is to mobilize the world's children and adults tiio
toilet our lsaders participate hilly In the world Summit for Children and make the following
t) hsvkg cNdren's well -being be a priority on the ootntny'a political. economic and
social agenda; 2) wonlclg for ran ort and Inlplernre. 1 No of the Ciorwention on e Rights of the
Child; and 3) saving the litres of 50 million children worldwide this decade and ensuring their future
heartk education and opportunity to live a life tree of poverty within a sustainable environment.
In the WNW States: Country- specilic addenduuns will be encouraged. In the United States, we will
be urft President Bush and other olBcids to commit to making our nation a world leader In
children's well-being, So that U.S. cold poverty. kfttt n o uft. and sc lwoi achievements are no
longer among the worst of all wed countries.
In Mkvnw%: We will create a catalyzktg event to Inspire a social mmmimertt makktg children a
priortty in the Me. The vigil will Webrate youth of all ages, ethnic groups and soctoecon iomIc
bed grounds. In addition, we will:
o Compile gods for Minnesota children It the 1990s with Input hom our advisory council and
o Develop and distribute a Now to Help Gu IW explaining how the general public can take action
to malce a Me shoe In children's ores locally, nationally and Internationally
o Create and distribute emotions: outreach material to schools, churches. campuses and
o Generate addNiond vio sties around the state
o Increase the public awareness of children issues through contrrhmky outreach efforts
n Ghee Impetus to children's Initiatives akeady in place at the state and local level
Ten Basic Fads About American Children
1. In 1988 more that 12 milfiort American children were poor. One in every be American children fives in poverty. l recent
trends continue. by the year 200. one in four will live In poverty.
2. In 1988 the United Sates ranked ni In the world In Infant mortality and fifteenth In the world in the proportion of
Infante immunized against polo.
3. The United Stabs spends Ass on elementary and secondary education that 13 other industrialized nations and has a higher
ratio of students to teachers than 18 other nations.
4. America's future work force is shrinking. In the year 2000 there will be 4.1 million fewer young adults (ages 18 to 24) than
two were In the 19Ws - a decline of 14%.
5. One•haM of 0 preschoolers have mothers in the work force; by the you 2000 the figure will rlse to nearly seven in 10. Yet
Head Start serves only one in five eligible preschoolers and Congress has failed to enact a comprehensive program that
responds to the child care crisis.
6. Between 9 million and 12 million American children, and more than 14 million women of childbearing age, have no health
Insurance.
7. Hoff a million children drop out of school in America each yew.
S. In 1986, 2.2 million American children were reputed abused, neglected, or both.
9. The U.S. teen pregnancy rate it ' vice as high as that of other industrialized countries. Two in five American giris get
pregnant, and one in five bears a child before age 20.
10. Help for families struggling against this rising tide of poverty is shrinking. AFDC benefits fell by nearly 40 percent between
1970 and 1989, federal help for elementary and secondary education is down by more than 22 percent since 1979, and low-
income housing assistance is down by 76 percent in real dollar terms.
('Ten Basic Facts About American Children' is a publication of Children's Defense Fund.)
1�
JU y)
Candlelight Vigil Action /Response Form
Below are some ways In which students and citizens can participate in the World Summit
• for Children's Candlelight Vigil. Tailor activities to suit your school or community. Refer to
enclosed response form to let us know how we can help you have a great vigil!
1. Send a delegation (with school or town banner) to the State Capitol Vigil or have one
In your own school, town or city.
2. Create a display in your school or place of work about children and the Candlelight
Vigils. Do collages, posters, sculptures, paintings, photos ... be creative.
3. We are creating a giant children's mural with posters about a world where 'kids come
first.' Make posters 1'x1' on tag board, then connect 4 "of yam to each re- enforced
corner and tie them together. Bring to the State Capitol Vigil or make your own.
4. Learn the official vigil song, ' !n Our Hands' and sing it everywhere to invite people to
the vigil.
5. Write to us and request our five -part World Summit for Chiloren lesson plan.
6. Make a giant candle out of recycled materials that serves as a mailbox for receiving
and letters and poetry to local, national and world leaders. Read the most powerful
at your vigil.
7. Write letters to your local papers to bring attention to your vigil and to the World
Summit for Children.
8. Be an endorser of the Candlelight Vigil. Complete and return the enclosed form.
9. Write a postcard to President Bush and urge him to be an active leader for children at
the Summit. Address: President George Bush, The White House, Washington, DC
20500.
10. Have a school or town assembly, show the World Summit Video, have a local child
advocate spP,aker and Inspire everyone to take action. Let people share their
feelings and thoughts about this remarkable opportunity.
11. Have students invite their -rents to take them to the vigil. Remember it's a Sunday
afternoon.
12. Invite local businesses and service organizations to sponsor your vigil and participate
in planning and promoting the event.
13. Set up a speakers bureau and have trained speakers gn to other classes, schools
and communities to get more people involved.
14. Have a dance, bakesale, auction or a kids festival to raise funds for your vigil.
15. Set up different events to focus on the Children's Vigil week topics:
Mon., Sept. 17: Children's Health
Tues., Sept. 18: Child Poverty
Wed., Sept. 19: Child Homelessness
Thur., Sept. 20: Preschool Education
is Fri., Sept 21: High School Education
(Photocopy this side before returning the response form.) I ? i M
424 ys
Response Form
Please complete the following form and return to:
Minnesota Children's Candlelight Vigil
1605 Eustis Street
St. Paul, MN 55108
(612) 646 -7579
Attn: Action Response
Name of School/Town /City
Address
(ZIP)
Phone
Contact Person
Phone L
Check all that apply:
We will send a delegation to the vigil at the State Capitol.
Estimated number of people: is
Bring banners, logo T- shirts, posters, etc.
We will endorse the Candl0ght Vigil. Please list our name with other endorsers.
We will organize our own vigil at our school or community.
We will help spread the word. Please send us:
World Summit 'Video Tape' (3 minute and 8 minute segments)
_ Music and Words for 'In Our Hands', the official song of the candlelight vigils
We will make a tax deducible financial contribution of the following amount:
$25.00, $50.00_ $100.00_ Other $
Make checks payable to'C.H.S.M Candlelight Vigil'
From the ust of ideas on the reverse side, here's what we're planning to do:
•
Ott 4f
Star Tribune
Established 1867 Roger Parkinson Publisher and President
Joel R. Kromer Executive Editor
Thn J. McGuire Managing Editor
Robert J. White Editorial Editor
14A .
•
•
Saturday /July 28/1990
A big kiss for children
Next fall, children will get a big buss from politi-
cians. So what's new? Plenty, or what could be.
The occasion is the world summit for children,
billed as the largest gathering ever of world leaders
meeting for a single, common purpose. With kids
the focus of attention, the summit could also be
the greatest photo opportunity ever. But because
children are at stake, it must be more. This meet-
ing could launch a new era in which old East -West
or North -South divisions are superseded by con-
sensus that the world's little citizens deserve its big
citizens' best shot.
poverty remain intractable problems.
World leaders need to acknowledge those prob-
lems in order to agree, individually and collective-
ly, to fix them. For maximum effect, that agree-
ment will need two key signatories: Presidents
Bush and Gorbachev. The two countries that fi-
nanced the Cold War must now agree that children
have first claim on their resources. Bush joined
other Western leaders at the recent summit in
Houston in expressing his interest in attending,
but has not made a commitment. Gorbachev also
has expressed ;merest, but ma .:o commitment.
Scheduled for Sept. 29 and 30 under United Na-
tions auspices in New York, the summit agenda
will highlight the new U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child, now up for ratification by
individual countries. Expect heartfelt words about
its merits. But ratifying the convention will require
national soul- searching. In addit on to setting
min;:num standards for health and education, the
convention seeks to protect children from abuse
and exploitation at home, at work and during war.
That's controversial for poor countries where child
labor is routine, and for warring countries where
children are sometimes cannon fodder. It's also
embarrassing for richer countries, such as the
United States, where infant mortality and child
Neither leader should miss this political opportu-
nity. In this case, good politics can also produce
quick results. Experience has shown, for example,
that when national leaders personally stress the
importance of immunization, more parents partic-
ipate. UNICEF estimates that with a little more
money and a lot more political emphasis, in-
creased immunization, oral- rehydration therapy,
antibiotics and family planning could save 50
million of the 150 million children who will other-
wise die in the next decade. There's no excuse for
not spending political capital to save those lives.
There is no better place to lay out that budget than
at the children's summit.
Candlelight vigil
from "
Thank you for your July 28 editorial,
that came to mind — more than 60
readers t
heads of state gathering to discuss the
minimum standards for the care of
their country's children — was a
hopeful one indeed.
Children are the w Ad's No. I re-
source. They're also on.- of the first
Tuesday /August 21/1990 t
to pay whenever society compro-
mises their basic needs and rights.
To show support for the World Sum -
mit and its intent. candlelight vigils
will occur around the world Sept. 21. �0
The local event will be at the st
Capitol in St. Paul at 5 p.m. - (over)
Endorsing Organizations
Children's Home Society
Children's Defense Fund
Returned Peace Corps Volunteers
United Nations Association of Minnesota
Jewish Family and Children's Services of Minneapolis
Youth At Risk
Uganda Project
Second Harvest St. Paul Foodbank
MELD
Global Volunteers
Twin Cities Friends Meeting
44th District DFL
Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches
Children's Heart Fund
Community Clinic Consortium
Children's Museum
Skiers Ending Hunger
March of Dimes- Greater Twin Cities Chapter
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota
PICA Headstart
Resources for Chid Caring
Emergency Foodshelf Network
U.S. Committee for Unicef
Neighborhood Involvement Program
SL Paul Youth Service Bureau
Family Alternatives Inc.
YMCA - Minneapolis
Ramsey Action Program/Head Start
MN Healthy Modws/Healthy Babies
Adults and Children Alliance
Merrick Community Services
Success By Sbc
Centro Cultural Chicano Inc.
Intn'I Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture
Title Sponsor
IDS Financial Services, Inc.
Grand Metropolltan/PAtsbury
Major Sponsors
Bigelow Foundation
St. Paul Foundation
Sponsors
Land O'Lakes
University of Minnesota Film Society
Minute -Man Press
Spartan Promotions
Minnesota Suburban Publication
Hoyt Company
Raven Corporation
Vaughn Communications
Naegle Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
C.
•
•
otter/
(over)
Ll�
*flight o condk
air �' •.
ltrtirrcof cfiddmn
arrvrr�irrc'
•
•
SEPTEMBER 23 • 1990
a Big
Candleli(34,t Vigils
in observmce of
World Summit for Children
SOME GOALS FOR MINNESOTA CHILDREN IN THE 1990'S
For the following goals to become reality, more than government programs and assistance is required. Parents,
communities, non -profit organizations, schools, religious communities, governments and children must all work together
and take responsibility to empower our children, and to make children's needs a Minnesota priority for the 1990's.
Child Health
PROBLEM: 150,000 Minnesota children not eligible for Children's Health Plan or Medical
Assistance have no health insurance coverage of any kind, and many children go
without routine preventive and primary care. Immunizations we falling, preventable
childhood diseases are rising, and medical costs are putting severe strains on
families with children.
GOAL: Provide affordable comprehensive health coverage to all Minnesota children by 1991.
GOAL Expand Children's Health Plan to include hospitalization.
Child Poverty
PROBLEM: In 1985, 1 in 6 Minnesota children lived in poverty, a 60% increase since 1960. In
those 5 years, Minnesota's ranking among states fell from 4th to 16th. The fastest
growing group among the homeless are children. Most poor children live with
someone who wor s, but the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, and does
not let a b •rl time worker keep a family of 3 out of poverty. Many poor children are on
AFDC whicrr, unlike social security, has fallen far behind inflation and by 1989 put a
family of three 33% below poverty.
GOAL: Raise Minnesota's minimum waste to 55.45 an hour by 1993, enough to keep the
spouse and child of a full -time worker out of poveLN.
GOAL: Increase the buying powar of the major children's income support program. AFDC, to
th poverty line by 1995. and Index it to inflation thereafter.
Early Childhood Development
PROBLEM: There is inadequate access to high quality, affordable child care and early childhood
developement programs even though child care and early childhood education
improve children's ability to achieve in school and work successfully as adults. In
Minnesota, Head Start is available to only 1 in 4 preschoolers who quality and need it.
There are fewer than 4 places available in full time licensed child care for every 10
children under 6 -years -old needing child care. Only 32% of the low income families
meeting the guidelines for Minnesota Child Care Sliding Fee program can be served.
GOAL: Serve all Head Start eligible children by 1995.
GOAL: Serve all children needing help from the Child Care Sliding Fee program.
GOAL. Im prove Parent Education /Family Support programs, and encourage parents to
ar ici ate i n these programs.
A
1605 Eustis street Saint Paul, ?AN 55108 ?`take [)orations to (. F{ � M Candlelit ht Vigils f,tti �79
Hunger/Inadequete Nutrition
PROBLEM: As child poverty prows. Bald hunger prows loo. Food shelf use contirhues to soar,
and a recent survey In Hennepin County found that 377M of low inoorm households •
with children experienced eevere hunger. WIC (Vftnhen, YManb. Children Special
Supplemental Food Program), which grows strong brains through food and health
care for pregnant women and preschoolers, is unable to serve 25% of to children
eligible in Minnesota.
GOAL- Eliminate Child Hunger by 1995.
- Serve all WIC eligible children by 1995.
AM schools that serve lunch to serve breakfast by 1995.
- Expand educational efforts concerning child nutrition.
Expand educational efforts oonceming Food Share.
Child Maltreatment
PROBLEM: Substantiated cases of child maltreatment (physical or sexual abuse or neglect) rose
On in Minnesota between 1982 and 19&7, and continue to rise. As child poverty and
single- parent families grow, the stress on families is becoming more serious and
long -form. Minnesota makes very few efforts toward maltreatment prevention even
though children at risk can often be identified from the day toy are bom.
GOAL Create comprehensive community -wide child abuse prevention effort$ in we
Minnesota community by 1993, khdudim oarent education.
Family Support and Development /Peer Support
PROBLEM: Teen : The number of teen deaths from suicide increased 100 percent
between 1970 and 1989.
PROBLEM. 2N A PLg": Nearly one -third of to students in junior and senior high report that
they use alcohol at least monthly. We are seeing regular alcohol use in children as
young as 12 year-olde. Sevenleen percent of our seniors in high school report
regular marijuana use, and two to five percent report regular use of speed,
amphetamines, cocaine, or crack.
PROBLEM: Teenage Preanancv: In 1987,1,&56 babies were bom to teenage mothers in
Minnesota. Fifteen yearolds showed the highest increase in births of any adolescent
age group between 1901 and 1986.
GOAL Exoand family support services and teenage peer support groups (a safe place
where teens can talk to leensl to s000mplish the following goals•
Reduce the Incidence of teen suicide 50% by 1995.
Reduce teenage drug abuse 507E by 1995.
Educate the Public about the serious consequences of children having children
- Educate an empower teensoers of both sexes to make healthy r
hoice .
•
45.3
Come and shine a light
� on the needs of children
Sunday, September 23, 1990
-----
•
I1
World Summit for Children
Minnesota State Capitol Grounds -- St. Paul
Family Activities: 5 -- 7 p.m.
Candlelight Vigil: 7:00
F For information or to volunteer: 646 - 7579 '2 �.� ----]
in observance of
L a candle for the future of children rywher�i
The Opportunity:
On September 23. on the grounds d the State Capitol, an event wN take place that will make a
slgnWcant d1lerence In the well-being d the world's children. You can be a part d this.
Why are there Candlelight Vigils?
LM February, U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar announced a World Surmtk for Often
to be catverted Sept 29 and 30 at the United Nations. So far 60 Pleads d State have co milted to
attend the summit. Including President George Bush, rnaldng this the largest summit In the history d
the world. For two days the world leaders will discuss the rights of children to a hedit, drug4res,
clean, peaceful and secure world. and ea*leador has been urged to determine whet objectives to
meet for children In their own cow".
To focus attention to this Summit and to own leaders will be aware that the cktww of their cgx>friea
will no longer tolerate poor conditions for gWrp% Candidight Vigils will be held throughout the world
on Sunday. Sept 23. Beginning in Austr* ",Wwft around the globe, these vlgs will
demonstrate public demand for action on0te needs of children. Cure*. over 100 vigils are
scheduled I1 36 countries, with over 250 v "uled throughout the United Staten.
The Minnesota Children's Candlell6k vigil:
This is when you come In. Mn site fcRthe MRutssota V41111 will! be the State Capitol grounds in
SL Paul. The program starts of 5:o0 p4L .. . Ouslc, done* and adivlNes for ddldren and youth,
and culminates with the Ughting of co 30 p.m. More than 10.000 chUdnrr and aduhs
are expected to attend the Minnesota V)gll.`.. ng the Minnesota Vigil one of the largest vigh
world-wide.
This historic event will not happen withoi
you belong are urged to attend the Minn
espec4.ny brig your children. And light
United States and for the children of the
For further )nfomiation, or to sponsor
Ten Basic Facts
I. In 1988 more than 12 million American children vvr
trends continue, by the year 2(00, one in four will
2. h 1968 the United Sates ranked nineteenth In the
Infants Immunized against poi's.
3. The United States spends less on elementary and
ratio of students to teachers than 18 other nations,
4. America's future work force Is shrinking. In the ysi
there were In the 1980's • a decline of 14%.
5. One-ha)f of all preschoolere have mothers In the w
Head Start serves only one In five eligible preacho
responds to the child care crisis.
6. Between 9 million and 12 million American child(#
insurance.
7. Hag a million children drop out of school in Amj
8. In INC 2.2 million American children wort ropgte
9. The U.S. teen pregnancy rate is twice as high as 0
pregnant, and one In five bears a child before e
10. Help for families struggling against this rising 3e
1970 and 1989, federal help for elementsry and se
Income housing assistance Is down by 76 percent
)
('Ten Basic Facts About American Children' is
You as an individual or the organization to which
Bring your family, brig your friends, and
for the children of Minnesota. for the children d the
f i�R
cf to this eveM col �t the Vigil Office at 646.7579.
*',t erican Children
e
In awry live Nnerk an children eves In porerty. a recant
gQ i mortality and fdteenth in t world In Ow proportion of
education that 13 other Industrlalited natlons and has a higher
We p ill be 4.1 million fewer young adult (ages 18 to 24) than
;ryr the year 2000 the figure will earl se
rise to nearly seven In 10. Yet
real has failed to enact a comprehensive program that
than 14 million women of childbearing age, haw no health
or both.
led countries. Two In flue American girls get
Is shrinking. AFDC benefrt fell by nearly 40 percent between
lucatipn Is down by more than 22 percent since 1979, and low-
Defense Fund.)
•
•
•
�� cc
Jvv7
• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MOUND, MN.
NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of Mound will meet
in the Sc hool District Board Room, at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., on
Wednesday, September 12, 1990, to consider a public improvement
project to acquire and construct xunicipal parking to serve the
Central Business district, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.011
to 429.111. The areas to be acquired and constructed lie within
the Central Business District and are described as follows:
North Boundary - Lynwood Blvd.
West Boundary - 700' West of Commerce Blvd.
South Boundary - 700' South of Shoreline Drive
East Boundary - Belmont Lane
The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement are all
parcels in the Central Business District Parking Program. The
estimated cost of such improvement is $350,000. Of this total
amount a minimum of $175,000 is being proposed to be assessed.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed
improvement will be heard at this meeting.
. Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
Publish in The Laker August 27, 1990 & September 3, 1990
•
%9 4rd
McCombs Frank Roos Assa:iates, Inc.
Preliminary Engineering Report
for
Acquisition and Improvements
Of
CBD Parking Lot
for
The City of Mound, Minnesota
August, 1990
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
•
•
•
���� tc(tc� ��.,; G. ": �'v �f.. •nq ',75544 Tpinpn7 ^aE'2 A7F,fyn. .
17
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR
ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS
OF
CBD PARKING LOTS
CITY OF MOUND. MINNESOTA
August, 1990
•
a?4s$
INTRODUCTION
preparation of this
•
The City Council of the City of Mound ordered the p p
Feasibility Report by Resolution No. 90 -90. on August 14. 1990. This report
will involve the acquisition and improvement of public parking facilities in
the Central Business District (CBD) and complies with Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429 for public improvements financed in part by special assessments.
•
is
OuSq
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to present the City Council with an
examination of the feasibility of the proposed public improvement project. To
better understand the project is necessary to give scme background into the
operation of the present Central Business District. The CBD was organized
about 1969 or 1970 as a result of a joint effort between the City and business
community, primarily to solve a parking problem in the downtown area.
According to the records available. land was purchased. leases signed with
Burlington Northern for the three areas in question and most of the lots were
paved. In the fall of iwi, these expenses were znen assessca w ..+.V
benefiting businesses, according to a formula that is still in use today. Much
time and effect was originally put into this formula so that all the subject
properties were treated in a fair and equitable manner. Each subsequent year,
this same formula has been used to spread and assess the cost of the previous
year's CBD expenses, including rent of the railroad property under lease.
This section of the Burlington Northern Railroad was sold in 1985. to Mr.
Jerry Ross. who formed a new railroad called Dakota Rail. Approximately one
year ago. the present owner. Mr. Mills. purchased the line from bankruptcy
court. The present lease for the property on which the parking lots are
located expires September 15. 1990. Over the years. the cost for leasing the
railroad property has gone from CBD paying 100% by the assessment process, to
the City paying 1/3 of the rental in 1989•
The City has been negotiating with Mr. Mills for the past year to try and
come up with either a new lease agreement or a purchase price which would be
equitable to both the City and CBD.
4440
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Enclosed with this report is a map of the CBD which shows the three parking 0
lots discussed in the report. The area north of the railroad tracks, in rronz
of and adjacent to the Coast to Coast, will be referred to as the North Lot for
purposes of this report. The parking lot south of the tracks and north of
Lynwood Boulevard. between Belmont Lane and First Minnesota, is identified as
the South Lot. The third parcel. located west of Commerce Boulevard between
the railroad tracks and the attorney's office, will be called the West Lot.
The North Lot is comprised of approximately 20,900 square feet that is
presently paved and used as an improved parking lot in conjunction with
property owned by Phil Lansing and Mike Mueller. The remaining area of the
North Lot, also approximately 20.900, is unimproved, even though some of it is
also used for parking. The improved portion of the lot was initially paved in
1970 and has been maintained by CBD since that time.
The South Lot contains approximately 40.700 square feet. of which 34,410 is
presently paved and under lease and 6.250 square feet that comprises the
landscaped area between the lot and the tracks. This property contains a
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) Lift Station, at the intersection
of Belmont and Shoreline Boulevard (County Road No. 15). Two forcemains also
run the full length under the parking lot and beneath the drive -thru teller of
First Minnesota and across Commerce Boulevard.
The West Lot is a paved, 35 -foot wide access, running from Commerce
Boulevard westerly to serve the parking lot of the attorney's building and also
the CBD lot to the west. The two MWCC forcemains are also located under this
paved lot.
These parking lots have served as a critical part of the downtown
businesses over the past 20 years. To eliminate them from the CBD would be
devastating to those businesses which do not have enough property to provide
their own parking. For these reasons, it was felt that these parking lots
should remain under control of the CBD and the City of Mound. is
utl
:OSTS
The City Manager and City Attorney have been negotiating with Mr. Mills for
the past few months and have arrived at a tentative purchase price. which will
be used for this report. Of course. this purchase will have to be approved by
the City Council. which is one reason for this report. An Option to Purchase,
in the amount of 1265.000.00. has been prepared which includes all three lots
previously described. Also included in the agreement is a lease agreement in
the amount of 52.000.00Jmonth. running from September 15. 1990 to February 1.
1990. If both parties meet the requirements of the option and the Froperty is
purchased. then up to (5.000.00 would be credited against the purchase price.
A second alternate is also included in this report which would eliminate
the west lot and reduce the purchase price to 1240.000.00. Other costs need to
be added to these purchase prices, such as improvements, engineering. legal and
administrative costs and bonding costs. Enclosed. as Exhibit A. is a breakdown
of the costs of each alternative proposed to be assessed. The $35.000.00 shown
as improvements are for paving the remainder of the north lot, minor repairs to
existing blacktop and seal coating.
11
d2i4A
PROPOSED ASSESSMD S
From all previous discussions, it has been the City's position that 50% of
the cost of the project is proposed, to be paid by the City and 50% would be
assessed. City Staff and myself have spent considerable time examining the
present formula used for assessing CBD maintenan ^,e each year and have come to
the conclusion that it should also be used for this assessment, wi a few
minor adjustments. The properties providing parking spaces would be given
credit under Item No. 3 on the enclosed proposed assessment. instead of a lease
credit as is done on the normal CBD maintenance assessment.
Enclosed as Exhibit B and C are the proposed assessment using the total
costs described in Alternate A and B. These assessments are proposed to be
spread over the next fifteen years at an 8% interest rate. If the
recommendations for assessments contained in this report are followed. a
mid -level assessment of $6,000.00 would result in yearly payments as shown on
Exhibit D.
Also enclosed. as Exhibit E. is a chart showing a 15 -year payment schedule
for a $100.00 assessment. To figure the yearly payments for an individual
assessment, divide the total assessment by 100 and multiply that figure by the
yearly payment on a $100.00 assessment, as shown on Exhibit E.
•
a6L3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
49 As previously mentioned in this report, we believe that these parking lots
are a critical ingredient of the downtown businesses and should be retained in
the present CBD system. It is also important that the City and, therefore,
it's residents. be ar. integral part of this project by sharing in the cost and
acting as the regulatory agency.
It is our opinion that this project is feasible and can best be
accomplished as described herein.
•
•
2t6 y
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
CBD PARKING LOTS
MFRA #8294
ALTERNATE NO. A
Land Cost
Improvements
Engineering, Legal.
Administrative Cost (12X)
Bonding Cost
TOTAL
A LTERNATE NO. B
Land Cost
Improvements
Engineering, Legal,
Administrative Cost (12X)
Bonding Cost
TOTAL
S 265,000
35.E
35.000
15,000
S 350,000
33.E
12,000
S 320,000
is
•
•
A tis
EXHIBIT A
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
17MM Coo Lot ACQUISITION
% OF
% OF
1989
% OF
COST
COST
COST
CUST.
PARK.
EMP.
PARK. SPACES
TOTAL
TOTAL MARKET
TOTAL
x .7
x .1S
x .1S
(1001+12)
REO'0.
REQfD
PROV. (142
-3) OF (4)
FRONT OF (6)
VALUE OF (8)
x (5)
x (7)
x (9)
6
8.5
2.09
100.00
S.13
239000
6.26
2564.66
1347.56
1644.02
SSS6.24
13- 11T -24 33 0066
FIRST MINNESOTA
8
6.5
2.71
50.00
2.ST
133100
3.49
3318.97
673.73
915.56
4908.31
14- 117 -24 K 0001
SNYOER DRUG
19
2
10
11.0
20.0
4.93
96.40
S.05
119000
3.12
6031.48
1326.00
818.57
8179.06
14- 117 -24 K 0002
MEISELOS
16
4
0
34.0
8.37
50.00
2.57
313500
8.22
10258.62
673.78
2156.49
13088.89
14- 117 -24 K 0003
SNERWRNE BUILDING
40
10
16
7.27
51.60
2.6S
141500
3.71
8900.86
695.34
973.34
10569.55
14 -117 -24 K 0004
KOENIQ
24
5.5
0
29.S
0.00
50.00
2.57
26200
0.69
0.00
673.78
180.22
854.01
14- 117 -24 K 0006
SIERBRRRNE PARKING
0
0
0
0.0
2.59
50.00
2.57
63000
1.65
3168.10
673.78
433.36
4275.2S
13- 117 -24 33 0008
- =DEN BLDG-
10
5.5
5
1 !
10.5
11.58
95.00
4.88
400000
10.48
14181.03
1280.19
2751.50
16212.72
13- 117 -24 33 OOOS
HOUSE Of MOT
30
22
17.0
1.60
SO.00
2.5 7
81200
2.13
1961.21
675.78
S58 .SS
3193.51
13- 117 -24 33 0006
CURTIf dORIMSON
8
7.5
9
6.5
3.69
12S.00
6.42
124 600
3.27
4525.86
1684.45
857.09
7067.41
13- 117 -24 33 0076
CENTURY AUTO
12
6
3
Is.O
6.16
100.00
5.13
160100
.2
I
1347.56
it01.
9941.96
13- 117 -24 33 0011
POST OFFICE
16
19
10
25.0
1.46
23.50
1.21
00
480.26
1 6
1 ILDING
1810.38
BM%
316.68
18
330.18
2457.20
13- 117 -24 33 0014
KEN PERBIx W
4
2
0
6.0
0.00
85.10
4.37
TSSOO
1.96
0.00
1146.78
5/9.35
1666.12
13- 117 -24 33 OOtS
LAUER
9
2
11
0.0
1.35
62.00
3.18
88800
2.32
1669.48
835.49
608.08
3103.05
13- 117-24 33 0016
LAUGPRE
7.5
3
S
S.5
3.06
74.00
3.80
58800
1.54
3771.53
W7.20
404.47
5173.22
13- 117 -24 33 0017
LONGPRE
7.5
5
0
12.5
0.00
70.00
3.59
15000
0.39
o.00
943.29
103.18
1046.48
14- 117 -24 K 0046
MONGER'S
0
0
0
0.0
7.S1
66.66
3.42
178900
4.69
9202.
898.29
1230.61
8
1 -55
13- 117 -24 33 0077
(OAST TO COAST
37
10.5
17
30.5
0.00
207.91
10.67
387400
10.15
0.000 0
2801.72
2664.83
% 5466. 5
"
13- 117 - 24 33 0073
TOIIKA REST
40
15
55
0.0
10.34
58.00
2.96
224800
5.89
12672.41
781.59
1546.34
15000.34
14- 117 -24 K 0036
BEN FRANKLIN
36
6
0
42.0
3.69
32.50
1.67
85800
2.25
4525.86
437.96
590.20
5554.02
14.117-24 K 0037
RUSTIQUE
11
4
0
15.0
0.99
112.00
5.75
51000
1.34
1206.90
iS09.27
350.62
3066.96
14- 117 -24 K 0038
WAYZATA DANK
10
0
6
4.0
7.14
40.00
2.05
153500
4.02
8750.00
539.03
10SS.89
10344.91
14-117-24 K 0039
WEST. SPORTS
26
3
0
29.0
0.12
50.00
2.57
171100
4.48
150.86
673.78
1176.95
2001.60
14- 117 -24 K 0041
ROENIG
KOENI
9
7.5
16
0.5
3.
27.00
1.39
96000
2.S2
39M.41
363.84
660.36
4946.62
14- 117.24 K 0042
ME
1T
0
4
13.0
0.74
29.30
1.50
65900
1.73
905.17
3%.88
453.31
1753.32
13-117 -24 33 0047
DENTAL (BORG)
4
6
7
3.0
3.45
80.00
4.11
10SS00
2.76
4M4.14
1078.05
725.71
6027.90
13- 117 -24 33 0049
BIG A
BI
1S
10
11
14.0
3.20
60.00
3.08
101300
2.65
3922.41
808.54
696.82
5427.77
13- 117.24 33 0050
GNOLD A. LINGOlIIST
REYNO
15
2
4
13.0
49.99
2.57
108000
2.83
3318.97
673.65
742.91
4735.S2
13-117 -24 33 0082
LODGE
14
3
6
11.0
2.71
206
406.0
100.00
1947.96
100.00
3816100
100.00
122500.00
26250
26250
175000.00
KS
167
lb
EXHIBIT
3
9 0 MMISIT C 0
160000 CBD LOT ACQUISITION
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(S)
(6)
(7)
(a)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
LUST.
EMP.
% OF
1< OF
1989
% OF
COST
COST
COST
PARK.
PARK.
SPACES
TOTAL
TOTAL
MARKET
TOTAL
x .7
x .15
x AS
REO'D.
REQ #D
PROV.
(1.2 -3)
OF (4)
FRONT
OF (6)
VALUE
OF (8)
x (5)
x (7)
x (9)
(10+11 *12)
13- 117 -24 33 0066
FIRST MINNESOTA
8
6.S
6
8.S
2.04
100.00
S.13
239000
6.26
2344.83
1232.06
1503.11
5079.99
14- 117 -24 " 0001
SNYDER DRUG
19
2
10
11.0
2.7
50.00
2.57
133100
3.49
3034.48
616.03
837.08
4487.60
14 - 117 - " 0002
MEISELRS
16
4
0
20.0
4.93
98.40
S.05
119000
3.12
S517.24
1212.35
748.41
7477.99
14 117 - 24 44 0003
SNERSURNE BUI`01NK'
40
10
16
34.0
8.37
SG.00
2.57
313500
8.22
9379.31
616.03
1971.65
11966.99
14 117 - 24 k 0004
KOENIG
24
5.9
0
29.S
7.27
51.60
2.65
141500
3.71
8137.93
635.74
889.91
9663.59
14- 117 -24 K 0006
SNERBURNE PARKING
0
0
0
0.0
0.00
50.00
2.57
26200
0.69
0.00
616.03
164.78
780.80
13- 117 -24 3S 0004
CODOEM BLDG.
10
5.5
5
10.5
2.59
50.00
2.57
63000
1.65
2896.55
616.03
396.22
3908.80
13- 117 -74 33 0005
ROUSE OF MOT
30
22
5
47.0
11.58
95.00
4.88
400000
10.48
12965.52
1170.46
2315.66
16651.63
13- 117 -24 33 0006
CLORTIS JOHW -=
a
7.5
9
6.5
1.60
50.00
2.S7
81200
2.13
1793.10
616.03
510.68
2919.81
13- 117-24 33 0076
CENTURY AUTO
12
6
3
15.0
3.69
125.00
6.42
124600
3.27
4137.93
1540.07
783.63
6461.63
13- 117 -24 33 001'
POST OFFICE
16
19
10
25.0
6.16
100.00
5.13
160100
4.20
6896.55
1232.06
1006.89
9135 -SO
13 - 7 -24 33 0014
KEN PERBIX BUILDING
4
2
0
6.0
1.48
23.50
1.21
48000
1.26
1655.17
289.53
VIM
2246.50
13- 117 -24 33 0015
LAUER
9
2
11
0.0
0.00
05.10
4.37
75500
1.96
0.00
1048.48
474.83
/S23.31
13- 117'-c1 33 0016
LONGPRE
7.5
3
5
S.5
1.3S
62.00
3.18
88400
2.32
1517.24
763.88
SSS.96
2037.08
13- 117 -24 33 0017
!OMGPRE
7.5
5
0
12.5
3.06
74.00
3.00
58800
1.54
3448.28
911.72
369.80
4729.80
14- 117 -24 44 0046
MEISEV $
0
0
0
0.0
0.00
70.00
3.S9
iS000
0.39
0.00
862.44
94.34
956.78
13- 117 -24 33 0077
COAST TO CORSI
37
10.5
17
30.S
7.51
66.66
3.42
178900
4.69
8413.79
821.29
1125.13
10360.21
13- 117 -24 33 0073
TONKA WEST
40
15
55
0.0
0.00
207.91
10.67
387400
10.15
0.00
2561.57
2436.41
4997.99
14- 117 -24 44 0036
BEN FRANKLIN
36
6
0
42.0
10.34
s'� - A
2.%
224800
5.89
11586.21
714.S9
1413.80
13714.60
14- 117 -24 44 0037
RUSTIQUE
11
4
0
15.0
3.69
' : :.i0
1.67
85800
2.25
4137.93
400.42
539.61
5077.96
14- 117 -24 44 0038
WAYZATA BANK
10
6
6
4.0
G.99
1•:.00
5.75
51000
1.34
1103.45
1379.91
320.75
2804.10
14- 117 -24 44 0039
WEST. SPORTS
26
3
0
29.0
7.14
40.00
2.0S
153500
4.02
8000.00
492.82
965.38
94SS -21
14- 117 -24 44 0041
KOENIG
9
7.5
16
0.5
0.12
50.00
2.57
171100
4.48
137.93
616.03
1076.07
1830.03
14- 117 -24 M 0042
NETKA
17
0
4
13.0
3.20
I7.00
1.39
96000
2.S2
3586.21
332.66
603.76
4522.62
13- 117 -24 33 0047
WEST. DENTAL (BORG)
4
6
7
3.0
0.74
29.30
1.50
65900
1.73
827.59
360.99
414.45
1603.03
13- 117 -24 33 0049
BIG A
/5
10
11
14.0
3.45
80.00
4.11
105500
2.76
3862.07
985.65
663.50
5511.22
13- 117 -24 33 0050
REYNOLD A. L)NGOUIST
15
2
4
13.0
3.20
60.00
3.08
101300
2.65
3506.21
759.23
637.09
4962.53
13- 117 -24 33 0082
MOUND LODGE
14
3
6
11.0
2.71
49.99
2.57
108000
2.83
3034.48
615.91
67923
4329.62
445
167
206
406.0
100.00
1947.96
100.00
3816100
100.00
112000.00
24000
24000
160000.00
9 0 MMISIT C 0
0 CITY OF MOUND
CBD ASSESSMENT ROLL
MID LEVEL ASSESSMENT
$6000 - 15 YEARS
6000
PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL
1992
400
600
1009
1993
400
448
848
1994
400
416
816
1995
400
384
784
1996
400
352
752
1997
400
320
720
1998
400
288
688
1999
400
256
656
2000
400
224
624
2001
400
192
592
2002
400
160
560
2003
400
128
•528
2004
400
96
496
2005
400
64
464
2006
400
32
432
TOTAL
6000
3960
9960
•
EXHIBIT D
accg
CITY 0 j
CBD ASSES$NT ROLL
.1
$100,SESSMENT
$100 - 15 YEARS
100
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
i.
t
1992 , 6.'67 10.00
1993 ;6.67 7.47
1994 6.96 6.93
1995 6.67 6.40
1996 6.67 5.87
1997 6.66 • 5.33
1998 6.67 4.80
1999 6.67 4.27
2000 6.66 3.73
2001 6.67 3.20
2002 6.67 2.67
2003 6.66 2.13
2004 6.67 1.60
2005 6.67 1.07
2006 6.66 0.53
TOTAL 100.00 66.00
r
TOTAL
16.67
14.14
13.59
13.07
12.54
11.99
11.47
10.94
10.39
9.87
9.34
8.79
8.27
7.74
7.19
166.00
•
•
•
244 0
EXHIBIT E
LEASE EXTENSION AND OPTION TO PURCHASE
THIS AGREEMENT, Made this day of , 1990, by and
between Dakota Rail, Inc., a corporation (Seller), and
the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Buyer) .
Seller, for itself, its successors and assigns, being the present
owner of the tract of land hereinafter described, and in consideration of
the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) paid by Buyer, receipt of which payment is
hereby acknowledged, does hereby confer upon Buyer, its successors and
assigns, an exclusive option to purchase the tract of land situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, the location of which is depicted as the shaded
area on Exhibits A and B attached hereto (Property) , on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth:
1. PURCHASE PRICE. Buyer may elect to purchase only the
property shown on Exhibit A, in which event the purchase price shall be Two
Hundred Forty Thousand and no /100 Dollars ($240,000.00), or Buyer may
purchase property shown on both Exhibits A and B, in which event the
purchase price shall be Two Hundred Sixty Five Thousand and no /100 Dollars
($265,000.00). The purchase price shall be payable in cash upon the
closing of the transaction, if the option is exercised by buyer.
2. TERM OF OPTION. This option shall be exercisable by Buyer
at any time, on or before the 30th day of September, 1990.
3. EXERCISE OF OPTION. In the event Buyer exercises this
option to purchase the Property, written notice thereof shall be given to
Seller by hand - delivering said notice or by mailing said notice to Seller by
certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Dakota Rail, Inc. at
the following address:
25 Adams Street North
Hutchinson, MN 55350
4. EARNEST MONEY. At time of exercise of option, Buyer shall
pay Seller, as earnest money, the sum of Five Thousand and no /100 Dollars
($5,000.00), which shall be credited against the purchase price.
5. LEASE EXTENSION. Seller hereby extends the expiration
date of the existing lease agreement with Buyer for the Property shown on
Exhibit A (or on both Exhibits A and B at option of Buyer) , from September
15, 1990, to February 1, 1991. Rental payments during the extension period
shall be $1,750.00 per month if Buyer elects to lease only the property
shown on Exhibit A, and $2,000.00 per month if Buyer elects to also lease the
property shown on Exhibit B. Except as modified by this paragraph, the
terms and conditions of the existing lease agreement shall remain
unchanged.
6. CREDIT FOR RENT PAYMENTS. ' additional credit to said
purchase price, if Buyer exercises the w,.hin option and closes the
transaction on or before December 1, 1990, there shall be deducted from the
purchase price all rental payments made during the extended term of the
lease referred to at paragraph 5 above. If the transaction is closed after
December 1, 1990, credit shall be allowed to Buyer only for the pro -rated
d2 i 70
portion of rent paid in advance which is allocable to the period following
the date of closing.
7. TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. Seller represents tie
Buyer that it believes the Property to be free from any toxic or hazardous
substances or wastes or pollutants or contaminants as those to -ms are
defined under Federal and State law ( Hazardous Waste). Seller further
represents and warrants to Buyer that it has never placed any Hazardous
Waste upon the Property, and has no knowledge of any Hazardous Haste upon
the Property. Buyer or Buyer's representatives, employees, or agents
shall be entitled to conduct a Phase I Environmental Audit and such ether
tests or inspections as Buyer deems necessary or advisable to satisfy
itself that the soil or ground water on the Property is free from Hazardous
Waste. If the Property is found to contain Hazardous Waste, Buyer shall
have the option of terminating this agreement, in which event all earnest
money paid herein shall be refunded, and neither party shall have any
further obligation to the other.
g. MARKETABLE TITLE. Within thirty (30) days after notice
of the exercise of this option, Seller shall furnish to Buyer abstracts of
title or registered property abstracts to the Property, continued to date
with all usual and customary searches (or in lieu thereof, an Owner's Title
Insurance Commitment naming Buyer as proposed insured) after which Buyer
shall have thirty (30) days within which to determine the marketability of
title thereto and make objections thereto, if any. In the event that title
to the Property is found unmarketable and cannot be made marketable within
sixty (60) days of notice thereof to Seller, then this agreement, shall a
the option of Buyer, be void and the earnest money payments theretofore mad
shall be refunded to Buyer.
9. SURVEY. Buyer shall obtain, at its expense, a survey of
the Property, prepared and certified by a registered land surveyor. The
legal description prepared from such survey shall be used to convey the
Property to Buyer at closing. If the description to be used for the
conveyance of the Property results in the subdivision of an existing parcel
of land, Buyer shall be responsible for obtaining any approvals required by
the City of Mound, including waiver of subdivision ordinance requirements,
if necessary.
10. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. At the closing, Seller shall
deliver to Buyer a quit claim deed conveying marketable title, free from all
encumbrances, subject to the following exceptions:
a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, and regu-
lations.
b. Reservation of any minerals or mineral rights to
the State of Minnesota.
C. Utility, drainage and roadway easements to the
extent that they do not interfere with Buyer's
intended use of the property. 0
Awl
d. The lien of real estate taxes and installments of
special assessments, if any, and interest
thereon, payable in the year following the year of
closing.
11. PLACE OF CLOSING. The closing of said transaction, in the
event the within option is exercised by Buyer, shall take place at the
offices of Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood & Mertz, 1100 First Bank Place
lest, Minneapolis, Minnesota, or at such other location as shall be
mute -ally agreed upon by the parties.
12. POSSESSION OF PROPERTY. Upon closing, the immediate
possession of the Property shall be given to Buyer.
13. CLOSING DATE. If Buyer exercises this option, the
closing shall take place on or before February 1, 1991. If Buyer shall fail
to close on or before the aforementioned date, then Buyer shall forfeit to
Seller all sums theretofore paid, and Seller shall be discharged of all
obligations herein contained.
14. AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO EASEMENTS. It is understood
and ar:Teed, by and between the Seller and Buyer, that if Buyer _xercises the
Within :)ption and closes on the purchase of the Property, Seller shall also
convey to Buyer a utility easement over, under, and across that part �f
Seller's right -of -way, located in the City of Mound, which lies east of
Commerce Boulevard.
15. INDEMNIFICATION OF SELLER. Buyer shall indemnify and
hold harmless Seiler against and from any and all claims, including but not
limited to, mechanic's liens, by or on behalf of any person or persons, firm
or firms, corporation or corporations, arising from the conduct of or
management of or from any work or thing whatsoever done by Buyer, or Buyer's
officers, agents, employees, or contractors on or about the Property, or
arising from any act of negligence of the Buyer or Buyer's officers, agents,
employees, or contractors, on or about the Property, and from and against
all costs, attorneys' fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or about
any such claim or action or proceeding brought thereon; and in case any
action or proceeding is brought against Seller by reason of any such claim,
Buyer, upon notice from Seller, shall resist and defend such action or
proceeding.
16. SURVIVAL OF AGREEMENTS. The terms and conditions of this
agreement shall not be merged into the deed delivered hereto, but shall,
where applicable, survive the delivery of such deed from Seller to Buyer.
•
A470%
IN TESTIMONY h'HEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement on
the day and year first above written.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SELLER 0
Dakota Rail, Inc.
By— — --
Its
BUYER
City of Mound
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day
of , 1990, by , the
of Dakota Rail, Inc., a
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b- me this day
of --1 1990, by Steven L. Smith and Edward J. Shukle, Jr., the
Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
0
10l
..4r L � '1
Dakota
-1 —Rail,
'AovN of the Charging Butlslo'
August 24, 1990
Hug 27-yO 15:22 No.001 r.62
Tt E rn 4F I/
Inc.
FLORIDA OFFICE 801 West Say Drive. Suae 800. Largo. FL 34640 (81 585.4727
FAX: 1813) 585- 7781
Curtis A. Pearson, Esq.
Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood & Mertz, P.A.
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Dear Curt:
I am enclosing four executed copies of a revised Lease Extension
and Option to Purchase Agreement. When executed, I would
appreciate it if you would return two originals for my files.
I have made several revisions to the document you drafted. I have
highlighted some of the major changes below:
Paragraph 1: I've requested that you identify which parcels you
intend to purchase when you exercise the option to purchase.
Paragraph 5: The lease extension comes into effect only if you
exercise the option to purchase.
Paragraph 6: The credit for rent payment is for the period of 9/15
through 11/30; thereafter, there will be no credit for rental
payments against the purchase price.
Paragraph 7: I have modified this paragraph to represent that we
have no knowledge of hazardous substances, but you must rely on
your own inspections.
Paragraph 8: You will have to obtain title abstracts or insurance
at your own expense. We will have releases for the two mortgages
on the property (3M Corporation and Butler Manufacturing) at
closing and will be happy to show you a draft prior to closing. As
we discussed, Minnesota Title provided title insurance to the
Trustee in 1988, so I do not believe it will be a problem for you
to obtain an acceptable title insurance policy.
Paragraph 10: As I indicated to you in our discussion, we will
provide a quit claim deed only.
Paragraph 14: I believe this reflects our oral understanding that
we will convey the utility easement for the MWCC pipe on the right
Ott 7y
,ot -L;.M JCL "'.: - �o.7 rc3 1 -VQ 17 ;L1 NO.UUI F.
Mr. Curtis Pearson
August 24, 1990
Page 2
of way if, and only if, the City closes by the end of the calendar
year. '
Paragraph 18: The notice provision has both the Oppenheimer firm
and yourselves copied.
Paragraph 19: Please take note of subparagraph e. in which the
City acknowledges that Dakota Rail will be operating a rail line on
the right of way, that the use of the subject Property will not
interfere with rail operations, and that the City will not
Interfere with Dakota Rail's use of any of its right of way in the
City of Hound which is used for rail purposes. This refers to our
discussion of the siding we expect to put in west of Commerce on
our right of way.
Very truly yours,
Elli M. A. Mills
President
Cc: Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
Patrick McLaughlin, Esq.
Eric Nilsson, Esq.
EMAM :ec
•
J
•
X475
WrLOM LL. U l c[ �r0.UU1 t ".t'
0
LEASE EXTENSION AND OPTION TO PURCHASE
THIS AGRF.F.MENT Made this a day of «' ��,�990, by and between Dakota
Rail, Inc., 25 Adams Street North, Hutchinson, Minnesota 55.50, a South Dakota Corporation,
duly registered to conduct business in Minnesota (Seller), and the City of Mound, 5341
Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Buyer)
Seller, for itself, its successors and assigns, being the present owner of the tract of land
hereinafter described, and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) paid by Buyer,
receipt of which payment is hereby acknowledged, does hereby confer upon Buyer, its
successors and assigns, an exclusive option to purchase the tract of land situate in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, the lociJon of which is depicted as the shaded area on Exhibits A and B
attached hereto (Piupc:rty), un (lit: terins and conditions hereinafter set forth:
1. PURCHASE PRICE. Buyer may elect to purchase only the property shown on
Exhibit A, in which event the purchase price shall be Iwo Hundred Forty Thousand and no /100
Dollars ($240,000.00), or Buyer may purchase property shown on both ExNbits A and B, in
which event the purchase price shall be Two Hundred Sixty -Five Thousand and no /100 Dollars
($265,000.00). The purchase price shall be payable In cash, wire transfer, or cashier's check
upon the closing of the transaction, if the option Is exercised by Buyer. At the exercise of the
Option of Purchase, Buyer shall notify Seller as to which Property Buyer elects to purchase.
2. TERM OF OPTION. This option shall be exercisable by Buyer at any time, on
or before the 30th day of September, 1490.
3. EXERCISE OF OPTION. In the event Buyer exercises this option to purchase
the Property, notice thereof shall be given to Seller in accord with the terms and conditions of
paragraph 18 below.
4. EARNEST MONEY. At time of exercise of option, Buyer shall pay Seller, as
earnest money, the suns of Five Thousand and no /100 Dollars ($5,000.00), which shall be
credited against the purchase price.
5. LEASE EXTENSION. In the event Buyer exercises this option, Seller will extend
the expiration date of the Cxisling lease agreement with Buyer for the Property shown on Exhibit
A (or on both Exhibits A and B at option of Buyer), from September 15, 1990, to February 1,
1991. Rtnial naymems rlitrinr thr, rxtrn%inn prrind 011 hr, 51.710 W ltr mrnnth if Royrr elate
to lease only the property shown on Exhibit A, and $2,000.00 per month if Buyer elects to also
lease the property shown on Exhibit B. Except as modified by this paragraph, the terms and
conditions of the existing lease agreement shall remain unchanged.
6. CREDIT FOR RENT PAYMENTS. An additiona! credit to said purchase price,
• if Buyer exercises the within option and closes the transaction on or before December 1, 1990,
there shall be deducted from the purchase price all rental payments made during the extended
R`
terms of the lease referred to at paragraph S above. If the transaction Is closed after December •
I 1990, credit shall be allowed to Buyer only for the portion of rent paid from September 15,
1990 through November 30, 1990.
7. TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. Seller represents to Buyer that to
the best of its knowledge it has never placed any Hazardous Waste upon the Property, and that,
withou! duty or obligation of inquiry, it has no knowledge of any Hazardous Waste upon the
Property. Buyer or Buyer's representatives, employees, or agents shall be entitled, at its own
expense, to conduct a Phase i Environmental Audit and such other tests or inspections as Buyer
deems necessary or advisable to satisfy itself that the soil or ground water on the Property is free
from Hazardous Waste. If the Property is found to contain Hazardous Waste, Buyer shall have
the option of terminating this agreement, in which event A earnest money paid herein shall be
refunded , and neither party shall have any further obligation to the other. It is the duty of
Buyer to satisfy itself regarding the condition of the property. Notwithstanding any other terms
and conditions of this agreement, the representations and warranties in 0 is paragraph from Seller
to Buyer shall not survive closing,
8. TITLE. Within thirty (30) days after notice of the exercise of this option, Buyer
shall obtain at its expense abstracts of title of registered property abstract- to the Property,
continued to date with all usual and customary searches (or in lieu thereof, an Owner's Title
Insurance Commitment naming Buyer es proposed insured, "Commitment "). Buyer shall have
ten (10) days after receipt of the abstract, registered property abstract, or Commitment to
examine title to the Property and to make any objections ( "Objections "), if any, shall be made
in writing. If Buyer makes a reasonable Objection, Seller shall have thirty (30) days to cure the
Objection . If the Objection is not so cured or waived by Buyer, then this Agreement shall be
null and void and all tamest money shall be refunded to Buyer upon demand.
9. SURVEY. Buyer shall obtain, at its expense, a survey of the Property, prepared
and certified by a registered land surveyor. The legal description prepared from such survey
shall be Used to convey the Property to Buyer at closing. If the description to be used for the
conveyance of the Property results in the subdivision of an existing parcel of land, Buyer shall
be responsible for obtaining any approvals required by the City of Mound, including waiver of
subdivision ordinance raptircmentg, if nerrwry.
10. CONVEYANCE OF TI7 LE. At the closing, Seller shall deliver to Buyer a quit
claim deed conveying title,
11. PLACE: OF CLOSING. The closing of said transaction, in the event the within
np6on is exercised by Buyer, shall take place at the offices of Wurst, Pearson, Larson,
Underwood k Mertz, 110X0 First Rank Plarr, West, Minmiprilis, 1111: ;np;nia, or at such location
as shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties.
12. POSSESSION OF PROPERTY, Upon closing, the immediate possession of the .
Property shall be given to Buyer.
All
13. CLOSING DATE, If Buyer exercises this option, the closing shall take place on
or before February 1, 1991. If Buyer shall fail to close on or before the aforementioned date,
then Buyer shall forfeit to Seller all sums theretofore paid, the Seller shall be discharged of all
obligations herein contained.
14. AG .E"4rt'IT WITH P - RSP &CT TO RASr.KfRAITS. It io undorstood and ogreed,
by and between the Seller and Buyer, that if Buyer exercises the within option and closes on the
purchase of the Property by December 30, 1990, Seller shall also convey to Buyer a utility
easement over, under, and across that part of Seller's right -of -way, located in the City of
Mound, which lies east of Commerce Boulevard.
15. INDEMNIFICA' `N OF SIRLI.BR. Buyer shall indemnify and hold harmless
Seller against and from any and ail claims, including but not limited to, mechanic's liens, by or
on behalf of any person or persons, firm or firms, corporation or corporations, arising from the
conduct of or management Of or from any work or thing whatsoever done by Buyer, or Buyers
officers, agents, employees, or contractors on or about the Property, or arising from any act of
negligence of the Buyer or Buyer's officers, agents, employees, or contractors, on or about the
Property, and from and against all costs, attorneys' fees, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or
about any such claim or action or proceeding brought thereon; and irr case any action or
proceeding is brought against Seller by reason of any such claim, Buyer, upon notice from
Seller, hall resist and defend such action or proceeding.
16. SURVIVAL OF AGREEMENTS. The terms and conditions of this agreement
shall not be merged into the deed delivered hereto, but shall, where applicable, survive the
delivery of such decd from Seller to Buyer.
17. CLOSING COSTS. Seller shall pay for the state documenta-y or recording charges
on the deed; Buyer shall pay for all other expenses of closing except that each party tihall pay
for its 0,Yn attorney's fees.
18. NOTICE. Any and all notices, requests, Objections, or other corn municadons
hereunder shall be deemed to have been duly liven if in we�t;,jg Al,d ;f t,d,lsiu;ttcd b I3d,JJ
delivery with receipt thereof, or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and
first class postage prepaid, to Seller and to Buyer as follows, or to such other addresses or to
the attention of such other persons as shall be supplied in like manner:
To Seller:
Mr. Elli M. A. Mills, President
Dakota Rail, Inc.
25 Adarns Street North
Hutchinson, Mn. 55350
with a copy to:
•
3
02478
r " '. l
Patrick J. McLaughlin, Esq.
Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly
3400 Plaza Vll Building
45 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, Mn. 55402
To Buyer:
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound; Mn. 55364
with a copy to:
Curtis A. Pearson, Esq.
Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood & Mertz
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, Mn. 55402
19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
a. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State or Minnesota.
b. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contain
the final and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the option to purchase, lease
�:xtcnsion, and sale and purchase of the Property, and are intended to be an integration of all
prior negotiations and understandings. Buyer, Seller, and its agents shall not be bound by any
terms, conditions, statemcrits, warranties or representations, oral or written, not contained
herein. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing
and signed by the parties hereto. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall
be valid unless the same is in writing and is signed by the party against which it is sought to be
enforced.
c. Time of Essence. Time is hereby made of the essence in this Agreement.
d. Brokers. Each party represents and warrants to the other that such party is
not involved with any real estate broker in this transaction. Each party further agrees to
indemnify and Wd harmless the other pey from and against any and all claims or demands
with respect to any broker's fees or agent's commissions or other compensation asserted by any
person, firm or corporation, arising from the acts of the indemnifying pally in conjunction with
this agreement or the transaction contemplated herein,
E
•
•
;L67l
LL `moo - Lh2 1 ; fiug 17,:U 15:[1 Nc.0 F.Vd
is e. Acknowledgment. Buyer acknowledges that Seller is ar, operating railroad and
intends to conduct rail operations on its right of way adjacent to use Property. Buyer will insure
that its use of the Property will not interfere or obstruct �- 'Ier's use of its right of way for rail
operations, nor will Buyer interfere with Seller's use of any of its right of way in the City of
Mound for rail purposes.
20. ACCEPTANCE. This Agreement shall be null and void unless executed by all
~lies hereto and delivered by August 31, 1990.
C
•
IN TESTIMONY WHF RI'OF, the parties have executed this agreement on the day and
year first above written.
WI T � NESSES:
de , �
I 4�
SELLER
Dakota 1, In ,
B y
Its President
BUYER
City of Mound
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
5
6148,0
YPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Aug 28.90 13:26 No.001 P.01
:T-t # // 0
LAW o►rIcce
WUNST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD 61 MERTZ
• PAM"605NIP Ir9►V61M6 0690y6.GkA6 A880CIA+1611@
1100 PIPUT DANK PLACC WCST
A, TMOMAs WUOft. PA. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $5402 ULCO. Owc
? JMq A PcAOsow. PA 16n1 aa• 4100
%PAMta 0 LA1130w. P.A.
TMOMA3 r. u1VOC11WOOD. PA /A; MUMS[..
CRAIG M. MLAT= 16111 330.1616
010694 J. I[LLOWS
Date August 28, 1990
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
TO Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager
Company: City of Mound
FROM:
Curt Pearson
•
Total number of pages including transmittal sheet 3
If you do not receive all pages, please call 612/338 -4200.
Ed, enclosed are two letters, one from Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission and one from Mills' attorney, which accomplish
the following:
1. The Sewer Board is willing to work with us to try to
clear up their problem.
2. Wo don't have to execute the option until after we
have had more time to study it and to hold our public
hearing.
C .A.P.
acs i
WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Aug 28.90 13:32 No.002 P.01
64-5z-)z
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Work Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 222.5423
August 27, 1990
Mr. Curt Pearson
1100 First Bank place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Ret parking Lot Property in Mound, MN
Dear Mr. Pearsont
As we discussed on the phone, the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, for a nominal amount would be interested in converting its
permit for the sewer line and lift station on the parking lot property
in downtown Mound into a recordable easement.
Sincerely,
r'
�'
eanne K. Mat s
r
'Associate General Counsel
JKM;am
0
at 9 ?Am
WPLUM
August 28, 1990
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
TEL: 338 -2625
Aug 28.90 13:32 No.002 P.02
Pku Vq
# 1l
43 $011h smith Vied
C%iap
Wk So
(,Orlon
Wr'WWb.W S$ 02
wnrrik
(0 31 -"M
NOM Yak
TOO low
ftm
?A012) A037
st h01
WuAl 0%0 C
Curtis A. Pearson, Esq.
Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood
i Mertz
Re: Dakota Rail, zaa.
Dear Curt:
This letter confirms our telephone convarsation a few moments ago
during Which I represented on behalf of Dakota Rail, Inc. that the
deadline for acceptance of the Least Extension and option to
Purchase Agreement conveyed to you by Dakota hail, Inc. under cover
of August 24, 1990 has been extended from August 31, 19'* to
September 14, 1990.
To ease your concern over the marketability issue, I am enclosing
d copy of an initial commitment for title ins•irance issued by Title
Insurance Company of Minnesota and conveying a portion of the
railroad property located in the City of Minnetonka Beach, AQnnepin
County. Schedule B,' Items 3, G, 7 and 8 were deleted fro the
commitment A� 91481nas T nns„me that a oox*LtA4t%k vas the
option property would be as clear of exceptions, aside from utility
and roadway easements. Furthermore, as I mentionsd, the insurance
Kr*000 amium on the Minnetonka Beach property vas less than $3.00 per
of the insured amount.
Please call me if yot: have any further questions regarding the
marketability issue.
Thank you.
Very truly yours, `
Eric B. Nilsson
HN:tlm
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Elli K.A. Mills
Patrick J. McLaughlin, Esq.
4 93
LJ
•
LA% (OIXES
JOHNSON & WOOD
PETER M )OH \'SON
)OH\ M M000. At
I'.ARI L PHLEGER
MARRL \V 01G(lOM' 1R.
C iCJR MASSIF
JAMES U VENTLIL►
MILLIsM R. KOENIG
A\\ C iCHLu
T CMR:S STEWART
KKHARD 1 SCWJM
M .% H GAVIGI)0
T30 EAST LAKE STREET
+C VC.
M'AYZATA. MINNESGTA SS391
EARLEJ %UMLLECKE
IWUDI2.KJ \\1Nr
TELEPHONE 161:) 6:5-ISIS
TELECOPIER (612) 47S 0311
LL.a v -et , 71
Cu \\IE L GLRD\ER
DX \ID) HEPILCK
tins COMMERCE •(LLEVLRO
URSER
2A. \D MR1tRlC0.\D
MOLVD M144ESOT4 IsI.I
TILE►1104E (612) 6
TELICI)►IER 1612) 4726107
RIA1 71, .11ZITA
U0 AUG 2 4 1990
August 22, 1990
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Administrator
City of Mound
Mound, M:4 55364
Re: Downtown Parking
Dear Mr. Shukle:
Phyllis and William Johnson are supportive of the City's efforts
to purchase the land currently owned by Dakota Rail north of the
railroad tracks in Mound and east of Commerce Boulevard. In
discussions with you and Curt Pearson on Monday, you explained that
the approximate cost of land purchases would be $4.00 per square
foot after factoring in adequate allowances for legal, bonding,
appraisal, improvements, etc. At that cost on a per square footage
basis, the Johnsons would be in favor of City purchase of all
available parking area west of their existing Coast to Coast
building. In support of that purchase, the Johnsons would agree
to repurchase from the City at its cost -of -,acquisition the
northerly 50 feet of that parcel, together with the easterly most
30 feet. There parcels would consist cf approximately 10,e40
square feet of property and the Johnsons would expect to pay
approximately $43,000 for the property. The Johnsons would provide
the City with access and egress easements serving the remainder of
the land purchased from the railroad and would provide an access
and egress easement to the Mueller /Lansing property which is
situated north of the Coast to Coast building. Johnsons'
repurchase of the railroad property would be conditioned upon their
obtaining an adequate egress easement to Lynwood over the
Mueller /Lansing parcel.
Additionally, Phyllis and William Johnson will agree to purchase
the property immediately south of their existing property. Said
parcel would be approximately 39 feet wide and would be 317 feet
in depth. The Johnsons are willing to pay $20,000 for that parcel
on two conditions:
$Itd'y
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
August 22, 1990
Page 2
1. There are no City imposed conditions upon use (other than
existing zoning) and no public use easements.
2. That central business district parking assessments
recognize and accep* parking spaces upon the purchased
parcel in the event the Johnsons improve the area for the
purpose of parking, including pavement and striping.
If it is possible to negotiate a "coordinated purchase" under which
Johnsons purchase the above parcels directly from Dakota Rail and
the City separately purchases its parcels, the Johnsons would have
no objection to that procedure.
The Johnsons feel strongly that their access to Commerce Boulevard
should be established through a purchase of the fee interest in the
real estate. Nevertheless, if the City determines that public
policy requires that the purchased property - remain as public
parkirg in perpetuity 'the Johnsons would support reasonable
assessments of benefitted property owners. Tf you need or desire
additional information with regard to the Joinsons' position on
this ratter, please do not hesitate to cal', m:�.
Very truly yours,
JO S N & WOOD
1
Pet W. Johnson
PWJ /jkp
is
acts
PrcileRRlanal Pul SwAv ANp bellm s
r.C! .
10010 cols Strenl Na, sU►►worcr. MN S,Son9 (812)771-9211
WIIUAM A. lCMWAS, CA -S, C.R.A.
President
JACK M. SMANL, GAPA /1
Senior SltNApp►siser
PEMIE.D, INC.
Sewhig Ail Arms of Appralwal Mcds
August 28 1990
Edward J. Schukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN. 55364
Re! Land Values, city
of Mound, MN.
Dear Mr. schukle,
You requested that I prepare an appraisal of certain proper-
ties in the City of Mound. Due to the limited time and not
having received some of the material I needed until yester-
day, I have not been able to complete the written report. X
have, however, been able, to complete the valuation analysis
of the affected property.
There are three separate traots of land which I have valued.
They are as follows:
A. A parcel located west of Commerce Boulevard and south of
and adjacent to the railroad tracks. This parcel is 24
feet wide and 260 feet deep, for a total size of 6,240
square, feet. Part of this parcel is encumbered by an
existing sanitary sewer line. Due to the parcel size,
limited use and the encumbrance, it is my opinion it has
a market value of $6,240.00.
B. A parcel located west of Belmont Lane, and between the
railroad tracks and Shoreline Boulevard. Thin parcel is
about 555 feet long with an average depth of 73.5 feet.
It is 85 feet wide at the widest point and 62 feet wide
at the narrow end. There is a sanitary sewer line run-
ning the full length of thin parcel and about 17 fact
north of the south property line. There is also a lift
station on the east end of the parcel. The total parcel
mempoorr. nl. 0? `8 `
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION or CCnTirIED ArrnmsERS NATIONAL ASSOCIA11ON 01 HMM APPRAISERS
MINNr.9OTA COVCnNMENTAI MrrnAISERS INTFRNAIIONAI k1GH1 OF WAY ASSOCIATION
AI.1EnICt.q rL ANNINC A["..00IATION SOCIETY OF PE AIL CSTATC ACP1A'SEnS
•
site is 40,660 square fast. It is my opinion this par -
cal has a market value of $78,120.00.
C. A parcel located east of Commerce Boulevard and north of
and adjacent to the railroad tracks. This parcel has
133 feet of frontage on Commerce Boulevard and is 218
feet deep. The total wise of this parcel is 29
square feet. In the southwest corner of this parcel is
an electronic control building, which I an assuming must
remain. It is my opinion this parcel has a market value
of $85,500.00.
The totals of these three parcels are:
Parcel ,g,IAB Eptima Market Value
A 6 sq, ft. $ 6 1 240.00
B 40,660 sq. ft. S 78,120.00
C 29,300 aq, ft. 85.500.00
Total: 76,300 sq. ft. $169,860.00
Say: $170,000.00
In addition to these three parcels, there was the parcel
south of the Coast -to -Coast store. This parcel has 12,363
square feet, This parcel, because of ite width and
location, has a very limited use except it attached to the
Johnson parcel, where it could be used in conjunotion with
a possible expansion of the Coast -to -Coast building. As
assemblage, this parcel has a market value of $18,500.00.
I am currently working on completing the appraisal report,
which will support the values arrived at for the three par-
cels listed above. I will try to have the completed report
to you next week. Xf additional documentation is needed for
the parcel south of the Coast -to -Coast store, please let me
know.
Sincerely yours,
William A, Schwab, CA -S, C.R.A.
MN. License 14000585
PENFIELD INC.
WAS /mk
cc: Curt Pearson
268 7
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
August 13. 1990
C. Case No 90 - 927: Dennis Hildebrandt, 5229 Waterbury Road.
Whloole. Lots 6. 7, 6_, Block 19, PiO 025- 117 -24 -21 0138.
VARIA rear yard set back.
Building Official. Jon Sutherland. reviewed the applicant's
request for a 8.5 foot rear yard setback varlanLe. The applicant
proposes to construct a garage addition consisting of 370 square
feet onto the existing 484 square foot garage. therefore. creat-
ing an accessory structure of 854 square feet. Zoning Ordinance
Section 23.407(3) states. In residential districts. no acessory
building shall exceed 840 square feet of floor area except by
conditional use permit.
Staff recommended approval of the variance of 8.5 feet to the
required rear property line setback of 15 feet contingent upon
the applicant submitting plans In conformance with the 840 square
feet as required by Ordinance Section 23.407(3).
The applicant. Dennis Hildebrandt. stat-d that he feels the
square footage should be determined by L. � Interior useable
space. Both the Building Official and City Planner agreed that
the square footage Is measured from the footprint.
Hildebrandt stated that he wishes to use the additional garage
space for storage of his recreational vehicles. including a boat
and snowmobiles.
Thal was concerned about a hardship. He concluded that If the
. applicant was requesting to build within 10 feet of the rear
property line it would be easier to accept (if the rear was con-
sidered a side yard, the setback requirement would be 10 fe!t).
Jensen agreed. and commented that he has room to expand into the
side yard. Jensen also commented on allowing variances for a
minimum size structure, and the proposed structure is not mini-
mum.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Meyer, to recom-
mend approval of staff recommendation.
The applicant confirmed that he has an alternative plan which
will conform to the 840 square feet by eliminating a 3' x 4'
square.
Jensen questioned why a variance situation should be created on
an existing conforming structure when there are other alterna
tives. Meyer commented on the fact that the applicant want to
enclose his recreational vehicles, and the variances does not ap-
pear to infringe on anyone or anything.
MOTION FAILED 3 to 5 (those In favor were: Ciapsaddle,
Meyer, and Mueller; those opposed were: Welland, Thal,
Jensen, Smith and Michael).
Thal, Jensen, Welland, and Smith commented that he would approve
a garage to be built 10 feet from the rear yard, which is what
the side yard setback would be.
•
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 28,
1990.
Meyer commented on the fact that our ordinance does not allow for
a standard three car garage, and feels the ordinance should be
reviewed in the future. It was determined this would be dis-
cussed later in the meeting. 44ill
11
( "AIT "(ANR)l "ND
DATE:
Planning Commission Agenda of August 13. 1990
TO:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM:
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
CASE NO.:
90 -927
APPLICANT:
Dennis Hildebrandt
LOCATION:
5229 Waterbury Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Whipple, Lots 6, 7. & 8, Block 19.
PID #25- 117 -24 -21 0138
SUBJECT:
Rear Yard Setback Variance
EXISTING ZONING:
R -3 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance of 8.5 feet to
the required rear yard setback of 15 feet in order to provide ad-
ditional space on the existing garage.
COMMENTS: The original proposal as submitted by the applicant to
this office was in excess of the area allowed by Zoning Ordinance
Section 23.407(3) that states, in residential districts, no ac-
cessory building shall exceed 10 percent of the lot area, and in
no case exceea 84 square fe et of floor area except by condi-
tional use permit.
The applicant was notified of this requirement, tie then revised
and re- submitted another site plan. The total proposed garage
floor area as I calculated is still in excess of 840 square feet.
The ordinance allows 840 square feet for a typical single family
accessory building. The applicant is in need of additional
storage space for his personal property and recreation vehicles.
The applicant's home is situated on a corner lot in such a manner
that the propo- :1 addition imposes a practical difficulty in ob-
taining the maximum allowat!e floor area of accessory building on
his property.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff reconfnends approval of the variance of 8.5
feet to the required rear property line setback of 15 feet con-
tingent on the applicant submitting plans in conformance with the
840 square feet as required by Ordinance Section 23.407(3).
I f the app I i cant does not w 1 sh to mod i f the tota I area to 840
square feet or less, then the applicant shall be required to ful-
fill the requirement; foi a conditional use permit.
The abutting neighbors hay been notified. This -ase will be
referred to the City Council on August 28, 1990.
4617
JUL 2 6 i90
q
9T LI — y a o l
r *CITY � --
OF MOUND PART 11 Case No. r Z
Date F I I ed 1- io 0
Fee 150.00
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING 3 ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property Sa2 WEM r ` i irT_(ZdJ__.
Lot_ Block 9
Addition I AO) j; pole- PID No. QG 01e_
owner's Name Tytnr - 6 5 :J� IMP ��,�� i C�� �v�t�{ Day Phone LA - % - 1 C7S I
owner's Address -5 WP - T - burr
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address Day Phone
Existing Use of Property: � YYII U 1 JV:4 J 1 (1 a
? Zoning District' �
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, co tional use
�e
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? _s . If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s)
(Copies of previous resoI tit ions must accompany this application.)
I certify that al' of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. 1 consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
applicatior by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law.
Applicant's Signature Date 2
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Corr Assion Recommendation_
0 Councir Action:_
Date
Resolution No. _ Date
C 4 ; 0{q1� `I -ZJ -q O -' U , At to
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Ao. 10 - 14ZO 0
1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (,A . No ( ). If no.
specify each non - conforming use:
2. Do the existing structures comF y with all area, height, bulk, - ind
setback regulations for the zoning district in which it Is located?
Yes (✓), No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use:
I
3. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow ( ) - - oography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) o,ainage ( ) sub- surface
( ) too shallow ( ) shape other: specify 0
4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone
having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was
adopted? Yes ( ). Nc ( ✓). If yes, explain
? 5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, suct. as the
relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No W. If yes, explain
7
r�
At91
V 0
ARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
peculiar o n l y to the property described in t h i s petition? Yes (v`' .
No ( ). If no, how many other prcperties are similarly affected?
�O C >,Kf Y_hfl\ -C � C44
7. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and
setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of
yeir land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ-
ten explanation.
s.7_r. r cc.,�.�s�res�l ►c r- seder 4p Slnel+�tr <hedl ��el�►
arA o•r' \nJS 4: �Lec ruf4 4 , IQL-
%.arvw epn,,_rnDu) remnoa iebl ,.o mpn-� ( rAte v"1
A.
Will
granting
of the
variance be materially detrimental to property in
the
n0
same zone,
or to
the enforcement of this ordinance?
PART III
J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans,
attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8- 1 /2 "xil" size. if larger
drawings are submitted, one must be 8- 1 /2 "xll ", and 15 larger size
copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure,
a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show-
ing the following information:
1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: Mot(s),
building(), driveways) /street access, off- street parking, and
utilities.
2. Existing and proposed elevations.
3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines;
principal building and accessory buildings; principal building
and principal buildings on adjacent lots.
4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
5. Indicate "north" compass direction.
• 6. Any additional ! nformation as may reasonably be re sired by the
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
92 04
q
..o wA T E: R B_U R Y ROAD
cE"TY OF NIOtjND c
i�
h
b r
s kt
w +° .
Pd
ct
I
r
'1
. \ � 1 qtr • .... /�' 4, ..? ' ... _
�y 1 46 9`t" 3,(
cffu
Az
- !C 11 1' Pl/� ,U -- -� /Z
A-I "
� (.e -e.c5 d.o Q �Wc.adtce U-)
Lo&,-,� jou uat.)-n
G/Yl q4ojo
0r
tin \7k6 �i�
�i
RS
•
f •
Y s i I.
i4 ,
DEUu ++ic�vesr,4
15OF-Y RP.
- G I T y !�f
C, Ty ; O N
j
'12 1. r
r • a
a 3
3. 2
2 .
t
_ 1
1j (
1 16 1
18, 1
1 O, 2
21 [1 2
2t
�S1 � i
a
t I -
1
T �
\ o
a \ �
.borhood
trial
E=Iw
s . 1. 13 1
I=
e;_'�
(:ITY (A NlOt','1)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1990
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
CASE NO.: 90 -931 J
APPLICANT: Tom & Stacy Hintz
LOCATION: Address Unassigned (Boxwood Lane / Lynwood Blvd.)
LEGAL Koehler's 2nd Addn., Lot 23
DESCRIPTION: PID #14- 117- -24 43 0005
SUBJECT: Variance: No Frontage on an Improved Right -of -Way
ZONING: R -1 Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND
The applicant seeks a variance to grant a building permit on a
lot without frontage on an improved street.
There is a long history behind thiA and adjacent properties to
obtain right -of -way for street and utility purposes to provide
for orderly development of this site and the surrounding lots.
Please note the following memorandum and resolutions included in
this report:
Memorandum
May
10, 1971
Resolution
No.
71 -50
Resolution
No.
75 -269
Resolution
No.
77 -494
C OMMENTS
There have been attempts to oLtain easements in the past over
lots 24, 25 & 26 that have not materialized. City staff
generally approves the applicants proposal with certain modifica-
tions as noted by City Engineer, John Cameron, Street Superinten-
dent, Geno Hoff, and Sewer & Water Superintendent, dreg Skinner.
If the sewer and water service is to remain private, approval
must be obtained by the City's Plumbing Inspector, John Breitner.
�-` 77
• Staff Recoi mendat i on
Case No. 90 -931
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance :_.) grant a building
permit on a lot without 1 7 rontage on an imp ,ved street w i t h the
site plan being revised to be in conformance with the City
Engineer's report and the City's Street, Sewer & Water Department
reconmendatIons.
NOTE
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12,
1990.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
•
•
A491
F 1 Mc Combs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
/ -- —
15050 23rr; A,enue Nurih, Plymouth Minnesota 55447 Telephone Engineers
612 476 -6010 Planners
612 476 -8532 FAX Suryeyors
September 4, 1990
Mr. Jon Sutherland
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUB ?ECT: City of Mound, Minnesota
Variance Application
Case No. 90 -931
MFRA 1!4909
Dear Jon:
As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced variance application
and have the following comments and recommendations:
Back
The more recent history on this lot and adjacent propertie3 dates back to
1979 when a Preliminary Engineering Report was prepared on the extension of
Chestnut Road. A copy of said report is enclosed for your review. Evidently,
plans and specifications for the project were ordered by the City, because they
were included with the bidding plans for the 1979 Street Improvement Project.
The project was never completed, because the necessary easements could not be
obtained from the property owners. Enclosed are copies of these final plans.
In 1985 the project was again brought up by Mr. Danger, who, at that time,
owned Lot 24. Enclosed is a letter .rom our office to the City, with revised
cost estimates and sketches of the proposed street extension. Again, the
project did not get off the ground.
In February 1990 I started receiving calls again from a number of people
and, soon afterward, found out that Lot 23 was up for auction on February 20,
1990 The present owners and the applicants for the subject variance. purchased
the property at that auction. I have also had a number of discussions, dating
back to 1988 with Mr. Marc Mulvey, the present owner of Lot 24.
Comments
•
E
I would still like to see this property developed, with the access and
utilities from an extension of Chestnut Road. However, because of the past
history and the same problems, such as lack of easements and cooperation of
adjacent property owners, existing today, I do not see how this is possible.
It, appears the only logical way for this property to be served with utilities
attd access is by way of Boxwood Lane, as the applicants have suggested.
2 tl,l1 r l ,,,�r,,�l [
Mr. Jon Sutherland
September 4, 1990
Page Two
Outside of Lot 24 and possibly Lots 27 and 28, the remainder of the property in
this area is unbuildable because of the large wetlands. This is probably why
the City of Mound owns Lots 29, 30 and 31 south of Lot 23, and also parcels 18
and 19 east of Boxwood Lane. Enclosed are aerial photos with the plat map
overlaid, which gives a very good view of the area.
I have reviewed the proposed water and sewer services with Greg Skinner of
Public Works and both of us have a number of concerns. First of all, if the
sewer service is installed with e. cleanout and only a wye at the main, the City
would not be responsible for any maintenance. For this line to become
City -owned and maintained, there must be a manhole built over the existing main
on Lynwood and also where the clean-out is shown on the survey. The situation
with the water would be pretty much the same, whereas it would need to be a 6"
DIP if the City is to maintain it or 1 -112" copper if the line is to be
private. If the two lines are to be installed as close to each other as shown
on the survey, certain requirements of the State Health Department must be
met. Greg and myself would like to see at least the sanitary sewer installed
to City standards, but if the applicant insists on a private service, that
would be acceptable.
The driveway would also be acceptable if approved by the Fire Department,
which I do not think will happen, unless some type of turnaround is provided.
They may also want an all- weather surface, such as blacktop.
Recommendations
We are recommending approval of the variance request, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Fire Department approval of the driveway;
2. Utility construction permit approval from Hennepin County;
3. Approval by Mound Public Works for private utility services;
4. No further subdivision of property, unless public access and utilities
are extended from Chestnut Road.
I£ you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
US.
Very truly yours,
� FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:jmj
Enclosures
� 700
11\ .
C I T Y of MOUND h:,i`, ' '.NEyOTA ' S 3t;4
September 5, 1990
TO: Jon Sutherland
Building Official
FROM: Greg Skinner
Water & Sewer Supt.
SUBJECT: Boxwood Lane Variance
We are recommending the approval of the variance request, subject
to the following conditions: 0
1. Sanitary sewer installed according to City Standards.
a. Install manhole on Lynwood Blvd. over existing
main.
b. Install manhole at northeast corner of lot.
2. Install 6" DIP with hydrant at the northeast corner.
3. Replace existing gravel driveway with a minir�um of
2�" of blacktop.
•
X70
0 5 1990
C]
•
•
,a A1.1da'"i AM
Box 37, Mound, Minnesota 55364
September 5, 1990
TO: John Sutherlund, City Inspec or
FROM: Don Bryce, Fire Chief
RE: Case # 90 -931, Applicant Tom & Stacy Hintz
In regards to the variance of Kohler 2nd Addition, Lot 23.
Fir- protection on Boxwood Lane is adequate for access to the house.
If any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Ago s
VILLACE OF MOOD
Mound, Minnesota
NOTE: Th City of Mound
May 10, 1971
currently owns
Lots 29, 30 & 31.
(9/90)
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 71 -11?
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Village Counci:
FRQ14: The Village Ma,iager
SUBJECT: Sewer d Water extension chestnut Lane
Lot 24 Koehler's 2nd Add. to Mound
Mr. Duane Norberg has requested inforriation as to procedures for build-
ing on Lot 24 Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound.
1. Engineer Mill:, was requested to make suggestions. A copy of his
suggestions are attached.
2. A copy of the "As Builts" show a stub to this lot for the sewer.
3. There is no street in front of the lot.
4. Water stops at the end of the street although Lot 25 has water.
--1 5e Lots 25- 26- 27- 28- 29 -30 -31 have sewer availj�l alon.; the rail-
road and were so assessed.
6. Lot 24 was assessed for sewer (not water). .,,e owner appealed
the assessment (see copy of appeal attached) and his appeal was
approved by the Council so it has not paid an assessment.
7. Future plans for water call for water co go from the end of
Shady Lane across to Langdo-i Place. All the right of way has
been acquired except from Lots 24, 2N 25.
8. Lots 30, 31 and 32 are tax forfeit.
'!lie following is recommended for water, sewer and streeeifor Lot 24.
1. Sewer be furnished as original'.y planned and Lot 24 assume
the original assessment.
2. Lot 24 dedicpt.e 25 feet for extension of Chestnut La ne.
Inasmuch as not interest has been charged on sewer assessment
the land for street should be given the Village.
3. Water - Lot 24, at their own expense, extend the water main
to the easterly edge of Lot 24. If Lots 25 and 26 have not in
the past paia a water assessment then the Village could assess
th:s extension. (Lots 25 and 26 should also dedicate 2 feet
of right of way)
;L703
C(JUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 71 -112
Page 2
4. After the Utilities are installed Lot 24 should improve the
road by the installation of 4 inches of pit run gravel which
should be compacted and then cover the pitrun with two linch
lifts of c? -- 5 gravel prior to the Village maintaining the
road.
5. Although the water main si.ould be looped to Langdon Place it
is:not recommended this be done at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Leonard L. Kopp
0
Retyped 6 -20/75
0
avoy
71 -50
2
: RESOLUTION N0. 71 -50
"''• RESOLUTICN AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING APPLIC'A :; ti ; FOR
CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN LAi;
Nly 34 feet of Lot 30 Koehler's 2nd
NlY 34 feet of Lot 31, Koehler's 2nd
Part of Lot 31, Koehler's 2nd Described)
WHEREAS, Lots 30,31, 32, Koehlerls Second Addition to Mound are tax
forfeit, and
WE1 MS, in order to provide for the eventual widening of Chestnut Lane
and for. the looping of the watermain it appears ir, the best
interest of the Village to obtain additional right- of-way of`
said street and land for utility purposes,.
NOWP TARE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
XIYAESOTAs
That the Mayor and Manager be, and hereby are, autnc:rized and
-" direoted to asks application to'-the State of Minnes.)ya for
conveyance for street purpose and utility requireme 4 - the
followings
(a) The Northerly 34 feet of Lot 30, Koehler'e Semi Addition
to Moundl
(b) The Northerly A feet of Lct 31, Koehler's Second Addition
to Moundl and
•:(o) That part of Lot 32, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound,
Panel- 8020 described as, follows:
Com at the BE cor Lot'23 Koehler'a 2nd Addn.
th NEly along the Sly line ed Lot 23.extended
to the pt of intersection with the W line of
Lot 32 Koehler's 2nd Addn - such pt being the
actual pt of beg. th NEly along the Sly line
of Lot 23 to a pt in the E Line Lot 32 to a pt
which is 7} it N of'the SW cor Lot 10 Mack's
Addn, th S along the E line Lc* 32 Koehler'-
2nd Addn 15 ft, th SWly along a line par wi r'. ~
the NEly decor line 95 ft, ch S 35 ft, th S'W4
to a Pt in the W line of Lot 32 to a pt which
is 50 ft S of the actual pt of beg, th h to Beg.
is
•
Adopted by the Council this 9th day'of February, 1971.
a p,.,,, -}� -c UT
5 _ ` e4 C � 5&n �J�.1 7 -8 -75
•
RESOLUTION NO. 75 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE
TO LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION TO MOUND,
AND PROVIDING FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, Lot 24, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound has neither water
nor sewer service and does have a road right-of-way past
the property, and
WHEREAS, the owner wishes to build on the property,
NOW, MM17ORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINYESOTA:
That the owner of Lot 24 be allowed to build providing
the following stipulations are met:
-•� 1. A 25 -foot right -of -stay for street and
utility purposes be dedicated to the
City of Mound. The right- cf-iay to be
the Southerly 25 feet of Lot 24.
2. Lot 24 pa a sewer lateral assess of
$728.58 and be allowed to connect at
service from Manhole A. -19. (An asc(-ssment
of $63 .04 is to be made for the sp-v ice if
it exists.)
3. Lot 24 will be allowed to connect to the
watermain at the end of Chestnut Road
providing they install their own service,
pay all connection charges and an addi-
tional $4.00 per front foot. If the water -
main is extended easterly along Chestnut
Road at any future date, this property
shall be subject to a special assessment
under the formula used to assess that
project less a credit for the $4.00 per
foot previously paid.
0 Adopted by the council this 8th day of July, 1975.
x ?o6
77 -494
1C -25 -77
RESOLUTION NO. 77 -494
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF PARCELS
6810, 7010, 74 - 10, 7415 and 8040 OF PLAT
61670, KOEHLER'. SECOND ADDITION FOR PUBLIC
SALE
WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the City of Mound to release certain
tax forfeit land in Koehler's Second Addition for sale,
WHEREAS, this land was originally withheld from sale for Park use and the
southerly part of Lot 32 will be retained for Park,
NOMQ, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs that the
County Land Department be notified that the following described
land be released for public sale;
Lot 27 except the northerly 30 feet Plat 61670 Parcel 6810
Lot 28 except the northerly 30 feet Plat 61670 Parcel 7010
Lot 29 except the northerly 30 feet Plat 61670 Parcel 7210
Lets 30 and 31 except the northerly
34 feet Plat 61670 Parcel 7415
That part of Lot 32 commencing at the
intersection of the west•line of Lot 32
with the northeasterly extension of the
southeasterly line of Lot 23 thence north-
easterly along said extension of the east
line of Lot 32 thence north to a point 210
feet south from northeast corner thereof
thence west 98 feet thence north 55 feet,
thence west 82 4/10 feet to west line
thereof then.. ^.e south to beginning; Koehler's
Second Addition Plat 51670 Parcel 8040
Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of October. 1977.
r'V
611.107
CC : J�joe � ya V
arm((m
&ITY OF MOUND PART 11
U 14
1 41990
3305
CITY OF MOUND
Case No.
Date F i l e d _ '
Fee _- X50.0
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING s ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property UU � , ( / S oXUJ� L � i`�
Lot Block _
Addition tic.�CXn PID No. .]'?� 4
Owner's Name /// , u T�z- Day Phone --Sr� �77�
Owner's Address /y!?3 .44 tLI Ae
Applicant's Name (If other than owner)
Address
Day Phone -
E x i s t i n g g Use of Property:_ //,2 Ed,u
Zoning District -/ ..
Has an application ever been made for zoning,' variance, conditional use
permit, or other zon +ng procedure for this property? yes o.? If yes .
list date(s) of application. action taken, and provide resolut on number(s)
(Copies of previous resolution3 must Accompany this application.)
1 certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. i consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any au + official k,f the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of ing, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law.
App licant's Signature �u ' - � �"`� Date_
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
P l a n n i n g Commission Recommendation__
0 Counc i I Act i on:
R e s o l u t i o n
–._ — -- -- -- Da - - - -- -- --
� ?ag
VARIANCE APPLICATION Case Na. _
1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is located? Yes No ( ). If no,
specify each non- conforming use:
2. Do the existing structures comply with all at a, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district In which It Is located?
Yes (v): No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use:
3. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) sub- surface .
( l ) ttoo� shallow / n ( ) shape (L.-1 other :: specify
4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone
having property Interests in the land after the zoning ordinance wa°
adopted? Yes ( ). No ( If yes, explain
5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the
relocation of a road? Yes ( ) , No (►1 If yes, explain ___
•
Z'to9
O ARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No. CIO L
6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (✓):
No ( ). If no. how many other properties are similarly affected?
7. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and
setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of
your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ-
ten explanation. & /v � 4
DF / n1 /SS. PN
is �i �i'�i e• S_�_SlLclf -/ �� ��, � d7'1rin.. C.� �� �� G� l�� � �D x !c 2'M
8. Will granting of the variance be materially detr!mental to property In
the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
0 vn
PART IiI
J. S iTE PLAN INFORMATION• All supporting documents such as sketch plans,
attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8 -1/2 ° x11 ^ size. if larger
drawings are sub one must be 8 - 1 /2"x11". and 15 '9 rger size
copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure,
a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show-
ing the following information:
I. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s),
building(s). driveway(s) /street access, off- street parking, and
utilities.
2. Existing and proposed elevatic•s.
3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines;
principal building and accessory buildings; principal building
and principal buildings on adjacent lots.
4. Location of: signs, easeloents, underground utilities, etr..
5. IndlcatP "north" compass direction.
6. Any additional information as may reasonably be requi;•ed by the
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
A7 /to
0
Al 11
I
/6
survey ror TOM a stair Nlltrl
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 17, ROENIfR'S SECOND ADDITION !0 MOUND
N! hereby Cartlly that thlS IS t true and correct rtprttent at inn of a Surrey
l
o/ the boundaries nl tM land store described anA of the IOCatlnn of all
I ?s
Dui ldings. II ant, thereon and all risible tnc roach ■ones, 1/ ant, Iro• or
on told land. Doted this lath day of August. 1990.
I 4
CARLSON G CARLSON. INC.
NA NO SURVEYORS
r
�I M
Dy L 1
tarry R. Couture. tend Surveyor
I�•j
I
'— Minnesota llctnte N ^. -
Eli
NOTES:
'•�
N Denotes Pound Iron
0 D_n0tet Iron set by us.
Circled elevations art Proposed, others ore a litlnq
Armes denote direction of OrUnaq•
I
\
FYI
era L ,
I f
T
• „
dlorr fir.— iri=
ft-
h , =
,
_
111
1
..
rise teat
N
Q
Scale:
�.
�
1'•70'
Proposed Grades:
Too of Blocks 9Gt.S
floor .911.0
I S&rage
" '141erent floor 919.1
a
.Yv N�.Aa•er A
si
I
qwAm
G3
! CO Rd Nn. t5) "
r +Z .
I��+il -1)
I'
ADDRESS:
a .
21
APPL ICANT: W i u�'z �'o
�• STACY
i�
I N Oj
51 4
L � ,
z
•,
-Lt "— OZ
�
h
2 �
C' »
c• poi
\ �jl
L�
r
ZONING REQUIREMENTS
'% 13'Q '
I��+il -1)
I'
ADDRESS:
9 )
APPL ICANT: W i u�'z �'o
�• STACY
2
LOT-. Z3 BLK• : --:!_ADDN : k0e f }eRsj Z4
Y
��s
-Lt "— OZ
ZONE: REQUIRED LOT
AREAS
N '
/ ` 4 �
EXISTING LOT
AREA:
l
REQUIRED RED SETBACKS
•,
FRONT: 30
Sal n
1
•tir l��\'\?7
• `�
SIDE
r ,
' "•�
1 Tt
-
1 ,
M,11Is
SIDE:
N
REAR: 15 feet W Mr
LAKESHORE: 50 feet
r
ZA
f`
X ISTI N a P SE T A K
i FRONT:
Sox w OUc) LN /&swoop f) 1
t
zone: SIDEz ;
SIDE: ,
, 1 1
REAR z ,
LAKESHORE:
Q
L AK E
DATE s _i
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
• MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
a. Case No. 90 -931: _ Tom 8 Sta Hintz (Boxwood Lane / Lynwood
B lvd. ) _Lot 23 Koehler's 2nd A ddn., PI #14- 117 -24 43 0005.
VA RIANCE: No Frontage on an Im prove d Right -of -Way
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Officials
recommendation for this variance request. The applicants are
requesting a variance to allow construction of a single family
dwelling on a parcel which does not have frontage on an improved
right -of -way.
The Building Official recommended approval of the variance to
grant a bu ?lding permit on a lot without frontage on an improved
street with the site plan being revised to be in conformance with
the City Engineer's report and the City's Street, Sewer and Water
Department recommendations.
The City Engineer's recommendation stated that he would still
like to see this property developed with the access and utilities
from an extension of Chestnut Road. However, due to lack of
easements and cooperation of adjacent property owners, this is
not possible. It appears the only logical way for this property
to be served with utilities and access is by way of Boxwood Lane.
The City Engineer recommended approval of the variance as
requested, upon the following conditions:
1. Fire Department approval of the driveway;
2. Utility construction permit approval from Hennepin County;
3. Approval by Mound Public Works for private utility services;
4. No further subdivision of property, unless public access and
utilities -• extended from Chestnut Road.
Greg Skinner, Water and Sewer Superintendent, recommended ap-
proval of the variance request, subject the following conditions:
1. Sanitary sewer installed according to City Standards:
i3. In3taiI m�jnhoIe on Lynwood Blvd. over existing main.
b. Inst3li manhole at northeast corner of l
I f)-,l -j 11 6" D I P w i t t, hydrant at the northeast. corner.
0 3. Per) 1 ,jce ex. i -;t i ng (grave I dr i veway w i th a m i n i mum of 2- 1 12" of
h' ar -ktop.
•
•
Case No. 90 -931
Page 2
The Commission discussed the Fire Chief's statement: "Fire
protection on Boxwood Lane is adequate for access to the house."
Some Commissioners interpreted this as meaning that there is not
adequate access for a fire trUCK, however, fire fighters can get
to the house since there is less than 300 feet to a fire hydrant.
Other Commissioners interpreted it as meaning that the fire truck
can access the property via Boxwc =)d.
Mueller questioned, if Boxwood Lane is blacktopped, who will
maintain, and who will pay for impro Koegler informed the
commission that if the street was +j oved, the abutting property
owne s would be assessed for the improvement. The applicants
commented that they do not wish f• the road to be blacktopped,
they do not want to create a bi .den for the other property
owners. John Olson, an abutting property owner to Boxwood feels
the street is too narrow. Mr. Olson also stated that tie was told
by the City in 1975 that Boxwood could not be improved, and the
plan then • .ias to improve Chestnut Road for access.
The installation of sewer and water :3s discussed. Stacy and Tom
Hintz, applicants, confirmed that ti,cy have no intentions of sub-
dividing the property.
A private sewer and water line versus a City maintained sewer and
water line with an improved street was discussed.
MOTION mach by Smith, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve
stE � recommendation. Note: we do not feel that using
the information supplied, we are qualified to make a
decision.
Mueller and Jensen commented that they feel that using Boxwood
for this property's access and utilities is short -term planning,
and using Chestnut road for access and utilities is long -term
planning.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Smith and Clapsaddle.
MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Smith to pass this
variance request onto the City Council without a recom-
mendation. Note: approval of this request would be a
short. -term solution to a long -term Situation.
MOTION W :THDRAWN by Thal and Smith.
The City Engineer, John Cameron, arrived, id therefore, the dis-
cussion of this case was put on hold. The Commission ac;reed to
hear the other cases on the agenda before returning to this case.
Discussion on case 90 -931 continued.
Case No. 90 -S31
Is Page 3
The City Engineer, John Cameron, confirmed that if a private
utility service was installed, and ttie street was not improved,
it would be the applicant's responsibility to maintain the
utilities. An agreement may need to be drafted to ensure that
the responsibility remains that of the property owner, not the
City. Cameron also confirmed that for one single family dwell-
ing, a private service would be adequate.
Thal questioned the curve radius of the driveway entrance into
Lot 23, it appears to be too sharp, about a 90 degree angle. The
applicant confirmed they already planned on changing the entrance
to lessen the sharp angle.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to deny the
variance request for no frontage on an Improved public
right -of -way, reason being: this is a short -term solu-
tion to a long -term problem. Motion failed 4 - 5 (those
in favor were: Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Michael;
those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Thal, Meyer, Voss, and
Smith).
MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Smith to approve the
is City Engineer's recommendation including conditions 1
thru 4. Motion carried 6 - 3 (those in favor were:
Clapsaddle, Thal, Meyer, Michael, Voss and Smith; those
opposed ware: Mueller, Weiland and Jensen).
Mueller, Weiland, and Clapsaddle commented that they feel this is
not a solutio,i, tit just a band -aid. Chester Road should be ex-
tended to eliminate future variances, even if it means condemna-
tion. 1
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12,
1990.
•
' \ `
i
. �
IV
cr
| \ '
0 teaber. 12th, 1990
Case No. 90 -931
F .1 'tacy Hintz
, on: Toa and
To: The City of Mound
Subject: Varience: No Frontage on an Ibproved Right-of-Way
In the liqht of recent developments duriiiq the September 10th ■eetinq of
the City Planninq commission, I feel it is important for as to clarify
some issues with regard to the varience request. Mist members I an sure
are familiar with the case, but a summary in ay perspective may be useful.
I hope the members of the City Counsel will viaw this as constructive as I
intend it.
I as reouPstinq a variance to permit construction of a single family hose
on lot k5 of Koehler's Second Edition in Mound. The variance is required
because the lot does not currently front on an improved riqht of way. At
present, access to the property is available only from a small public access
called Boxwood Lane.
wood Lane is the only access to PIDs #E14- 117 -24 -43 -0005, 19, 8, 9, 10,
V 12 (lots 23, 32, 26, 27, 28, 29). Less than City n:.andard access is
ailable to PIDs 06 and 7. The other properties in the area affected
are wetlands and are not generally considered buildable.
As the pity engineer has indicated, the area has a lonq history of access
problems Because the preferred Chesnut Road was never coepleted accordinq
to City plans. No easements are available across PIDs #F6, 7, an9 S.
Therefore I have proposed access from Boxwood Lane.
Public works indicates that -ucia access for utilities aunt be public, and
therefore must meet C1ty specifications, even if only a single home on
PID /5 is serviced. If PID #5 is considered the sole beneficiary of the
Frolic services, it would appear that improvement of that property is
not practical.
PIDs #2, 5, 16, end 19 would all benefit in varyinq degrees from the
proposed improvements to Boxwood and appropriate assessments would take
the project more feasible, although it may still b-o questionable.
•
Case No, 90 -931
Paqe 2
i s
However, providinq the 'dentical services from Chesnut is the aesired
as stated universally by members of the City with whom I have spoken.
Clearly the Chesnut access is the only lonq term solution for most of
affected properties. A plan initiated by the City for the completion
Chesnut would be bath fairest to all parties, and in keepinq with the
City's sated objectiv +s for improvement of Mound durinq the 1990s. I
would support such a p,an.
option
the
of
To summarize, the only option available to enable the impr( of PID #5,
as afforded to other properties in Koehler's Second Editio- :�c the improvement
of Boxwood Lane. Failure to achieve this Baal within our F. ,c {:cal means
will force us to rely on the City of Mound to achieve its vision for the
improvement of Chesnut Road.
If none of these opportunities manifest, then it is inevitable that the
potential of all the affected properties will not be realized, and the
cycle of tax forfitures and auctions will ultimately continue in the area.
I as hopeful that I will be allowed to proceed with plans for improvement
of PID #F5 in some form, arv, I look forwara `) work±nq closer with the
members of the City of Mound.
Reqards,
O m aLd Stacy Hintz
40
I
)1 T nN• 1 l 1• • 1 . .. i t • • • •
1
t 1 �
I 1 • �.
�.l
t ARLSON INC.
ARLSON
CITY OF MOUND 472 -1155
QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION
PORTABLE SIGN APPLICATION
Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used In
conJunction with a governmental unit or quasi - public function. The
period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires
approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises
of the advertlsed event. A permit is required, however Is exempt from
all fees.
ADDRESS OF S I GN LOCAY I ON tb rU (,� Tj [ e,
BUILDING OWNER ak aI n ark rCL�GQ _ PHONE
NAME OF APPLICANT J ' PHONE
(if other than owner
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS C �yig-,
( , ""N
, & wer -VA
PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS APPLYING FOR:
DESCRIBE TYPE OF SIGN (materials, is it illuminated. etc.): _
SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: _ high ' x _ wide a sq. ft.
LENGTH OF TIME TO BE ERECTED
DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST: C • {�,VI V�
J"at f
Applicant's Signature M8t of
Recommendation:
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
�J
A7Iy
�® AAcCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Q 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone Engineers a
612/476 -6010 Planners
612476 -8532 FAX Surveyors
September 6, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota
Addendum #1 to Preliminary Engineering Report
Water System Improvements, 1990 Update
MFRA #9316
Dear Mayor and Council Membe ^s:
As requested, we are submitting this letter as an addendum to the
Preliminary Engineering Report for Water System Improvements, 1990 Update,
dated June, 1990 This addendum is written to address the method and cost of
softening the water from the existing water supply wells.
The present water supply hes a hardness of 370 parts per million (21.6
grains) to 450 parts per million (26.3 grains). Water which is softened
usually has a hardness of 50 to 140 parts per million (2.9 - 5.8 grains).
Softening water to these levels reduces the amount of soap required, improves
the preparation and cooking of foods, reduces the scale in hot water heaters,
and makes the water desirable for other domestic uses. Two ways thaF water can
be softened is by ion exchange (similar to residential softening units) and
treatment by a lime -soda process. Ion exchange removes the hardness in the
water by replacing calcium and magnesium with sodium which can be a health
problEu with some individuals. We, therefore, investigated the lime -soda
process as a method to remove the hardness from the City of Mound's water
supply.
The lime -soda process uses chemicals such as lime and soda -ash which when
added to the water causes the calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese to settle
out of the water. These minerals cause the water to be hard and their removal
softens the water. A lime -soda plant would include aerators, chemicals mixers,
flocculators, clarifiers, rapid sand filters, chlorination and other chemical
: a clear -well and and high lift pumps. This treatment system would be
sized to treat 1500 gallons of water per minute and would cost approximately
$3,235, (see attached cost estimate).
There would be annual costs connected with this, including the cost of
power, chemicals and disposal of sludge produced by the treatment systems. The
total annual cost is not included, as it is beyond the scope of this report.
A, I r ki EQuel OPtx>rtur-ty Fm;il ^ytf
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
September 6, 1990
Pdge Two
If you have further questions concerning this treatment process, we will be
pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
i?mmy &d & t j
Ro dney Co n, P.E.
John Cameron
RG /JC:fmj
Enclosures
•
A71L
CITY OF MOUND
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Water Treatment Plant
(Addendum No. 1)
Equipment for 1500 GPM Lime -Soda Water Softening
"lant. (Includes Solids Contact Clarifier, Rapid Sand
Filters, Aerators, Lime Slaker, Soda Ash Feeder,
Chlorine Feeder, Carbon Diuxide Feeder, Polymer Feeder,
Potassium Permangenate Feed System, Alum Feed System
and Bulk Storage for Carbon Dioxide and Lime.) S 500.000.00
Pumps - 3 -1000 GPM 45,000.00
Sitework 12,000.00
Electrical 150,000.00
Mechanical (includes piping and labor to install equipment.) 500,000.00
Building (includes structures for equipment and 100,000
gallon clearwell.) 1,200,000.00
SUBTOTAL S 2,407,000.00
Contingencies ( 10X) 241,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 2,648,COO.00
Administrative, Technical, Legal (15X) 397.CbO•Orj
SUBTOTAL S 3,045,000.00
Well and Piping 190,000.00
TOTAL $ 3,235.000.00
•
077/7
0
Mc Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
St Cloud Engineering 6 Envrroscience, Inc
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Preliminary Engineering Report
for
•
Water System Improvements
1990 Update
for
The City of Mound, Minnesota
June, 1990
•
15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447, Telephone 612/476 -6010
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 0
15050 23rd Avenge North. Plymouth. Minnesota 55447 Telephone Engineers
612/476 -6010 Planners
612/476 -6532 FAX Surveyors
June 19, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT: Water Treatment and Distribution System
MFRA #9316
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
As requested. we are submitting herewith a Preliminary Engineerir.. ?- ,ort
for Water Treatment and Water Distribution System Improvements.
If you have any questions or require additional information regar- J.. sny
information contained in this report. we will be pleased to discuss tl. +s
further with you at your convenience.
Very truly yours.
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
/Wft7'
Rodney Gordon
John Cameron
RG /JC:jmj
Enclosures
LJ
0z 7/7
An Equal r
•
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
For
Water System Improvements
1990 Update
Mound, Minnesota
June. 1990
0
•
V;20 0
SECTION l - INTRODU 0
The City of Mound owns and operates a municipal water system consisting of
four groundwater wells, two elevated water storage tanks, one water storage
stand pipe. and a distribution system which provides water to its customers.
The present service area has an approximate population of 9.700 people which is
slightly higher than it was when the previous water system report was written
in 1982.
This report has been authorized by the Mound City Council and it will
include preliminary design and cost for a municipal water treatment plant to
remove iron and mangar.ase. It is also the intent of this report to investigate
the present water distribution system and discuss any deficiencies in that
system along with any recommended improvements to upgrade it when necessary.
•
•
X72I - 1 -
0 SECTION II - EXISTING SYSTEM
A. General
0 B.
�1
U
The City of Mound obtains its water supply from several wells within
the City limits located as shown in the accompanying map. The wells
presently in use are identified as No.'s 1. 3. 6 and 7.
As part of tt..; municipal water system. the City operates and maintains
approximately 50 miles of distribution mains ranging from 2" to 10" in
size, a 75.000 gallon elevated tank on Chateau Lane between Shoreline
Drive and Bayport Road. a 300.000 gallon water tank located on
Evergreen Road between Westedge Boulevard and Rosewood Lane, and a
250.000 gallon stand pipe in the Island Park area at Drive and
Devon Lane.
Groundwater Wells
Well No. 1 is located on Auditor's Road and Marion Street. this well
was constructed in 1934 and is cased with a 10" pipe from the ground
service to a depth of 265'. The well is screened with 8' of 10"
diameter - No. 100 slot wire wound screen. This well is
being pumped at 300 gallons per minute.
Well No. 3 is located adjacent to the elevated water storage tank on
Chateau Lane between Shoreline Boulevard and Bayport Road. This well
was drilled in 1947 to a depth of 317' into the Jordan Sandstone.
This well is presently being pumped at 450 to 500 gallons per minute.
Well No.'s 4 and 5 are not in service and both have been a• -)andoned.
R 72,
- 2 -
Well No. 6 was drilled in 1976 and put into operation in early 1977.
This well is 175' deep and is furnished with a 24" casing from the
surface to a depth of ?5' and a 20" casing to a depth of 141'. A
nominal 16" stainless steel screen is furnished from 141' to 174'.
This well is presently being pumped at 550 gallons per minute.
Well No. 7 was drillei in 1977 and its location is just off of County
Highway 110 on Three Points Boulevard. This well is developed in the
sand and gravel drift formation and is screened from 135' to 193' with
12" stainless steel screen. This well is presently being pumped at
750 gallons per minutia and is the primary well in the City of Mound.
Well No.
1
3 4
5 6
7
Date Drilled
1934
1947 1962
1957 1976
1977
Present Capacity GPM
300
450 -500 Abandoned
Abandoned 550
750
Depth. Feet
285
317
175
195
Screen Size, Inches
10
--
16
12
Screen Length. Feet
8
--
33
60
Type of Well
Drift
Jordan-
Drift
Drift
Sandstone
Water Quality
Iron mA /1 0.23 0.41 - -- - -- 0.35 0.92
Manganese mg /1 0.55 0.30 - -- - -- 0.065 0.27
The water from these wells contain iron and manganese in various
quantities. The table above indicates that the iron content of the
water ranges from 0.23 to 0.92 mg /l and the manganese content from
0.065 to 0.55 ag /1. Experience has shown that the domestic consumer
finds the water objectionable when iron is present in amounts greater
than 0.2 mg /1. and the tenacity of manganese is so great that its
concentration should not be more than 0.1 mg /l and preferably less
than 0.05 mg /l. This indicates the need for water treatment to remove
the iron and manganese.
G.
a-723
Storage Facilities
Water storage facilities are provided for several purposes such as:
To equalize pumping rates over the day.
To equalize supply and demand over a long period of high
consumption. and
To furnish water for such emergencies as firE fighting or
accidental breakdowns.
•
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 9 -12 -90 #2
The City of Mound has. through the years provided stomp for all th-
purposes mentioned above. Both the 75,000 and the 300.000 gallon
storage tanks "float on the line", that is they fill during periods of
low consumption and empty during periods of high water consumption.
Voter is delivered to the system from the aforementioned wells to the
elevated storage tanks. The wells are automatically controlled by the
level in the 300.000 gallon tank through a master control panel
located at Well No. 6. This master control panel enables the operator
to select any sequence of wells to start and stop at pre -set levels in
the elevated storage tank. These set points are adjustable as is the
well sequence enabling the City to operate the entire well system at
various sequences. Such a system provides excellent flexibility and
operation and enables each well to operate an equal amount of time if
the City so desires. This control system was provided in 1977 along
with the construction of Well No. 7.
•
•
. 4 - 0? 707 Y
SECTION III - POPULATION AND V ATE R USAOS
According to the report written in 1982. the population in mound
has had a
steady growth since 1930. That growth rate was high between 1930 and 1970. but
after that time, the growth rate decreased. In the 1980 census. the population
was 9.280 and by 1982 it was estimated at 9.400. with a projected population of
9.70 for 1990. Therefore, there has been a very small. steady growth since
1982. It is not expected that the population of mound will change
substantially through the design period of 20 years. which this report is based
on. It is, therefore, estimated for design purposes that the population of
mound will be 10.000 people by the year 2010 the design period for such things
as water treatment plants and distribution systems.
8
Future and /or anticipated water usage requirements are based on several
factors, such as projected population, anticipated industry and historical
trends and water usage. All three of these factors will be taken into
consideration in determining future water requirements for the study period.
The historical data for the City of mound indicated an increase in water
usage from 1970 to 1976. After 1976 the water usage began to decrease mainly
due to the drop in water usage attributed to Tonka Toys. which eventually moved
from mound in 1982. The usage since 1982 has been basically domestic
consumption which has been around the total figure of 310.000.000 gallons a
year, which is approximately 90 gallons per capita per day.
i For the use of design purposes, this report will project the future water
I requirements by using daily per capita usage of 100 gallons for the duration of
the 20 year design period. This is a reasonable number for per capita usage as
it is used for design purposes in many other City's of similar size in
I Minnesota. The estimated daily per capita usage of 100 gallons along with the
projected population of 10,000 persons produces an average day's use, through
the design period, of 1,000,000 gallons. This gives a total annual water usage
of 365 ,000,000 gallons as compared to the present usage of 312,300,000 gallons.
1 0
a
a��s -5-
fi§SCTI0N IV - SYSTEM DESIGN
MW
e
As mentioned in the previous section, the total estimated water wage for
the design period per year is 365. 000,000 gallons. In addition to determining
yearly wage, it is equally important to determine the maximum daily and the
average daily wage of the maximum *oath. This is normally done by examining
historically water wage figures, but because of the lack of reliable data. we
have assumed that the maximum daily usage is approximately 2009 of the average
daily usage. Therefore. the maximum daily usage is projected to be 2.000.000
gallons per day for domestic use. Added to this figure would also be the
required amount of water to fight any fire that might take place within the
City of Mound at the same time the maximum usage is -ccurring. The Insurance
Services Office of St. Paul recommends a design for b fire flow of 2.500
gallons per minute for a duration of 2 hours. This would produce a total
requirement during an occurance of a fire of 300,000 gallons. The total
maximum day's usage would then be the domestic requirement plus the fire flow
or 2.300.000 gallons /day.
In order to provide the quantities of water needed to supply the demand of
2,300.000 gallons for the maximum day, it is necessary to design a treatment
plant size to provide at least the maximum days flow for domestic water, which
in this case is 2, 000,000 gallons /day. This would require a treatment plant
that would produce treated water at the rate of 1.390 gallons /minute. It is
recommended that the treatment system to be used in the City of Mound to remove
iron and manganese be a horizontal pressure filter designed to remove iron and
manganese which is present in the well waters in Mound. These filters are
normally either a 75 gallon /sinute size or the 500 gallon /minute size. In the
case of the system recommended for usage to treat Mound's well water. we would
have to use two 750 gallon /minute horizontal pressure filters. Therefore. the
proposed treatment plant would produce water at the rate of 1.500
gallons /minute. This would satisfy the the projected maximum day's water usage
of 2.000.000 gallons per day as previously mentioned.
C�
—6-
This system would also include a pressure aerator, air compressor. filter
function valves, filter manifold piping, air release system, backwash rate of
flow control system, loss of head indicator and manganese green sand and
tnthrasite filter media. along with an air washed distribution system
consisting of air wash grids, blower assembly, valuing. high lift
pumps. clear
well for treated water storage at the plant. etc. It would also be necessary
with this treatment process to include chemical feed equipment to add chlorine.
flouride and potassium permanganate. The potassium peraangerate is injected an
the influent side of the filter for manganese removal and the remaining
chemicals are added to the treated water.
A. Treatment system
This report discusses two alternative won to provide the 1.500
sallons /minute treatment required. These two alternatives are as follows:
1. Alternative One would be to have a 750 gallon /minute treatment
unit at 2. different locations. Each location would also have a
clearwell to provide 50,000 gallons of storage for treated water.
along with high lift pumps to pump water from the.clearwell into
the distribution system. In order to treat 750 gallons!minute.
It would be necessary to have available at the site a well which
produces that such water. In the case of Mound. Well No. 7 would
be one site where a plant could be located as it does produce 750
gallons /minute. The other site would be near the fire station
where Well No. 6 is presently located. Well No. 6 produces 550
gallons /minute and would have to be augmented by water from Well
No. 3, which is approximately 2 blocks away. Water would have to
be transported from Well No. 3 by providing a 6" line to carry
the raw water to the new proposed plant and that would cost
approximately (180,000. The total cost of Alternative One then
would be the cost of two treatment plants which is estimated to
be $1,224.000 and the cost of the 6" waterline ((180,000} which
gives a total cost of $1.404.000. An alternate way to provide
sufficient water at this site would be to drill another well near
Well No. 6. This would cost approximately $180,000 the same as
the 6" line to transport water from Well No. 3.
8727 -,
- 8 -
A729
2. Alternative Two would be to place a 1500 gallon /minute water
treatment plant at the site of Well No. 7. This plant would also
have a clear+ell to provide 100.000 gallons of storage for
treated water along with high lift pumps. Since Well No. 7
produces only 750 gallons /alnute. a new well producing a,-- same
i
as Well No. 7 would have to be drilled nearby. Well No. 7 and
the new well would than provide 1.500 gallons /minute for complete
jtreatment
at this location. The new well and the piping required
to bring water into the proposed site of the water treatment
Plant would cost approximately 5206.000. The total cost of
Alternative Two would then be $1.259.000. Alternative Two has
several advantages. The first advantage is the fact that the
cost is approximately $145.000 less. It also has a couple of
other advantages, one being the fact that water treatment will be
all at one location. It will also provide a new well so that the
two wells providing water to the treatment aystes are reliable.
If Alternative One was used. the am treatment system at Well No.
6 would be using two wells that are somewhat questionable in that
there has been problems with Yell No. 6 in the past and Well No.
3 is now 43 years old. Another advantage is the fact that the
other existing wells can be kept as stand -by wells to produce
water during emergencies such as fire or extremely high water
usage. With the proposed treatment plant in operation along with
i the
other wells. the City would have the capability Of pining
2.800 gallons /minute into the distribution system in an emergency
'
situation. We therefore recommend that the City use proposed
Alternative Two to provide a system to remove iron and manganese
from the well water. This recommendation is based on the
assumption that the present distribution system is capable of
providing flow capacity to accept water from the treatment plant
'
at 1500 to 2000 Vs. This must be verified with a computer
analysis of the distribution system before a final decision is
'
made to accept Alternative 2.
- 8 -
A729
B. Distribution System 10
The existing distribution system. which includes the pipe work and the
elevated storage. was also investigated. The main reason for the
Investigation is to determine if the pipe network will distribute
water in sufficient quantities to provide fire fighting capabilities
In all areas of the City. This was done by flow testing approximately
37 hydrants throughout the City of Mound. The results of this surve
' indicated that the area between Lake Langdon and Dutch Lake have some
problems in providing sufficient quantities of water while maintaining
1 a proper residual pressure in the system as the water is being taken
out of the system. Normally. the Insurance Services Organization
recommends that a residual pressure of at least ZO pounds per square
inch ( psi) be maintained when the hydrants are flowing sufficient
quantities of water to fight a fire. In the extreme western part of
the area mentioned above. the residual pressure was decreased to
approximately 10 psi when the hydrants were flowed. This no -doubt
t results from the fact that the distribution system in this area is a
dead end and the elevation of the topography is quite high. The one
thing that can be eliminated quite easily is the dead and system in
this area. This can be accomplished by constructing a 10" line from
Westedge Boulevard and Halstad Lane. north across the railroad tracks
1 along Westedge Boulevard to the existing 10" line approximately 600'
south of Lynwood Boulevard. This would eliminate the dead and on the
system and provide water directly to that area from the water tower on
Evergreen Road near Westedge Boulevard.
Previously, it was recommended that the proposed water treatment plant
I be located near Uell No. 7. The treated water. therefore. will be
entering the distribution system at that point or at Commerce
Boulevard and Three Points Boulevard. This is approximately two miles
from the water tower on Evergreen Road and the highlift pumps located
In that treatment plant would be pulping against a high head because
i of the head loss in the single 10" line down Commerce Boulevard
leading to the water tower on Evergreen Road. If the proposed 10"
����
•
connection along Westedge Boulevard is constructed. this will reduce
the head loss as there will be two routes the water can take to get to
the water tower on Evergreen Road. This will also help the pressure
In the area between Lake Langdon and Dutch Lake when the high lift
pumps are in operation.
1
10
i
Previously mentioned in the report was the requirements for fire fighting
capabilities of the existing system. The ability to provide water to fight
fire depends upon the rate at which water can be supplied to the system and the
socunt of storage available at the time the fire begins. In the City of Mound,
there will be plenty of supply with the proposed treatment system. which will
produce 1.500 gallons /minute of treated water to the system at any given time
along with the remaining wells which can produce approximately 1.500
gallons /minute. This supply eliminates the need for constructing any more
storage in the City of Mound at this time. It is also understood that if an
emergency arises whereby the storage is being depleted and there is a fire
requiring high water usage. there are lines interconnecting the other City's in
the area. This will help provide water to fight fire in the City of !found
under such emergencies.
One thing that must be taken into consideration, is the fact that two of
these wells. Well No.'s 1 and 3. are getting old. There is. therefore. a
possibility that in the near future. they will have to be abandoned and the
City will no longer have that additional supply in case of an emergency. At
that time. the City would need to provide another well that would produce 750
gallons /minute or construct a water tower that has a capacity of 250.000
gallons. The need for this is demonstrated by the fact that during the peak
day. the maximum water usage over a 14 hour period is approximately 2,000
gallons /minute. With the treatment plant producing only 1.500 gallons / ainute.
there is a 500 gallon /minute deficit over the 14 hour period making a total
deficit of 420,000 gallons. If a fire should occur at this point, it would be
necessary to have 275,000 gallons of storage on hand to fight the fire thus
requiring a total storage volume of 695.000 gallons. The City presently has
375.000 gallons of elevated storage and this report recommends the construction
- 10 -
A 73o
of a 100.000 gallon clearwell with the treatment plant making a total of
475.000 gallons available toward making up the 695.000 gallon deficit during a
major fire requiring additional storage of 220.000 gallons. This would have to .
be made up by additional elevated storage. The Insurance Services Organization
recommends that the storage be sized so it would provide the required
quantities of water when 80 percent full. It would. therefore. be necessary to
have an additional 300.000 gallons of storage. It is. therefore. recommended
that the City plan for future construction of a 300.000 gallon tank in
approximately 15 years.
i
i
�
2731
- 11 -
U
L_J
I
' CITY OF MOUND
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Water Treatment Plant
(Cost of 1 Plant for Alternate 1)
750 GPM Iron Removal Equipment S 100.000
1 Additional Equipment for Manganese Removal 20.000
Chlorination, Gas System 5.500
Flouride Feed System 2.000
Potassium Permanganate Feed System 3.500
Buiiding 1250 S.F. 95.000
Electrical 40.000
Piping 40.000
Pumps 2 -750 GPM 26.000
Site Work 12.000
' Labor to Place Equipment 90.000
Clearwell. 50.000 Oallons 30.000
SUBTOTAL i 464.000
Contingencies 10% 46.000
SUBTOTAL 510.000
Administrative. Technical. Legal 20% 102.000
TOTAL. S 612.000
Cost of 2 Plants 1.224.000
Piping from Well No. 3 to Plant Site at Well No. 6 180.000
tip
I
- 12 -
A )3Z
0
0
CITY OF NOUND
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEN REPORT
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Water Treatment Plant
(Alternate No. 2)
1.500 GPM Iron Removal Equipment
S 200.000
Additional Equipment for Nanganese Removal
40.000
Chlorination Gas System
7.000
Flouride Feed System
2.000
Potassium Permanganate Feed System
3.500
Building. 2000 S.F.
150.000
Electrical
65.000
Piping
70.000
Pumps. 3 -1000 GPM
45.E
Sitevork
12.000
Labor to Place Equipment
160.000
Clearwell. 100.000 Gallons
55.E
SUBTOTAL
S 809.500
Contingencies 10%
81.000
•
SUB'T'OTAL
S 890.500
Administrative. Technical, Legal 20%
178.500
SUBTOTAL
S 1.069.000
Well and Piping (See Cost Estimate for Well)
f98�0A- Ze` cJJ
TOTAL
g L -1
i
7 o�
rD
w
u
� '
1 �J
gj 33
- 13 -
CITY OF MOUND
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT
Preliminary Cost Estimate
New Well for Alternate No. 2
One New Well, 750 ON
Pump and Pitless Adapter, 750 WN
Pipeline From Well to Treatment Plant
SUBTOTAL
Contingencies 10%
SUBTOTAL
Administrative. Technical and Legal (25X)
TOTAL
•
- 14 -
S 150,000
15,000
S 165.000
41.000
�. Lei
R73y
i
s
i
•
a 13S
- 15 -
CITY OF MOUND
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REPORT
Preliminary Cost Estimate
10" Watermain Extension - Westedge Boulevard
Halstead Lane North to Existing 10" Main
ITEM
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
T OTAL
10" DIP Watermain
2.200 L.F. S 23.00 /LF
t
50.600
6" DIP Watermain
100 L.F. S 16.00/LF
S
1.600
Fittings
3.000 LB i 1.70/LB
S
5.100
10" Gate Valves
4 EACH f 750.00/EA
S
3.000
6" date Valves
4 EACH S 450.00 /EA
S
1.800
Hydrants
4 EACH S 1.200.00 /EA
S
4.800
Granular Material
200 TON S 9.00/7N
S
1.800
6" Class 2. St. Restoration 2.000 TON S 8.50/7N
S
17.000
Roadside Seeding
LUMP SUM
S
2.000
Jacking 10" Watermain 60 L.F. S 150.00 /LF
S
9.000
SUBTOTAL
S
96.700
Contingencies
(10x)
9.700 •
SUBTOTAL
S
106.400
Administrative. Technical and Legal (25x)
26.600
TOTAL
S
133.000
•
a 13S
- 15 -
1
•
T0: Skip Johnson, City Council
FROM: John Norman, F Director _ TLP
RE: Effect of increase in water rates on total utility bill - Water
Treatment Facility
I have selected three utility bills from residential accounts representing
low, mid -range and high usage. The following slows the effect a 40% increase
in water rates would have on the entire utility bill:
Usage Water Sewer Total
Charge Charge Bill
LOW 7,000 Current billing 7.00 25.41 32.41
4o% t 9.80 25.41 35.21
$ increase 2.80 -0- 2.80
% increase 40$ -0- 8.6%
MID -RANGE 25,000 Current billing
25.00
50.46
75.46
40%T
35.00
50.46
85.46
$ increase
10.00
-0-
10.00
% increase
40%
-0-
13.3%
HIGH 53,000 Current billing
53.00
102.23
155.23
40% r
14.20
102.23
176.43
$ increase
21.20
-0-
21.20
% increase
40%
-0-
13.7%
k u JUL 191990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mound City Council and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: July 18, 1990
SUBJECT: Shoreland Management Ordinance - Pelican Point
At the meeting on June 26, 1990, the City Council requested that
staff review the determination that was made regarding a shoreland
management ordinance when Pelican Point was under consideration.
I have reviewed the available file information and have the
following comments to offer.
In approximately 1978, the City of Mound approved a 27 unit
development on the Pelican Point site. At that time, the project
consisted of 13 single family homes and 14 attached patio homes.
Despite extensions of the original approval through 1982, the
project was never constructed due to economic conditions.
In 1982, the State of Minnesota adopted a new set of environmental
rules with references to shoreland management ordinances. Those
rules (3.039M) which are still in effect contain the following
threshold for projects requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS):
Mandatory EIS Category
Construction of a permanent or potentially permanent
residential development of 40 or more unattached or of 60 or
more attached units if the local government unit has not
adopted state approved shoreland, floodplain, or wild and
scenic rivers land use district ordinances, the Mississippi
headwaters plan, or the Project Riverbend plan, as applicable,
and either:
a. The project involves riparian frontage, or
b. 10 or more acres of the development is within a
shoreland, or delineated floodplain, or state or
federally designated wild and scenic rivers district, the
Minnesota River Project Riverbend area or the Mississippi
headwaters area.
C7
AM
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldq.11, Suits 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447 -2175 612/553-1050
Shoreland /Pelican Point Memorandum
July 18, 1990
Page Two
In 1985 as is the case today, the City of Mound did not have a
shoreland management ordinance in place. Because of this, the 1985
project was required to prepare an EIS which was determined to be
unrealistic due to cost ( ;50,000 - ;100,000) and the fact that it
would add up to two years to the project approval process. As an
alternative, the City of Mound expressed the possibility of
adopting the model ordinance that was available at that time. In
January of 1985, City Manager Jon Elam stated, "As a city though,
we will have to face the Shoreland Management Ordinance issue
sooner or later. I would propose that we begin to draft up, over
the next four to six weeks, language Lhat might be involved in such
an ordinance and forward it t- the DNR for their reaction." In
February of 1985, a packet of materials pertaining to shoreland
management was presented to the Planning Commission for their
review and consideration.
•
Through a series of meetings, the Planning Commission and
ultimately the City Council became more familiar with shoreland
management ordinances and their potential impact on Mound.
Gradually, there was a realization that adoption of an ordinance
was not a simple matter and certainly not one that could be quickly
addressed. At about this same point in time, the developers
decided not to pursue the Pelican Point project and the pressure
on the City to act quickly was removed.
Since all cities are required to adopt shoreland management
ordinances, efforts to resume preparation of an ordinance for Mound
resumed in late 1981. It was decided that a prudent time to review
the issue of shoreland regulation was during and after preparation
of an updated co prehensive plan. In 1988, preparation of a
shoreland ordinance for Mound was derailed again, this time by the
LMCD who initiated the comprehensive planning process for Lake
Minnetonka. The plan was to contain standards for the lake
communities that differed from the DNR guidelines for shoreland
management. As the Council is aware, that plan is now complete in
draft form and is undergoing a review process.
At this time, Mound is still without a shoreland management
ordinance since the framework for the ordinance (the LMCD plan) has
not been formally adopted. The situation today remains very much
the same as it did in 1985. Mound still needs to adopt an
ordinance regulating shoreland management., If Pelican Point was
proposed today as it was in 1985, it would still require the
preparation of an EIS due the environmental rule thresholds.
Recent history has shown that the City of Mound is committed to
fulfilling its requirement of adopting a shoreland management
ordinance. The ordinance can not be completed, however, until the .
LMCO plan is finalized.
003)
SHOREPEL,L51
IL
CITY of MOUND MOUND, M NE °o a 5°64
(612) 472 -1155
January 15, 1985
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE: SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
As most of you know by now the City has received a proposal to develop the
16 acre site South of Lakewinds into condominiums.
This 126 un :t project would consist (as proposed) of three buildings, 85 feet
high and would create a wall about 800 feet loi,g over the 1300 foot length
of the site.
Not surprising, a development like this causes major involvements on the part
of a number of other agencies. Most of these are relatively routine in
nature, i.e. Metro Waste Control, Health Dept., LMCD, Watershed District,
etc. Others ordinar'ly do not get involved in our day to day planning
process. Primarily, the major agency of concern is the DNR.
It would appear that they have the power to review and approve a number of
issues posed by this project, over and above the City's review. These
include, height (not to exceed 35 feet), density (maximum 80 units), set-
backs at least 50 feet from lake, docks (26, LMCD could grant up to 60),
etc. This is where the confusion and complexity of all this develops.
If the City has a DNR approved Shoreland Management Ordinance, the approval
process for most activities would be retained by the City. DNR would sti.
retain the review right for large projects like Pelican Point, but that
would be a review right not a veto, unless we greatly varied from the
Shoreland Management Ordinance.
The Planning Commission did vote, I believe, unanimously against the zoning
and variances Pelican Point was seeking.
For this large project it means going back to the drawing boards and re -doing
their plan or dropping it altogether. At this point, I do not think they
know what they want to do.
As a City though, we will have to face the Shoreland Management Ordinance
issue sooner or later. I would propose that we begin to draft up, over
the next four to six weeks, language that might be involved in such an
ordinance and forward it to the DNR for their reaction.
2731
Page 2
City Council
January 15, 1985
Clearly this could be a process that could go on for months, but 1 do not
see how anybody could gain from that.
In summary, the issues a Shoreland Management Ordinance would govern would
be:
Lot Size
Height
Setbacks
Density
Review & Approval Process
Subdivisions of Lots
Plats
1 may have missed something, but I hope I have not. I will keep you
informed on this as we move ahead.
The Council and Planning Commissio may want t_ jointly appoint a Committee
to develop this as was done earlier on the Wetlands Ordinance.
JE:fc
•
•
2.139
• , ♦ � MINNET�
ll
M
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
•�►h��� Q �S ~ 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/471703?
EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MARO NEYSERS
David H. Cochran. Chair
Greenwood
Albert o Foster. v. Chai
June 5, 1990 ' A
UT JUN 5
Deepha~
Jan Bosw.nkel. Secretary
Minn «onks Beach
John Lowman. Treasurer
Minnelhsta
Oouglas E. Babcock
Spring Park
The Honorable Steve Smith
Marvin Blorkn
Tonks Ba
Mayor, City of Mound
""'°° Gnat ""°'
E:c lswr
2710 Clare Lane
JoEllen L. Hurr
Mound MN 55364
Orono
John 4. Malinke
victoria
Thomas Martinson
Dear Steve:
Wayzata
Robert K. Pillsbury
Minnetunka
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Thomas W. Reese
The MN DNR Statewide Standards for "Management of Shorelan
Mond
Robe "'"
Areas" were adopted July 3, 1989. These revised standards are
Woo
expected to be adopted by all cities.
As a special accommodation to the 14 Lake Minnetonka cities,
the MN DNR invited your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
to facilitate the adoption of the shoreland standards among
its member cities.
Coincident to the development of the Long Term Management
Program for Lake Minnetonka, the Shoreland Rules study was the
first to be conducted. Your city participated in this
shoreland rules assessment in the winter of 1988 -89.
Profressional staff and some elected official participation
in this study resulted in the recommended Shoreland Management
guide distributed wach eight other study areas in November, 1989.
Workshops sponsored by the MN DNR were held in late January,
1990. We believe all lake communities participated in these
workshops. The process for each community's responsibility
in adopting the revised Shoreland Rules was reviewed in detail.
LMCD's role as the facilitating agency for the Lake Minnetonka
communities was alsu explained by DNR officials.
The Shoreland Grant Agreement is now ready after a careful
review of its contents with the MN DNR. Your LMCD Board has
reviewed and approved it for your subsequent review and, we
trust, adoption.
27y0
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
LMCD Municipalities
DNR Shoreland Rules
June S, 1990
Page 2
Certain funding reimbursement for eligible costs is being
provided by the MN DNR through LMCD as the facilitating agency.
A provision to fund necessary consulting service to assist the
cities in the adoption process is also included as part of the
agreement. Eligibility for the matching funds is available
through July 31, 1991. That is the deadline for all LMCD
cities to complete their shoreland rules adoption. This
leaves just a year to accomplish this task upon your prompt
review and signing of the agreement.
May we count on you and your City Council to favorably adopt
this Shoreland Grant Agreement in June so we may move ahead
with the maximum time available? You may direct questions to
me personally at 474 -4743, or to Executive Director Gene
Strommen, 473 -7033.
Thankyou for your positive and early response.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
David H. Cochran
Chair
DHC:am
enc:agreement
c:city administrator
10141
• STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPART14ENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SHORELAND GRANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting by and
through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the
"State "; and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, hereinafter referred
to as the "LMCD "; and, the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood,
Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring
Park, Tonka Bay, Victor'a, Wayzata and Woodland, hereinafter referred to as
the "Cities ".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the State has been granted certain responsibility for regulation
of shoreland development, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 105.485 and
1innesota Rules parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertaining to "Statewide
Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas "; and
WHEREAS, the State is authorized by the Laws of 1989, Chapter 335,
Article 1, Section 21, Subdivision 3 to provide grant assistance for local
governments to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with
statewide standards, and to develop comprehensive lake management strategies
and plans; and
WHEREAS, thez LMCD has prepared a Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan which includes a strategy for shoreland area management; and
.,WHEREAS, a coordinatLd, comprehensive approach to shoreland standards for
the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetonka will result in greater local
consistency and acceptance of the controls, and
WHEREAS, the LMCD and the Cities have submitted an application for grant
assistance.
279X
1
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto:
I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. CITIES' RESPONSIBILITY •
1. Shoreland Ordinance Adoption. After the official two year notice
has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., and before
July 31, 1991, the Cities agree to adopt a shoreland management ordinance
consistent with statewide standards and the Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive
Management Plan.
2. The Cities shall document all eligible costs defined in Section
II.A. of this agreement, and report them to the LMCD for payment.
B. L14CD RESPONSIBILITY
1. Local Government Coordination. After the official two year
notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., L14CD
agrees to coordinate the shoreland ordinance adoption fog the shoreland areas
of Lake Minnetonka (I.D.027 -133) of the following local governments:
City of Deephaven City of Orono
City of Excelsior City of Shorewood
City of Greenwood City of Spring Park
City of Minnetonka City of Tonka Bay
City of Minnetonka Beach City of Victoria
City of Minnetrista City of Wayzata
City of Mound City of Woodland
2. Ordinance Certification Checklist. Within the adoption schedule
described in item A.I. above, the LMCD also agrees to ensure completion of all
the tasks and return the attached ordinance certification checklist for each
City to the State.
Al U3
3. The LMCD shall pay to the Cities from funds received pursuant to
Section II.A of this Agreement 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption
expenses (described in item 4, below) up to a maximum of: a) $2,500.00 for
each of the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka
Beach, Mound, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata and Woodland, and b) $5,000.00
for each of the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood and Victoria.
4. Documentation of Actual Costs. The LMCD agrees to provide to the
State documentation of all actual eligible costs, defined below, in the
adoption of shoreland ordinances for the Cities, and the coordination of
shoreland ordinance adoption by the local governments listed in item B.1.,
above. Examples of allowable costs are:
a) Publishing costs for hearing notices and ordinance provisions;
b) Consultants fees and /or legal fees involved in the ordinance
adoption process;
c) Flailing costs associated with ordinance adoption and publication;
d) Education and training costs including, expenses for attending
the DNR workshops;
e) Costs of holding public infc A tion meetings;
f) Costs of shoreland classification reviews, including map
revisions and ordinance development;
g) Costs for comprehensive plan development and revisions pertaining
to the shoreland district only, unless combined with the
Fl oodpl a i l e i and /or W i l d and Scenic Rivers programs.
h) Costs for upgrading zoning administration forms such as: permit
application, permit certification, variances, conditional uses,
special uses, zoning changes, amendments.
i) Costs resulting from tasks perforraed by local appointed
officials, employees or staff involved in the adoption process of
a shoreland ordinance. 27
3 VV
j) Coordination costs of local government shoreland ordinance
adoption relating to: meeting attendance, training and
explanation of county codes and
ordinances
for compatibility,
•
lake and stream classification
review for
county wide
the state.
consistency, review and comments on local government controls and
ordinances for county consistency and state compliance, and
review and comments on local government administrative procedures
for consistency and compatibility with the county.
k) Office computerization relating to shoreland management.
5. The LMCD shall return to the State any grant funds advanced which
are in excess of 50% of actual costs and which have not previously been paid
to the Cities. Funds which have been previously paid to the Cities which are
in excess of 50% of actual costs shall be returned to the State by the Cities.
6. If any City does not adopt a shoreland ordinance by July 31,
1991, then all
grant funds for
the
purposes of adopting a shoreland ordinance
for that City
shall be returned
to
the state.
7. Each City shall provide to the Department for review a draft
ordinance at least 60 days before the deadline date defined in item 6, above.
II. GRANT
A. The State shall pay to the LMCD up to a maxinum of 145,000.00 for
payment to the Cities of 501; of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses for
the services authorized hereunder.
,;
Invoices will( be submitted for double the requested payment amount
to demonstrate both the local and state share. Final payment will be made
after the Work has been completed and if costs and Work for which invoices are
submitted are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. This
also includes submittal of the Ordinance Certification Checklist.
#27W 4
Advance payments to the. Lb1CD by the State not to exceed 50% of the grant
amount may be authorized if a listing of anticipated incurred expenses are
submitted by the LMCD to the State. The LMCD and /or Cities agree to pay all
expenses not paid for by the grant.
B. The State shall pay $15,000.00 costs of coordinating the adoption
of local controls up to a maximum of $15,000.00. Examples of allowable
expense are described in Section I.B.4. of this contract.
III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. The WCD agrees that in the hiring of common or skilled labor for
the performance of any work under any contract, cr sub - contract hereunder,
neither it nor any contractor, material supplier or vendor shall engage in any
discriminatory employment practices as such practices are defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 181.59 and Chapter 363, or in any practices prohibited by
Minnesota Statutes Sections 177.42 and '_71.43 (1988).
0 2. The LMCD shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the State,
its agents and employees from all claims or actions which may arise from
performance of this Agreement.
3. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures, and
practices of
the LMCD relevant
to this
Agreement
shall
be
subject to
examination
of the Departmert
of Natural
Resources
and
the
Legislative
Auditor.
4. The State agrees to provide technical and coordinative assistance
to the LMCD and /or Cities for the adoption of shorelana controls for non -Lake
Minnetonka shoreland areas within the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood,
and Victoria.
1�1
0
,27yc
11
5. The State intends by this Agreement to eliminate unnecessary
duplication of ordinance adoption procedures by requiring all ordinance
standards prepared �,v the Cities to be coordinated with the LMCD prior to
submittal to the State for approval. Failure by the Cities to coordinate with
the LMCD will result in non - payment of eligible costs to the Cities by the
LMCD .
IV. TERM
This Agreement shall become effective when all signatures required
have been obtained and when the funds have been encumbered by the Commissioner
of Finance, and shall continue in effect until the agreed tasks are completed
or until July 31, 1991 whichever is earlier.
V. TERMINATION
The State may terminate this Agreement "with cause ". "With cause"
shall mean that the LMCD and /or Cities are not performing the Work in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement or the Work is not being performed
to the satisfaction of the State. If this Agreement is so terminated, the
State shall only be liable to pay for Work found acceptable.
In the event of termination of this Agreement as heretofore
provided, the LMCD and /or Cities shall have seven (1) days prior written
notice and if the Agreement is being terminated "with cause" the LMCD and /or
Cities shall have until the date of termination to show cause why the
Agreement should not be terminated. If it is determined Dy the 3TdLe U10 '6'PC
LMCD /Cities default was beyond its control or it was not otherwise in default,
the Agreement shall not be terminated.
•
r�
LJ
•
•
CITY OF M•10UND
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF ORONO
By:
Ma yor
Date:
By:
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
C1 erk
Date:
CITY OF SPRING PARK
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF TONKA BAY
By:
Mayor
Date:
By
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF VICTORIA
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
Date:
CITY OF WAYZATA
By:
Mayor
Date:
By: _
Clerk
Date:
CITY OF WOODLAND
By:
Mayor
Date:
By:
Clerk
17yl
8
ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST
Once all the below listed tasks are completed. please sign and return the
checklist and all required documents to the State. This must be returned before
final payment will be authorized.
1 • Date of published hearing notice.
Z• Date of postmark of hearing notice to
Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources /Area Hydrologist.
3. Date of hearing(s).
d• Date of ordinance adoption.
5. If ordinance is published in entirety,
date and affidavit of newspaper
publication of adopted ordinance.
(Include three copies of ordinance)
6.
7.
If only ordinance summary published,
date and affidavit of newspaper
publication of ordinance title and
summary along with certified copy of
adopted ordinance in its entirety from
the Clerk.
(Include three copies of ordinance)
Date of official filing of adopted
ordinance with County Recorder
( record book number
page number).
Board of Adjustment /Appeals has been
established.
*Note: Cities under charter must also submit a list of any additional
requirements for hearings, notices, etc. stated in their charter. Please
spec i fy:
BY:
Mayor
DATE:
CITY:
•
•
,26711
•
CITY OF MOUND
PRESENTATION FOR LMCD
LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA
JUNE 6, 1990 — 7 PM
INTRODUCTION
It is the position of the City of Mound that the LMCD must
continue to be the agency for the management of the surface use
of Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Management Plan that has been
developed by Arndorfer and Associates, in cooperation with the
LMCD Board of Directors, various committees, staff and other
agencies demonstrates a sincere effort in analyzing the problems
and issues facing the LMCD and its 14 member cities. This plan
is essential to managing the future of Lake Minnetonka and the
surrounding communities.
Over the years, the LMCD has been effective within its limited
authority. The long term plan calls for some changes in its
structure that includes giving it the ability to be a stronger
taxing authority. The City of Mound believes that if such
authority is granted, members should be elected by the people
that they are taxing rather than the current system of
appointments.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
•
1. The City of Mound applauds the LMCD for its efforts to fight
the Eurasian Water Milfoil problem in Lake Minnetonka. This
effort is an example of the LMCD's interest in protecting
the environment. The City of Mound encourages the LMCD to
continue to take a strong stance on the environment.
2. The City of Mound believes that land use regulations should
remain under city control.
3. The City of Mound is against programs to reduce, and
ultimately eliminate, grandfathering at municipal and
homeowner association docks. It is the position of the City
that it has itself 400+ Commons Docks which are maintained
for the benefit of all residents of the City.
A 75 a
0
4. The City of Mound believes that the City of Mound should not
increase access to Lake Minnetonka for non - lakeshore
residents at the expense of lakeshore owners.
5. The City of Mound supports the LMCD in obtaining authority
to charge user fees for the use of Lake Minnetonka.
CONCLUSION
The City of Mound recognizes that Lake Minnetonka is both a
regional asset and one enjoyed by individual lakeshore owners.
The rights of one should not and need not be sacrificed to
benefit the other.
•
s
ANSI 2
11
June 12, 1990
CITY Of N IOl NI ) R`-
Dr. David J. Arndorfer
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
402 E. Lake Street
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Dr. Arndorfer:
The City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, has spent
several hours over the last two months reviewing the Long Term
Management Program for Lake Minnetonka that you have prepared in
cooperation with the LMCD.
The City Council began its review of the plan basically on a page
by page basis, and came up with a number of questions and /or
comments with regard to the plan.
As you know, Mayor Steve Smith represented the City of Mound at
the June 6th public hearing at the City of Minnetonka, in which
the statement read by Mayor Smith summarized the City of Mounds
Position on the plan. However, Council wanted me to direct a
letter to you indicating specific questions or comments that they
had on the various portions of the plan. Therefore, I will begin
by page number within the plan:
1. Page 18, under "Historical Background" indicates that there
is a need for 700 car /trailer parking spaces for Lake
Minnetonka. Assuming that the Hennepin Parks District go e3
forward and builds a regional park on Lake Minnetonka, were
the spaces created at the park (100 +) going to be counted
within the 700 parking spaces?
2. Pages 29 -31 under items 8 -6, 7 -6, 6 -4 and 5 -1. The word in
"review" is used repeatedly. What does "review" mean in
these contexts? How serious are you about these items?
•
A 7S,2
Dr. David J. Arndorfer
June 12, 1990
Page 2
3. On page 21, you indicated present practice by one of the
cities on the lake. We understand this to be Mound. Is
this correct? If so, on page 28, you indicate:
"Accordingly, Lake Minnetonka access and use shall be
managed to remain open for all citizens of the state, while
riparian landowners have certain constitutional and common
law rights of access, no other group shall be recognized as
having special privileges or other rights of access." Is it
the intent that the City of Mound's Commons Dock program
should be open to all citizens of the state of Minnesota?
4. Pages 30 -31, items 6 -2 and 5 -4. What do these mean? Is it
the intent of the LMCD to eliminate expansion of the City of
Mound's municipal dock program?
5. Page 30, item 7 -4. What is the rationale behind "more
restrictive frontage -foot rules ?"
6. The City of Mound compliments you on items 8 -10, 8 -11 and 8-
13, on page 30. These are positive statements. is
7. Page 30, item 8 -9. Is 24 hour presence of the water patrol
necessary all year round?
8. Page 30, item 7 -8. Please clarify the phrase "following day
on weekends and holidays."
9. Pages 30 -31. "To implement such an ordinance, the LMCD
shall meet with each individual municipality to determine
the classification of the near shore waters of the lake.
It is conceived that the classifications adopted would be
that of the city. The known exception would be the
manufacturing district in one city on the lake." Which city
is this?
10. Page 32, the statement "future public access points shall
utiliz? ~emote and shuttles as appropriate." How is this
going to be paid for?
11. Page 35, regarding the regulation of ice houses. The City
of Mound supports the LMCD on this item as it is a great
need at the present time.
12. Page 42, item i3, is excellent.
13. Page 44, item f4. We compliment you on this item.
A ?S 3
•
•
Mr. David J. Arndorfer
June 12, 1990
Page 3
14. Page 57, item 115. On page 42, reference is made to the
word "manpower" under item 11. This word should be made
gender neutral. There may be other references to manpower
through the report that should be changed.
16. Page 39, last paragraph seems to be
law enforcement agencies for the lake
Officer Standards and Training lic(
the state of Minnesota. We don't be
how many positions there should be i
unit. That is usually up to the
enforcement agency is located.
overstating the use of
The Board of Peace
nses peace officers in
Lieve that it dictates
n each law enforcement
city where the law
17. Page 41. Typographical error on the listing of items.
18. Page 50, 4th paragraph. References the Excelsior Commons.
It states that "only the Commons has the capacity to serve a
significant regional population." Is this referencing
Excelsior Commons? If so, it should be stated as such.
19. Page 51. The statement is made: "The LMCD has a
legislatively- mandated responsibility for public water -
oriented shoreline recreational opportunities on the lake."
Is this true?
21. Page 51. The statement is made: "The Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District has legislative authority over
shoreline use and over shoreline public lands." Is this
true?
22. Page 52. The statement is made at the top of the page:
"There is also a direct link between public ownership of
shorelines and boating patterns. Where large parcels are in
public ownership, and where physical features are favorable,
rafting is an important activity." We don't understand what
this means; could you please clarify?
23. Page 52, item 13, sVo. b. Our understanding is that this
statement allows the LMCD to have authority over land use
control. We previously stated in our presentation at the
June 6th public hearing, that we were against the LMCD
having land use control.
24. Page 55, under item 08, it states: "The present LMCD policy
is is to encourage development of additional intermediate or
regional parks." You should be more specific, i.e., Lake
Minnetonka Regional Park.
01 7sy
Mr. Da%id J. Arndorf er
June 12, 1990
Page 4
The above questions and comments were specific to the report. In
relationship to the presentation made on June 6th, we wanted to
re- emphasize that the City of Mound is against programs to reduce
and ultimately eliminate grandfathering at municipal and
homeowner association docks. It is the position of the City that
it has 4.5 miles of City owned lakeshore which provides dockage
for the benefit of all residents of the City.
The City of Mound is also concerned with the statement under
shoreland protection dealing with the thousand foot control of
development, redevelopment and land uses. This becomes a very
serious restriction, particularly as it pertains to industrial
use, i.e., the former Tonka Toys building, currently owned by
Balboa of Minnesota.
I hope the questions above and comments are taken as
constructive. We would appreciate a response to those questions
and any other comments that you might have. We look forward to
hearing from you,
Sincerely,
I Edward , Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
cc: Gene Strommen
Tom Reese
ES:ls
•
1IS,S
BILLS- - - - - -- aLPTEMBER 11, 1990
•
•
C
BATCH 0083
BATCH n084
Unitog
IGA
Hennepin County
Labatts Spur
9'3,019.02
108,507.94
Uniform rental 317.99
Aug supplies 88.31
July Board 851.00
Aug gasoline 83.67
TOTAL BILLS
202,867.93
027504
PAGE 1
P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L
DATE
8/30/90
AP- CO2-01
CITY OF MOUND
TIME
10.20.19
VEIL
INVOICE DUE MID
PREPAID
CHM
NO. INVOICE NtBR
DATE DATE STATUS
NIOINT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT KIM
All(M
CMEM 1
DATE
80649
PRE-PA ?D
1,456.50
LIG
71- 7100-9510
8/30/90 8/30/90
1,456.50
JtML -CD
1010
1456.50
30823
8/21/90
PRE -PAID
1,247.91
LIG
71-7100 -95:0
8/30/90 8/30/90
1,247.91
JMNL-CD
1010
1247.91
30858
8/28/90
BELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAI.
2704.41
80685
PREPAID
29,934.74
'90 SEALCOAT PROD -FINAL
27-5800-5300
8/30/90 8/30/90
29,934.74
JiNL -CD
1010
29934.74
30829
8 /21/90
BITUMINOUS ROADNAIS VENDOR TOTAL
29934.74
00888
PRE -PAID
3,773.00
CR UNION 8/18 PR
01-2040-0000
8/30/90 8/30/90
3,773.00
JK-CD
1010
3773.00
30845
8/23/90
CITY COUNTY CREDIT
UNION VENDOR TOTAL
3773.00
C0999
PRE -PAID
233.40
SEPT LIFE INS 8.18 PR
01- 2040 -0000
8/30/90 8130/90
233.40
JMII-CD
1010
233.40
30851
8/23/90
W ERCIAL LIFE INS CO VENDOR TOTAL
233.40
C1001
PRE -PAID
2,468.63
SIT 8/18 PR
01-2040 -0000
9/30/90 8/30190
2,468.63
JtK -CD
1010
2468.63
30837
8/23/90
CO MISSIONER OF REVENUE VOW TOTAL
2468.63
D1219
PREPAID
255.96
27 CONTRACT HOURS
81-4350-3100
8/30/90 8/30/90
255.96
Mt-CD
1010
255.96
30831
8/21/90
DELBERT RUDOLPH
VENDOR TOTAL
255.96
E1429
PREPAID
182.61
LIG
71-7100-9510
158.30
NINE
71-7100-9520
3.65-
DISC
71-7100 -9560
8/30/90 8130/90
337.26
JINL -CD
1010
37.26
30826
8/21/90
PRE -PAID
127.50
NINE
71- 7100-95N
8/30/90 8/30/90
127.50
JNL -CD
1010
127.50
30856
8/28/90
ED PHILLIPS L SONS
VENDOR TOTAL
4-64.76
01770
PREPAID
6,323.62
TIMTB'R'SCAPE
60 -6000 -5000
8/30/90 8/30/90
6,323.62
JiNL-CD
1010
6323.62
30861
8/30/90
GAME TIME
VENDOR TOTAL
6323.62
G19M
PREPAID
1,155.00
DEF COMP 8/18 PR
01-2040-0000
8/30/90 8/30/90
1,155.00
Mt-CO
1010
1155.00
30841
8/23190
OUT NEST LIFE ASSURANCE VENQIOR TOTAL
1155.00
o
o Y3
01971
PREPAID
268.87
SEPT GRP ILTN 8/18 PR
01-2040-0000
8/30/90 8/30/90
268.87
Jt* -CD
1010
268.87
30848
8/23/90
•
•
•
7s7
PAGE 2
PURCHASE JOURNAL
AP- CO2-01
CITY OF MOUND
VENOM
INVOICE DUE HOLD
NO. IMDICE N?ER
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
4r HEALTH PLAN
VENDOR TOTAL
268.87
G1972
PRE -PAID
995.63
MINE
19.92- DISC
21.07
FRY
8/30/90 8/30/90
996.78
Jx_CD
PREPAID
1,165.24
LID
217.33
MINE
26.54- DISC
14.61
FRT
8/30/90 8/30/90
1,370.64
JRNL -CD
GRIOGS COOPER i COMPANT VENDOR TOTAL
2367.42
M2O15
PREPAID
63.40
C.O.M. MT6 MEAL
8/30/90 8/30/�O
63.40
JOL-CD
HAPPY GARDEN
VENDOR TOTAL
63.40
H2134
PRE -PAID
46.89
FOFEEITURE PROGRAM
8/30/90 8/30/90
46.89
JK -CD
HENN CO - FORFEITURE PROGR VENDOR TOTAL
46.89
W2145
PRE -PAID
288.46
8/18 PR OED
8/30/90 8/30/90
283.46
JOL-CD
O N CO SUPPORT 6 COLLECT# VENDOR TOTAL
288.46
12301
PREPAID
512.90
ICMA OF COMP 8/18 PR
8130/90 8/30i7G
512.90
JK-0
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 VENDOR TOTAL
512.90
12304
PREPAID
91.98
ICMA 8/18 PR
8/30/90 8/30/90
91.98
J K_CD
ICMA RETIREMENT TW-401 VENDOR TOTAL
91.98
J2571
PRE -PAID
539.20
80 CONTRACT HOURS
8/30/90 8/30/90
539.20
JX -CD
JOHi TAFFE
VENDOR TOTAL
53).20
M79
PREPAID
2,485.90
LID
137,75
MINE
51.63-
DISC
8/30/90 8/30/90
2,572..02
J NL-0
PRE -PAID
2,907.00
LID
194.00
MINE
60.09-
DISC
8/30/90 8/30/90
3,040.91
JNL -CD
s " 8/205 WHOLESALE LI# VENDOk TOTAL
5612.93
DATE 8/30/90
TIME 10.20.19
PREPAID CHECK
ACCOIM NUlW AMOUNT CHECK t DATE
71-7100-9520
71 -7100 -9560
71-7100 -9600
1010 996.78 30824 8/21/90
71-7100-9510
71- 7100 -9520
71- 7100 -9560
71-7100-9600
1010 1370.64 30854 8/28/90
01- 4020-2200
1010 63.40 30833 8/21/90
01-2300 -0223
1010 46.89 30862 8/30/90
01- 2040 -0000
1010 288.46 30843 8/23/90
01-2040-0000
1010 512.90 30840 8/23/90
01- 2040-0000
1010 91.98 30839 8/23/90
01- 4340-3100
1010 539.20 30832 8/21/90
71- 7100 -9510
71-7100 -9520
71 -7100 -9560
1010 2572.02 30825 8121/90
71- 7100-9510
71-7100-9520
11-7100-9560
1010 3040.91 30855 8/28/90
a 7SS
PAGE 3
P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L
DATE
8/30/90
AP-0O2411
CITY OF MOUND
TIME 10.20.19
VENOM INVOICE DUE HMO
PREPAID
CHECK
NO. INVOICE NO DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NIADER
" AMOUNT
CHECK R
DATE
J2590 PREPAID
211.27
BAGS
71- 7100-2200
8/30/90 8/30/90
211.27
JR6L -CD
1010
211.27
30635
8/22/90
JOMN504 PAPER COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
211.27
L2959 PRE -PAID
250.00
CABLE HOOK UP -1/2
30- 6000-3100
8/301% 8/30/90
250.00
JRNL -CD
1010
250.00
30853
8/28/90
PRE -PAID
250.00
BAL DUE -CABLE HOOK UP
30- 6000-3100
8/30/90 8/30/90
250.00
JRML-0
1010
250.00
30860
8/30/90
LEE STROHM i ASSOCIATES VENDOR TOTAL
500,00
L2940 PREPAID
1,100.00
TREE REMOVAL
81- 4350-5110
350.00
TREE REMOVAL
01-4340 -5110
8/30/90 8/30/90
1,450.00
JRNL -CD
1010
1450.00
30859
8/28/90
LJTZ TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL
1450.00
loot PRE -PAID
10,857.27
FIT -8/18 PR
01- 2040 -0000
8/30/90 8/30/90
10,857.27
JRNL-CD
1010
10857.27
30836
8123/90
MARCUUM BAN( - MOUND VENDOR TOTAL
10857.27
MT3090 PRE -PAID
1,316.56
SEPT MEDC 8/18 PR
01- 2040 -0000
8/30/90 8/30/90
1,316.56
JRNL -CD
1010
1316.56
30849
8/23/90
MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL
1316.56
MU3166 PREPAID
198.00
AIR/KT- REIMMB BY IIMC
01-1190-0000
8/30/ 8/30/90
198.00
JRML-CD
1010
198.00
30828
8/21/90
METTUO TRAVEL L TOURS VENDOR TOTAL
198.00
MT3268 PREPAID
173.50
AUG MBA 8/18 PR
01- 2040 -0000
8/30/50 8/30/90
173.50
JRNL -CD
1010
173.50
30850
8/23/90
MN BENEFIT ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
173,50
MU3401 PREPAID
288.00
DEF COMP 8/18 PR
01- 2040 -0000
8/30/90 8/30/90
7'..3.00
J K-CD
1010
288.00
30842
8/23/90
MN RETIREMENT SYSTEM VENDOR TOTAL
288.00
PM20 PRE -PAID
65.26
POSTG-MTR BILLS
73-7300 -3210
65.26
POSTG -NTR BILLS
78-1800-3210
8/30/90 8/30/90
130.52
JRNL -CD
1010
130.52
30834
8/22/90
MOUND POSTMASTER VENDOR TOTAL
130.52
MT3631 PREPAID
577.58
SEPT LTD 8/18 PR
01- 2040-0000
8/30/90 8/30190
577.58
JRML-CD
1010
577.58
30452
8/23/90
MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE VENDOR TOTAL
577.58
i
*I V
PAGE 4
8/30/90 8/30/90
PURCHASE JOURNAL
AP- CO2 -01
PRE -PAID
8/18 PR BED
CITY OF MUND
VENDOR
INVOICE DUE HOLD
R4259
PREPAID
NO. INVOICE NmR
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
749
PRE -PAID
105.00
PRE - REGISTR -NO CNTR ANNA
0
8/30/90 8/30/90
105.00
J x_CD
NORTH CENTRAL SECTION
AWWA VENDOR TOTAL
105.00
23.44
P39W
PREPAID
6,550.26
PERA 8/18 PR
8/30/90 8/30/90
6,550.26
JRNL-CD
P E R A
VENDOR TOTAL
6550.26
P4030
PREPAID
7,814.46
SEPT PHP 8/18 PR
299.50
SEPT PHP- RETIREE
170.00
JULY PNP DAL
170.00
JULY PMP BAL.
8/30/90 8/30/90
8,453.96
JRNL -CD
PHYSICIANS OF MN
VENDOR TOTAL
8453.96
94171
PRE -PAID
1,286.41
LIQ
281.35
NINE
28.56-
DISC
8/30/90 R/30/90
1,539.20
J K -CD
PREPAID
1,906.45
1.I9
wo OR
UILC
2,246.33
8/30/90 8/30/90
ITT MINE i SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL
R4237
PRE -PAID
8/18 PR BED
8/30/90 8/30/90
REED 6 POND,LTD
VENDOR TOTAL
R4259
PREPAID
64 CONTRACT HOMS
8/30/90 8/30/90
RDOERT E JOl#lSON
VENDOR TOTAL
S4511
PREPAID
CR UNION 8/18 PR
8/30/90 8/30/90
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION VENDOR TOTAL
54551
PREPAID
23.44
8/30/90 8/30/90
STATE TREAS -CRIME
V1CTM/W+ VENDOR TOTAL
23.44
TOTAL ALL VENDORS
2,246.33
J K-CD
3785.53
95.00
8/18 PR BED
95.00
JRNL -CD
95.00
688.64
64 CONTRACT HOMS
688.64
J K -CD
688.64
508.92
CR UNION 8/18 PR
508.92
J K-CD
508.92
23.44
FORFEITURE PRO"
23.44
J K -CD
23.44
3.019.02
DATE 8/30/90
TIME 10.20.19
PRE -PAID CHECK
ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK = DATE
73 - 7300 -4110
1010 105.00 30864 8/30/90
01-2040-0000
1010 6550.26 50- 8/23/90
01- 2040 -0000
01-4140-1510
01-4140 -1510
78- 7800 -1510
1010 8453.96 30847 8/23/90
71-7100 -9510
71-7100 -9520
71-7100 -9560
1010 1539.20 30827 8/21/90
71-7100-9510
71- 7100-9520
71- 7100 -9560
1010 2246.33 30857 8/28/90
01- 2040 -0000
1010 95.00 30844 8/23/90
01-4340 -3100
1010 688.64 30830 8/21/90
01-2040 -0000
1010 508.92 30846 8/23/90
01-2300-OM
1010 23.44 30863 8/30/90
poP3
•
2 790
PAX 1
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 8/30/90
AP- CO2-01
CITY OF ON
TIME 11.10.12
YE?RDOR
INVOICE DUE HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
N0. INVOICE NO
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NL141ER
NEW CHECK 1 DATE
A0060
2.39
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01 4040 -2100
.
15.90
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-4090 -2100
25.75
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01- 4140 -2100
15.77
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-4190 -2100
1.81
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01 -4340 -2100
1.68
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01-4280 -2100
.91
OFFICE SUPPLIES
71- 7100-2100
1.68
OFFICE SUPPLIES
73- 7300 -2100
1.68
OFFICE SUPPLIES
78-7800 -2100
61.80
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01- 4020-2100
501.75
MINUTE,RESOLUTN BOOKS
01-4020 -2100
2.18
OFFICE SUPPLIES
01 -4060 -2100
8/30/90 8/30/90
633.30
JRNL -CD
1010
ACRD- MN/MIDRLST BUSINESS
+ VENDOR TOTAL
633.30
A0190
300.10
BLACKTOP OIL
01- 4280 -2340
8/30/90 8/30/90
300.10
JRNL -LOT
'^t0
ALLIED BLMTOP CO
VENDOR TOTAL
300.10
AM
226.25
GO 84 BOND FEES
59- 6000 -6120
8%' rV 8/30/90
226.25
JRIL-CD
1010
AMERICAN NATIONAL BAN( VENDOR TOTAL
226.25
A0369
771.00
MOVE TO NEW SECTION
30- 6000 -3100
8/30/90 8/30/90
771.00
JRK. -CD
1010
APOLLO MWIN3 SPECIALISTS VENDOR
TOTAL
771.00
80582
42.00
SUBSCRIPTN- BIOCYCLE
01- 4270-4110
8/30/90 8/30/90
42.00
JRIL-CD
1010
BIOCTCLE
VENDOR TOTAL
42.00
C0830
47.43
REGISTER TAPE,ROLLERS
71-7100 -2200
8!30190 8/30/90
47.43
JRNL-CD
1010
CASH 8EGISTER SALES
VENDOR TOTAL
47.43
C0838
31.73
CELLULAR TELE
73- 7300 -3220
34.39
CELLULAR TELE
01- 4140 -3220
4.96
CELLULAR TELE
22- 4170 -3220
8/30/90 8/30/90
71.08
JRNL-CD
1010
CELLULAR OIL
VENDOR TOTAL
71.08
CD920
11.57
WATER BILL-LI9 STR
71 -7100 -3740
8/3 M 8/30/90
11.57
JRNL -CD
1010
CITY OF MOUND
VENDOR TOTAL
11.57
00940
16.71
AUG 3110 RENT
01-4320 -4210
p p y
25.48
AUG RUG RENT
71 -7100 -4110
8/30/90 8/30/90
42.19
JPL -CD
1010
PAGE 2
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 8/30/90
AP-0O2 -01
CITY OF MOUND
TIME 11.10.12
VENDOR
INVOICE ME HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
NO. INVOICE Me
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
AMOUNT CHECK i DATE
9 AN STEP RENTAL
VENDOR TOTAL
42.19
00970
343.62
AUG MIX
71- 7100 -9540
8/30/90 8/30/90
343.62
JRNL-CD
1010
COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIOiEST VENDOR TOTAL
343.62
ClO10
61.30
PAGER REPAIR
22- 4170 -3820
8/30/90 8/30/90
61.30
JRNL-CD
1010
COP1MUNICATION AUDITOR VENDOR TOTAL
61.30
C1100
13.00
AUG COCIER MAINT
78- 7800 -3950
8/30/90 8/30/90
13.00
JOE-CD
1010
COPY MICATING PRODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL
13.00
D1150
111.43
DUNE BLACKTOP
73-7300 -2300
200.00
BLACK DIRT
80- 8000 -2350
89.27
BLACK DIRT
01- 4340-2350
8/30/90 8130 /90
400.70
JRNL-CD
1010
D J EXCAVATING
VENDOR TOTAL
400.70
D1200
5,348.60
AUG BEER
71-7100 -9530
8/30/90 8/30/90
5,348.60
AL-CD
1010
DISTRIBUTING CO
VENDOR TOTAL
5348.60
01320
417.00
AUG CHIEF SALARY
22- 4170-1370
8/30/90 8/30/90
417.00
JRNL -CD
1010
DOIAID BRYCE
VENDOR TOTAL
417.00
01350
6.50
LP GAS
01-4280-2200
""/90 8130/90
6.50
JRNL -CD
1010
DUANE'S 66 SERV1a
VENDOR TOTAL
6.50
E1420
6,623.61
AUG BEER
71-7100 -9530
8/30/90 8/30/90
6,623.61
JRNL -CD
1010
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
VENDOR TOTAL
6623.61
E1430
54.53
AUG MTGS-ES
01- 4040-4120
8130/90 8/30/90
54.53
JRNL -CD
1010
EDNARD SHUCLE
VENDOR TOTAL
54.53
F1640
35.58
WbALS,PLUNGER
22- 4170-2200
8/30/90 8/30/90
35.58
JRNL-0
1010
FLAFERTY EAUIPIEHNT COW VENDOR TOTAL
35.58
w 54.00
SERVICE -LIQ SECURITY
71- 7100 -3980
7�
PAGE 3
PURCHASE JOURNAL
AP
CITY OF FIND
VENDOR
INVOICE DUE HOLD
N0. INVOICE NO
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTI011
8/30/90 8/30 /90
54.00
JK-CD
FLOYD SECURITY
VENDOR TOTAL
54.00
F1690
160.61
AUG MIX
122.88
AUG MISC
8/30/90 8/30/90
283.49
JRNL-CD
FOUR STAR BAR WIPLY VENDOR TOTAL
283.49
F1710
18.06
LUNDI-MDVING DAY
8!30/90 8/30/90
18.06
J K-CD
FRAIME CLAW(
VENDOR TOTAL
18.06
61820
116.58
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
56.28
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
12.06
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
12.06
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
76.38
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
12.06
SEAT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
60.30
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
28.14
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
28.14
SEPT RADIO SERV CONTRACT
26.00
MIKE AFFAIR
8130/90 8/30/90
428.00
J K-LD
GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
VENDOR TOTAL
428.00
G1870
258.33
AUG MARSHALL SALARY
8/30190 8130/90
258.33
J K-CD
GERALD BABE
VENDOR TOTAL
258.33
G1890
27.00
AUG WATER COOLER
76.20
AUG WATER COOLER
22.22
AUG WATER COOLER
9.09
AUG WATER COOLER
9.09
AUG WATER COOLER
8/30/90 8/30/90
143.60
JRK.-0
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD
VENDOR TOTAL
143.60
H2O30
124.50
CAR WINDOW REPAIR
8/30/90 8/30/90
124.50
Jul -CD
HARMON GLASS
VENDOR TOTAL
124.50
H2140
18.00
REPAIR SPKR MIKE
197.56
JLLT BOOKING FEE
8/30/90 8/30/90
215.56
JK -CD
HENN CO SIERIFFS OUT VENDOR TOTAL
215.56
M2170
8,308.37
FINAL-110 STOPLIGHT
8/30/90 8/30/90
8,308.37
JRNL-CD
DATE 8/30/90
TIME 11.10.12
PRE -PAID CWA
ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT DM t DATE
1010
71-7100-9540
71-7100-9550
1010
01-4.'320-4100
1010
01 -4280 3950
01- 4340 -3950
01-4190-3950
01- 4290-3950
01- 4140-3950
01-4040-3950
73- 7300 -3950
78- 7800-3950
22-411-3950
01-4140 -3810
1010
22- 4170 1370
1010
01-4140-4100
01-4090 -2200
01-4280 -2200
73- 7300 -2200
78-7800 -2,'00
1010
01-4140-3810
1010
01-4140-3810
01-4110 -4250
1010
30- 6000 -4100
1010
•
•
L -I
-A
2793
PAM 4
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 8/3D/90
AP
CITY OF MM1ilQ)
TIME 11.10.12
VF7m
INVOICE DUE HOLD
PRE -PAID OEM
NO. INVOICE NO
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT R M18ER
AWI TT CHECK 4 DATE
O k CO TREASURER
VENDOR TOTAL
8308.37
H2481
1,188.81
WATER METERS
73- 7300 -2300
8/30/90 8/30/90
1,188.81
JRNL -CD
1010
NTDRO_51FPLY CO.
VENDOR TOTAL
1188.81
12400
16.00
RESURF ROTOR -842
01-4140 -3810
8/30/90 8/30/90
16.00
JRNL -CD
1010
ISLAND PARK SKELLY
VENDOR TOTAL
16.00
J25M
173.33
!EN WORKING SIGNS
01-4280 -2360
80.30
FRESH OIL SIGNS
01- 4280 -23j
173.34
MEN WO<iKING SIGNS
73- 7300 -2300
8/30/90 8130/90
426.97
JRNL-CD
1010
JIM HATCH SALES CO
VENDOR TOTAL
426.97
J2533
7.43
AUG MILEAGE -JK
71- 7100-2200
8/30/90 8/30/90
7.43
JRNL-0
1010
JOEL KRUM1
VENDOR TOTAL
7.43
J2535
666.00
PUMI INSPECTIONS
01-4190 -3100
8/30/90 8/30/90
666.00
J K -CD
1010
4w BREITNER
VENDOR TOTAL
666.00
K2720
12.59
PUB PARTS
01- 4340-2300
8/30/90 8/30/90
12.59
JRNL -CD
1010
KAUER CO.
VENDOR TOTAL
12.59
L2748
42.10
DATE STAMP
01 -4090 -2100
8/30/90 8/30/90
42.10
JRNL -CD
1010
L-J RUBBER STAMP COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
42.10
L2M
71.00
AUG GASOLINE
22- 4170 -2210
8/30/90 8/30/90
71.00
J K -CD
1010
LABATT'S SPRING PARK SPUR VENDOR TOTAL
71.00
L2811
23.75
FAX SHEETS
73-7300 -2120
23.75
FAX SETS
78-7800 -2100
8!30/90 8/30/90
47.50
JK -CD
1010
LARSON PRINTING 6 GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL
47.50
L2880
208.32
ETHICS - REIMS- HARREIL
01 -4140 -4110
8/30/90 8/30/90
208.32
JRML-CD
1010
LEU14 HARRELL
VENDOR TOTAL
208.32
PAGE 5
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 8/30/40
AP- CO2-Ot
CITY OF MOUND
TIME 11.10.12
vow
INVOICE DUE WWOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
N0. INVOICE NMBR
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOW
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
NOW CHECK 0 DATE
L2911
6.07
MILEAGE -LS
01- 4090-3340
8/30/90 8/30/90
6.07
JRR -CD
1010
•
LOIS SANMUIST
VENDOR TOTAL
6.07
L2940
500.00
TREE REMOVAL
01-4280 -4200
400.00
TREE REMOVAL
01- 4340-5110
1,375.00
TREE REMOVAL
01-4340 -5110
500.00
TREE RUM-BILL AVN,FNCH,SPRM
01-1190 -0000
8/30/90 8/30190
2,775.00
JRIL-CD
1010
LUTZ TREE SERVICE
VENDOR TOTAL
2775.00
M3030
6,277.70
Alai BEER
71-7100 -9530
8/30/90 8/30/90
6,277.70
JO L -CD
1010
MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL
6277.70
POW
30.00
TON #21
01- 4140-4240
5/30/90 8/30190
30.00
JRrL -CD
1010
MARTIN'S NAVARRE 66
VENDOR TOTAL
30.00
M3160
48.45
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
01-4040-3100
32.30
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
01- 4190-3100
80.75
METRO CLINIC CN]NTRAt.T 90 -91
01- 4090-3100
226.10
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
01-4140 -3100
16.15
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
01- 4340 -3100
16.15
WM CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
01 -4290 -3100
48.45
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
73- 7300 -3100
32.30
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90-91
78-7800-3100
32.30
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
71 -7100 -3100
96.90
METRO CLINIC CONTRACT 90 -91
01- 4280-3100
8/30/90 8/30/90
619.85
JRNL-CD
1010
METRO CLINIC OF COUNSELING VEINDOR TOTAL
629.85
M3170
31,856.39
SEPT SEVER SERVICE
78- 7800 -4230
9,416.51-
SEPT kW-R SERVICE
78- 1190-0000
477.48-
SEPT SUB SERVICE
78- 3812 -0000
8/30/90 8/30/90
21,902.40
JRNL -CD
1010
METRO HASTE CONTROL
CO41If VENDOR TOTAL
219V2.40
M3207
110.17
FUSES,TIES
01- 4290-2250
8/30/90 8/30/90
110.17
JRNL -CD
1010
MIDWEST BOLT & SUPPLY VENDOR TOTAL
110.17
PM40
29.98
SEPT PAGER REM
01-4140-3950
8/30/90 8/30/90
29.98
JRNL -CD
1010
MINN CO41 PAGING
VENDOR TOTAL
29.98
M32B9
33.00
SUSPENDERS
22- 4170 -2200
8/30/90 8/30/90
33.00
JRTL-CD
1010
•
A 74Y
PAGE 6
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 8/30/90
AP- CO2 -01
CITY OF MOl1ND
TIME 11.10.12
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
PREPAID CHED(
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
NEW
DESCRIPTION
ACCOW NLM9ER
AMOUNT CHECK i DATE
*CONWAY FIRE L SAFETY VENDOR TOTAL
33.00
M3489
2,604.00
SIX RADIOS
22-4170-50W
8/30/90 8/30/90
2,604.00
JRIL -CD
1010
MOTOROLA INC VENDOR TOTAL
2604.00
M3490
3,142.00
AUG SALARIES
22- 4170 -1390
1,167.00
AUG MAINT
22-4170 -3190
998.50
AUG DRILLS
22-4170-1380
8/30/90 8130/90
4,907.50
JRHL -CD
1010
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT VENDOR TOTAL
4907.50
![3500
5,359.00
SEPT FIRE RELIEF PENSION
95-9500 -1400
8/30/90 8/30/90
5,359.00
JRK.-CD
1010
MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
5359.00
N3719
3,070.66
ADJ MANHOLE RINGS
78- 7800 -2300
8/30/90 8/39/90
3,070.66
JRII -CD
1010
NEETWI FOUNDRY CO VENDOR TOTAL
3070.66
N3740
52.40
FRESH OIL SIGNS
01 -4280 -2360
80.25
REFLECTIVE TAPE
73- 7300 -2300
8/30/90 8/30/90
132.65
JRNL-CD
1010
SIGNS VENDOR
TOTAL
132.65
N3802
5,039.72
AUG STREET LIGHT ELECTRICITY
01- 4280 -3710
9!30/90 8/30/90
5,OGi. R
J K-CD
1010
NORTHERN STATES POWER VENDOR TOTAL
5039.72
P3994
128.75
AU5 WINE
71-7100 -9520
8/30/90 8/30/90
128.75
JRK. -CD
1010
PAUSTIS 6 SONS VENDOR TOTAL
128.75
P4000
258.14
AUG MIX
71- 7100.9540
8/30/90 8/30/90
258.14
JRTL-CD
1010
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL
258.14
P4060
2,894.55
AUG BEER
71- 7100-9530
P/30/90 8/30/90
1,894.55
JRK.-CD
1010
PCGREBA DISTRIBUTING CO V9W TOTAL
2894.55
R4199
450.00
RETlOW LIGHTS-PHILBROOK
60-60('0-5000
8/30/90 x /90
450.00
IRYL-CD
1010
R.C. ELECTRIC, INC. VENDOR TOTAL
450.00
at 7 9 to
PAGE 7
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 8/30/90
AP- CO2 -01
CITY OF MOJND
TIME 11.10.12
VENDOR
INVOICE DIIE HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
NO. INVOICE NMBR
DATE DATE STATUS AhOIM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOWT NllW
AMOLW CHECK t DATE
R4209
104.67
AUG GARBAGE
01- 4320 -3750
8/30/90 8/30/90
104.67
JRK -CD
1010
RAFT'S SANITATION
VENDOR TOTAL
104.67
R4280
200.00
AUG ASST CHIEF SALARY
22- 4170 -1370
8/30/90 8/30/90
200.00
JRK-CO
1010
RONALD MARSCHKE
VENDOR MIA
200.00
R4290
464.68
AUG ICE
71 -7100 -9540
8/30/90 8/30/90
464.68
JRK-CD
1010
ROT'S ICE COIPANY
VENDOR TOTAL
464.68
S4450
24.00
A/C DISPOSAL
73- 7300 -4;00
8/30/90 8/30/90
24.00
JRK-CD
1010
ST BOrI FARM STORE
VENDOR TOTAL
24.00
S4600
95.35
MOUTH PIECES,BATTERY
O1 -4140 -2200
8/30/90 8/30/90
95.35
JRK-CD
1010
SIRE IDO'S
VENOM TOTAL
95.35
S4610
518.40
TIRES
01- 4140 -3810
8/30/90 8/30/90
518.40
JRK-0
1010
SUBlR13iiN TIRE CO
VENDOR TOTAL
518.40
54643
75.00
UNLOCK DRAWER
01-4190-3100
8/30/90 8/30/90
:5.00
JRK_CD
1010
90NSON LOCK
VENDOR TOTAL
25.00
T4716
41.50
TE11P HELP
73- 7300-1300
8/30/90 8/30/90
42.50
JRK-CD
1010
TEWORARIES TO 00
VENDOR TOTAL
42.50
T4730
19.50
LEGAL AD- ELECTIONS
01-4060 -3500
17.16
LEGAL. AD-MTG CHANGE
01-4020 -3510
28.60
LEGAL AD-GARAGE REROOF
01 4340 -3510
10.40
LEGAL AD-CDBG -COT' PLAN
16-5894 -3100
8/30190 8/30/90
75.66
F&-CD
1010
THE LAKER
VENDOR TOTAL
75.66
74770
15,010.00
AUG BEER
71- 7100 -9530
8/30/90 8/30/90
15,010.00
JRK -CD
1010
MM DISTRIBUTING
CO VENDOR TOTAL
15010.00
T4790
199.00
POLAROID FILM
01- 4140 -2200
20.99
FILM
78-7800 -2300
8/30/90 8/30/90
219.99
JRK -CD
1010
0
h J
•
Al 47
PAGE 8
PURCHASE JOURNAL
DATE 8/30/90
AP- CO2 -Ol
CITY OF MOUND
TIME 11.10.12
VENDOR
INVOICE ME HOLD
PRE -PAID CHECK
NO. INVOICE NMBR
DATE DATE STATUS
AMOUNT
DESCRIPTION
ACCOLKT NUMBER
AMOUNT CHECK 4 DATE
1 6FTY WHITE DRUG STORES
VENDOR TOTAL
219.99
T4831
10.20
OXYGElN,GRINDING WHEELS
73- 7300 -2300
10.20
OXYGEN,GRINDING WHEELS
01-4290 -2200
8/30/90 8/30/90
20.40
JRNL-CD
1010
TOLL COMPANY
VENDOR TOTAL
20.40
T4%6
35.27
GAUGE
01-4290 -2310
8/30/90 8/30/90
35.27
JRNL-CD
1010
IOWA AUTO BODY SIPPLY VENDOR TOTAL
35.27
V5190
2,177.50
CDBG -COPR PLAN
16- 5894 -3100
8/30/90 8/30/90
2,177.50
JRNL -CD
1010
VANDORENN- HAZARD-CTALLINlGS VENDOR TOTAL
2177.50
VV52240
52.83
COOLING FAN
01-4140 -3810
8/30/90 8/30/90
52.83
JRNL -00
1010
VILLAGE CHEVROLET
VENDOR TOTAL
52.83
W5440
620.13
KIT REPLACEIW-TV
22 -4170 -2200
8/30/90 8/30/90
620.13
JRNL -CD
1010
TEROIS COMPANY
VENDOR TOTAL
620.13
170.66
AUG GARBAGE
01- 4340-3750
8/30/90 8/30/90
170.66
JRNL-CD
1010
iESTUNCA SANITATION
VENDOR TOTAL
170.66
N5630
68.00
FABRIC
01-4340 -2300
8/30/70 8/30 /90
68.00
JO L-CD
1010
MIDMER INC
VENDOR TOTAL
68.00
N5700
1,550.00
SEPT RETAINER
01-4110 -3100
2,267.00
JULY PROSECUTION
01-4110 -3120
8/30/90 8/30/90
3,817.00
ML-CD
1010
IUtST- PEARSOI- LARSON VENDOR TOTAL
3817.00
X5750
54.05
PRINC -1012
01-4320-5000
2.
IMT -1012
01- 4320-6110
8/30/90 8/30/90
56.77
JRNL -CD
1010
001 CORPORATION
VENDOR TOTAL
56.1/
16070
100.00
AUG ASST IWRSHALL SALARY
22- 4170-1370
8!30/90 8/30/90
100.00
JRNL-CD
1010
M104AEL PALM
VE7N10 ,u i AL
100.00
0
64 Uor
PAGE 9 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 8/30/90
AP-02-01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 11.10.12
VDmt INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE -PAID DIECK
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUMlT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT DECK t DATE
TOTAL All VENDORS 108,507.94
Dopy
•
�J
•
$0
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 1990
c. Case No. 90 -9 Catherine Moynagh & Gl Tilton, 2561
Wexford Lane L ots 3 - 13 Block 7, Se 924 117 -24 -14
606 . VARIANCE: Si Yard Setback to an Existing Noncon-
f ormi'ng L o R ecord .
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request as
outlined in the Building Official's report. The existing struc-
ture is setback 13.3 feet from Wexford Lane. The applicant
Proposes to demolish the existing structure. They would like to
rebuild in basically the same footprint, however adding a 26'4" x
30' second story, extend 2 feet more to the east, and extend 8
feet further to the north resulting in a 2.2 foot encroachment
into the required 10 foot side yard setback.
A practical difficulty exists by reason of the existing founda-
tion location and topography of this lot. Staff recommended ap-
proval of the variance of 2.2 feet to the required side yard set-
back of 10 feet to a nonconfor;..,ng lot.
The applicant handed out a copy of his survey showing the build-
ing envelope highlighted. Jensen commented that he does have a
restrictive building envelope, ther;:fore there is practical dif-
ficulty. She also commented that the structure is located on a
dead end street.
Mueller suggested building towards the wetlands. The applicant
noted that there are two large maple trees at the rear of the
house.
MOTIuN made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to approve
staff recommendation upon the condition that the 8.3' x
7.5' shed be removed and the house be removed down to
the foundat;on at first floor level and be rebuilt to
meet current building code. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12,
1990.
•
•
C
•
sic A VNi �
9 -10 -90
ADD ON ITEM : City Council Agenda
September 13, 1990
CASE NO. 90 -933: CATHERINE MOYNAGH, 2561 WEXFORD LANE,
SETON, LOTS 3 - 13, BLOCK 7,
PID 1124- 117 -24 14 0001.
REQUEST: SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO AN EXISTING NON-
CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD Pg. 2800 -2810
i � �
("T F) N I(A YN 1)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION:
SUBJECT:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1990
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
90 -933
Catherine Moynagh / Glenn Tilton
2561 Wexford Lane
Lots 3 - 13, Block 7, Seton
PID ##24- 117 -24 -14 0001
Side Yard Setback Variance to an Existing Non-
conforming Lot of Record
R-3 Two Family Residential
This parcel is nonconforming by reason of the inadequate front
yard setback to Wexford Lane. The required front yard setback is
30 feet, the existing setback is 13.3 feet.
The applicant requests a variance of 2.2 feet to the side yard
for the proposed addition to the existing dwelling including a
675 square foot bedroom /bath addition to the second floor.
There is a full basement under the existing building with excep-
tion of a portion in the rear. This foundation is in relatively
good condition. One alternative the applicant has expressed
would be to remove the existing dwelling from the site and re-
construct the exact floor area as the variance requested above.
The Planning Commission may want to consider this alternative,
along with a possible location for a garage site.
In either case, the applicant will be required to meet all
aspects of the State Building Code, including the State Fnergy
Code.
is
•
Zto l
Staff Recommendation
Case No. 90 -933
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
A practical difficulty exists by reason of the existing founda-
tion location and topography of this lot. Staff recommends ap-
proval of the variance of 2.2 feet to the required side yard set-
back of 10 feet to a nonconforming lot.
NOTE
1'3
This case will be heard by the City Council on September
1990.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
is
s
2aoZ
2 319190 w
r
CITY
OF MOUND
CITY OF MOUND PART If Case No. _ ��' —._
Date F i led_
Fee_— ___ $50 . _._ - --
VA RIANC E APPLI CATION
PLANNING a ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property_--_ - =`'� ���- _-- ___.____-- - - - - - --
n
Lot - - -- = - J— - - -- - - - - -- - — - - -- — - -- Block
-- - --
_
Addition _ _ �� �l --- - - - - -- -- - -- P t D No.
Owner's Name Day Phone
---
Owner's Address /D__
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address - -- - -- -- - -- — -- - - - - --
Ex i st i ng Use of Property:
Zoning District
Has an application ever been made
permit, or other zoning procedure
list dates) of application. action
Day - __ —_ --
for zoning, variance, conditional use
wor this property? tee s__/ no` . If yes,
taken, and provide resolu n number(s)
(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. 1 consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by Ian.
App I i cant's S i gnature - j c —'/ _ -�? �t .�>� ; Datey
FOR OFF ICE USE. ONLY:
P l a n n i n g Commission Recommendat ion
Date
Council Action: - - --
Resolution No. __ Date
m;
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No. qv 9
1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is located? Yes �), No ( ). If no,
specify each non - conforming
2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district in which * J6 located?
Yes ( ), No TA. If no, specify each non - conforming use:
3. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) draina ( ) sub - surface
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ) other: specify
4. Was the hardship described above
having property interests in the I
adopted? Yes ( ), No ( ) If J yes, � ; r
created by the action of anyone
and after the zoning ordinance was
explain
5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the
relocation of a road? Yes +/--') , No ( ) . If Yes, explain
•
Q
VARIANCE APPLICATION Case loo. % - C1 33 •
6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ,
No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
7. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and
setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of
your land? (Specify, using maps, si e p Lans with ciimensions and wri!:-
ten explanation. Z-.6
X 3 O' + S X 1,
9M
Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property In
the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
PART III
J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans,
attachments, et e., must be submitted in 8- 1 /2 "xli" size. If larger
drawings are submitted, one must be 8 -1/2 "x11 ", and 15 larger size
copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure,
a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show-
ing the following information:
1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s),
building(s), driveways) /street access, off -- street parking, a ')d
utilities.
L. Existing and proposed elevations.
3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines:
principal building and accessory buildings; principal building
and principal buildings on adjacent lots.
4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
5. Indicate "north" compass direction.
6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, 0
Z$O
N /�
August 23, 1990
Mound Planning Commission:
We purchased the house and property located at 2561 Wexford Lane in Mound
in July of 1990. We planned to update the interior and exterior to bring
it up to code and make it livable.
After purchasing the house, we found that the addition (The only two
bedroans) had been built without any footings. The cement blocks were
Laid directly on the ground. So we decided to remove the addition and
construct it with the correct footings and also to make the bedrooms a
little larger as the roans are only 8' wide. We are also considering
adding a partial second floor which will consist of a master bedroan
suite with a bathroan in order to take advcttage of the beautiful lake
view.
When we went to apply for a building permit, we found that the house was
set too close to the street (14') and that we would need a variance in
order to proceed.
At this time we would like you to consider our application for a
variance. We are enclosing a copy of the survey and the proposed changes
that we would like to make. We are also enclosing a note from the only
abutting neighbor indicating that she has no objections to the changes.
Aslo enclosed are some pictures of the house as it looks now.
We have invested several thousand dollars of our savings in the down
payment on this house and, of course, we must make monthly payments so we
need to proceed as quickly as possible. We would like to be able to
canplete the exterior work this fall so that we could work inside the
house during the winter. Therefore, we would like you to review this
information and put this on the Agenda for September 11th so that we
could start as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Cordially yours,
Catherine Moynagh & Glenn Tilton
4840 Bedford Road
472 - 3820 -home
474 -5243 -work
- 6T3 - 9��
2806
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Prepared for MCRIN45 M0YAIAGH I
� : �.
o
200.00 — ° k c -
�
� f
1Rt.► \\ �, 4
9.5 First fl\ .}
140.) E1H ■lRI.) Y ►.
N iMt�135i -
xl*4-1 x140.3 yNJx �t.o , +r
-- � Flcv. ■941.6 Z «
i
ILO
I4O.6
x 0
! % r A� \ x 115.1 O
Y� - ---�- 4
N X
ZOO. 0O
CARR _ ROAD
C un im proves)
LEGAL, DESCRIPTI
Lots 4 thru 13, irv- lusive, Block 7, SETON, accor6ing to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
1% GENERAL NOTES
0 DenofeG iron 3()r) of
9h1.
7
28.E
2565
�m 1
a N \ra. oast 8Fivtt Fl\
Efcv *941.�i
�— N oft
X90,9 o
t
1
•
••m
i. � Garage F(
6lcv. =MI.B
Qo
1364
I
I
Q -
c
a4 `�
x
•
e
•
n
Zt)o9
ZONING REQUIREMENTS
l j0 3 00 -� \
ADDRESS: Z�JbI Wexfb LAWS
1 \ APPL I CANT: _ C ATIMIN S M OYMA" '
' h CD \ ` t` LOT Af j�? BLK : -7_ ADDN: J
ZONE: REQUIRED LOT AREA: 6
EXISTING LOT AREA: ,� 0
A ORO LA REQUIRED SETBACKS
/
w RF
so 4o 40 40 40 4a so s0 M = FRONT:
40
>>• tt G
S00 40 0 40 • 14 i a SIDE:
k . LA ° a -
C tosos I
40 0 40 So — _ o °� REAR: 15 feet
two
LAKESHORE: SO feet
M 40 p' O 0 40 O o o SO 4o o a O 10
A! F SIn BJ jw ,y6d 9 /I EXISTING b PROPOSED SETBACKS
of,403 957
o ♦0 0 ♦0 40 40 0 4 40 4c 0 0 30 4
N to ' ° FRONT:
z SIDE:
1514-
SIDE: t 1�
T
REAR: jGn�
LAKESHORE: f
DATE : � BY: c _
-r
Q r
4
"L " A
��
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Irc.
r I I f
September 12, 1990
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
City of Mound
53 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota
City Hall Addition and Remodeling
MFRA #8878
Dear Ed:
Enclosed is Shingobee's Payment Request No. 5 for work completed through
August 31, 1990, on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is
$130,747.34.
We have reviewed this request, find that it is in order and recommend
payment in the above amount to the Contractor.
us .
If' you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Sincerely,
McCOMRS FRANK RODS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Steven W. Jantzen,,f.E., A.I.A.
SJ:jmj
{ {nc l osures
•
CHANTS 'FDEF SUMMAPY
- ---------------------------------
!DII1iONS DECUCTIONS
-----------------------
t01!; fFEVI'US S -109.00
..............................
CURRENT STATUS
ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUN 70297.��:
NET Of CHAIGE ORDERS 154
CONTRACT SUN TO DATE 77A77'.7'
TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED
RETAIWI:
COMPLETED WORE
STORED MATERIAL
THIS 1EFI(D
(0 1 CATS
---- •---- - - - - --
?
10 0': ?1,90
I1 d1.?1�9a
-------- - - - - --
- -
RE1 CHAIGB
-1000.00
el5a•aa
2914.0a
511.20
11 ?0.Sb
ila2.ea
---------------------
1 -2a9
15475.70
THE Lll%PSISNED ' ;OTP.ACTOP. CEPTIFIES THAT TO THE EES1 Of 81 ENOWLEDGE
10. AND EELIEF THE WO11. CC'r'EP.BD BY THIS APPLICATION FOR
I!Y40' HAS EEEI " MILITED IN ACCOFDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCU-
NEM'S, 'HA/ ALL !K:UNTS HAVE BEEN PAID BY HIM FOR WOP.E FOP. WHICH
1P111(US CEFTIfl(ATES tOF. FAYMENT WEPE ISSUED AND PAYMENTS RECEIVED
IRCM THE OWNER,, AND 1P.AT CURRENT PAYMENT SHOWN HEREIN IS IOW DUB.
SHIN(X)FIEF NJIIDFRS INC.
TOTAL REIAIIAGE
TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE
LESS fP.lVIOUS CEPTIFICATES 1
CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 1 ",?4
BALANCE + P.EtAINAGE 29SE ", III
STATE Of: i "ti COUNTY IF: 7
SUBSCilEED AND SW(PI TO EE!CFE ME THIS
/o DAT Of r f �' 19 ` r
NOTARY FUELIC:
NY CO"ISSIONp1RES, 1
TNOMAS L COMM
I n. NOTARY PUBLIC, MINNESOTA
WRIGHT COUNTY
I T? 4:' F : Doenmmsion Expires 1.23.92
.ATE, r
- — --G
AFCHITE'1 S CERTIFICATE FoF FAYMENI AMCUIT CEPTITIBD ...............
$
ln a tltt the C :ttri :t D' : ".'Jv nts, based ?n ;n (Attach eiplinit m if 11: Caltlrlat ditrprs
tcor,J'.1 inb 'h° data "Cu r1FinI tba ablle 3pph ltiCD, fr41 the avC tt 3ppI1!d k r.l
t' !r :lt':t :�rtJil�s t: the , W r that t: the best of th! ARCHITECTt
a nrt� s tn:v! inl :r 3ti:n and ballet the Work has
tD! 7ucllty of tb! Work is in B1, j D3ta:
i:tt '.ha '".t![3`t oc'uv nts, and the CrDtra:t7r This certlflelte 11 act '079 :tlable. Tha AM "N!
, ,;,1 �, ;x ,•, , rb. �y ;9lT CEPTIFIED. CEPTIFIED is p3Tlble .nI7 t^ the C:Dtry t,r
1 ("Ant)'. F'r,lTik Ro . .v; -,oc. hr. owd horain. Issuance, pi7vnt and vrr ptv
1`tJ`,r) 71ni Awrnw N>rth of p171!nt 3r! vitb:ut proplli:! t• iD7 rW1.1
I'lyrrrr,rh 'N 5Y4 of the 0v0!r I C:ntr3ct:r 10 dar this C:ntri ^,.
AFFLICATICI AID CEPTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT
PAGE 1
T0: CI TT !! hOUID
[RCM: SHIOGOE19 BUILDERS, INC.
5 ?41 4000O PC!D
fRO,ECI: MOUND CITY BALL
AFFLICATICN 10:
h.l'tD MN 55 -54
Slil"HFE HUIIDERS INC.
PERIOD FROM:
279 North Medina Street
TOt
Loretto MN 55357
ARCHITECT S
!TTENTI(I:
CONTRACT FOR, ADDITION I MODEL
PP,OACT 101
�
- -- ------------
CONTRACT DATE,
044 , ?t
-- - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCNTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT
CHANTS 'FDEF SUMMAPY
- ---------------------------------
!DII1iONS DECUCTIONS
-----------------------
t01!; fFEVI'US S -109.00
..............................
CURRENT STATUS
ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUN 70297.��:
NET Of CHAIGE ORDERS 154
CONTRACT SUN TO DATE 77A77'.7'
TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED
RETAIWI:
COMPLETED WORE
STORED MATERIAL
THIS 1EFI(D
(0 1 CATS
---- •---- - - - - --
?
10 0': ?1,90
I1 d1.?1�9a
-------- - - - - --
- -
RE1 CHAIGB
-1000.00
el5a•aa
2914.0a
511.20
11 ?0.Sb
ila2.ea
---------------------
1 -2a9
15475.70
THE Lll%PSISNED ' ;OTP.ACTOP. CEPTIFIES THAT TO THE EES1 Of 81 ENOWLEDGE
10. AND EELIEF THE WO11. CC'r'EP.BD BY THIS APPLICATION FOR
I!Y40' HAS EEEI " MILITED IN ACCOFDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCU-
NEM'S, 'HA/ ALL !K:UNTS HAVE BEEN PAID BY HIM FOR WOP.E FOP. WHICH
1P111(US CEFTIfl(ATES tOF. FAYMENT WEPE ISSUED AND PAYMENTS RECEIVED
IRCM THE OWNER,, AND 1P.AT CURRENT PAYMENT SHOWN HEREIN IS IOW DUB.
SHIN(X)FIEF NJIIDFRS INC.
TOTAL REIAIIAGE
TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE
LESS fP.lVIOUS CEPTIFICATES 1
CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 1 ",?4
BALANCE + P.EtAINAGE 29SE ", III
STATE Of: i "ti COUNTY IF: 7
SUBSCilEED AND SW(PI TO EE!CFE ME THIS
/o DAT Of r f �' 19 ` r
NOTARY FUELIC:
NY CO"ISSIONp1RES, 1
TNOMAS L COMM
I n. NOTARY PUBLIC, MINNESOTA
WRIGHT COUNTY
I T? 4:' F : Doenmmsion Expires 1.23.92
.ATE, r
- — --G
AFCHITE'1 S CERTIFICATE FoF FAYMENI AMCUIT CEPTITIBD ...............
$
ln a tltt the C :ttri :t D' : ".'Jv nts, based ?n ;n (Attach eiplinit m if 11: Caltlrlat ditrprs
tcor,J'.1 inb 'h° data "Cu r1FinI tba ablle 3pph ltiCD, fr41 the avC tt 3ppI1!d k r.l
t' !r :lt':t :�rtJil�s t: the , W r that t: the best of th! ARCHITECTt
a nrt� s tn:v! inl :r 3ti:n and ballet the Work has
tD! 7ucllty of tb! Work is in B1, j D3ta:
i:tt '.ha '".t![3`t oc'uv nts, and the CrDtra:t7r This certlflelte 11 act '079 :tlable. Tha AM "N!
, ,;,1 �, ;x ,•, , rb. �y ;9lT CEPTIFIED. CEPTIFIED is p3Tlble .nI7 t^ the C:Dtry t,r
1 ("Ant)'. F'r,lTik Ro . .v; -,oc. hr. owd horain. Issuance, pi7vnt and vrr ptv
1`tJ`,r) 71ni Awrnw N>rth of p171!nt 3r! vitb:ut proplli:! t• iD7 rW1.1
I'lyrrrr,rh 'N 5Y4 of the 0v0!r I C:ntr3ct:r 10 dar this C:ntri ^,.
CCN71NUATICK SHEET
APILICATION AND
CEPTIFICATE
FOR PAYMENT
EASE
FROM: SHINGOBIE
PUILDIRS, INC.
APPLICATION PUMPER:
5
viii
uF MOUND
IRCJICT: MOUND
CITY BALL
AFFLICAIICN DATE:
5311 MAYWGGD P. k
PERIOD
FRCM:
MOUND MN 55364
CONTRACT FORT
ADDITION / REMODEL
ARCHITECT'S FROJECT
10:
?
A
-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
C
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D
-
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F
- - - - - - - - - - - -
G
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
H
- - - - - - - -
I
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WORI COMPLETED
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
------------------
- - - - --
TOTAL
MATERIAL
COMPLETED
CAT
SCHEDULED
FPEVIOUS
THIS
IRISEITLY
AND STORED
1
FALAPCE
10.
...------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCP.IFTION OF NOR!
VALUE
APPLICATIONS
PERIOD
StoP,ID
TO DATE
COMP,
TO FINISH
FFTAIRAGB
1?
;EPEPAL REQUIREMENTS
34449.0e
50663.40
12665.85
@.00
@3329.25
15
21119.15
241;
DEMOLITION
15359.02
3011.80
8447.45
0.00
11519.:5
75
:'. ?9.'S
22tu
EICAVATINI, BACF.FILL s CCMF
149:e.0
11356.00
0.8e
e. e4
11856.00
°e
0
:1 °S
'
251?
ASIHALTIC F WAG
230 ?0.00
e.09
0.00
0.00
e.ee
0
:340�.ea
loll
WEE SIP.VI1:E
12910.08
12919.0@
8.90
0.90
12918.08
lee
4.00
2850
PF AIRING WALLS
5176.00
1294,00
2588.00
e.00
3882.00
75
1294.0@
c '
334u
CAST-IN -FLA :S ( ^ICPETE
12e45.0
64840.58
36e2.25
0.04
6Aa42.75
95
3602.25
1 4 15
FFECAS9-CONCF:ETE
I015e.00
le45A.00
0.ee
0.80
1450.00
lee
0.00
1`!`.
•'.
5i 2v
SIFU:TURAL MISC. STEEL
1505..44
15052.@9
0.00
0.08
15052.00
lee
4.0?
15?9
:?
60?1
R.(UGH CAPPER *R1
t87B,ee
2463.40
1719.50
0.08
3782.90
55
3 @95.10
044
FINISH CAR.F W.Ti
24045.40
4.04
0.00
@.88
0.00
a
24045.00
'l04
BITUMINOUS CAMFFF^OFING
9ea,ee
904.ee
e.ee
0.00
504.00
let
0.00
40
C(hTED IISULATI06 SYSTEM
44740.99
22314.09
11185.98
0.00
33555.00
75
11185.00
3355.5'
1:70
FIP.ESTOPPINS
629.60
314.00
0.08
0.98
3!4.00
50
314.00
:'1
1
1532
ELASTCMERIC ROCFIIG
14369.04
12932.18
718.45
8.80
13650.55
95
718.45
1365.•
?�
1 940
J( SEALERS
I lee .88
650.08
0.00
0.00
650.00
50
650.00
f5.9a
?110
STEEL DOORS %, FRAMES
1 @788.09
1091.80
1478.80
0.00
8085.e0
75
2595,49
°09.5?
1 W
WOOD DOORS
2652.00
1326.00
663.00
0.00
1999.08
75
663.00
19 ?.??
8351
PL' ?DING SLAT DOOR
1140. 10
4.08
0.80
9,09
9.00
8
110, 04
!.1.
8360
SFCTICIAL CIEPHIAD
2611.00
2671,09
0.00
0,00
2671.00
100
0.00
:F
.I'
9
FINISH H.9DWhPo
8827.@e
3972.15
2649,10
0.09
6629.25
75
2206.15
8340
GLASS 4 GLAZING
5208.90
2349.00
1040.00
0.00
3380,00
65
1820.00
? ?0
'?
9 ai
METAL STUD SYSTEM
28517.00
11110.28
4271,55
0.00
21387.75
75
7129.25
2 1 ?9.7?
9311
CERAMIC TILT FLOORS
392e.00
0.88
235:.00
e.e9
2352.00
6@
1569.00
:35.21
9510
ACOUSTICAL :E1LIVS
3160.00
0.00
1896.00
0.08
1896.08
68
1261.0e
1?9.67
9t5�1
FF.SILIENT FLOOF.
980.00
0.00
0.00
0,0e
0.88
a
94.0a
'.?°
9t 10
CARPETING
13632.08
10224.09
4.00
0.00
19224.00
75
3408.40
1? ::
i�
994u
FAINTING
18500.00
0.00
8325.t0
O,e9
8325.00
45
1e175,On
I?:
SC
IeIt0
MLIAL TOILE! CcWPTMERT
1142.00
0.00
571.00
4.84
571.04
50
5'1.99
5
1
IP:10
811AL WALL L'IUVEP.S
k? .0
0.00
1660.00
0.09
16(x.00
109
0.00
0.80
4.92
0
IPs.4c
F;J I.TIC0 1F4 C[
0t
0.00
1126.00
let
0.4
�.'
l�;
ST�PAGB PACrS
let3.09
0.04
9.44
0.09
0.09
d
106°
IF ?4u
TOILET S PATS ACCESS.
15 ?9.ee
0.ee
918,09
4.4@
918.te
6e
612.00
TAL L'�U,EF ELI
e,00
0.0e
0.e9
0.09
9
9a0.ea
11.45
H' ILE',A1CRS
x1:13.40
1 °106.50
10:6 1.90
0.00
:1; 1 0.40
80
6 ?42.69
'i
•
, :PNTIRUATICN SHEET
APFLICATION AID
CIP.TITICAT8
FOR PAYMENT
FAGS
IROM: SHINGOB11
BUILDIRS. INC.
APPLICATION NUMBER:
5
0: CITY OT M "l'ND
FP.OJICTi MOUND
CITY HALL
AFFLICATI(N DATE:
? 11
5341 MA'i1(OD PG AO
FSP.IOD
TRCM:
MCUND MR 5S'f4
CONTRACT TOR:
ADDITION 1 REMODEL
TOt
ARCBITICT•S PROJECT
NO !
-
-- - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------•------•-------------------------------
A B
C
D
I
••------------
f
•-----
G
-• - -
-- - - - - - - - - - -
8
- - - - - - - -
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
WORI COMPLETED
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
---------------
- - -- - --
TOTAL
MATEPIAL
COMPLETED
CAT
SCHEDULED
FPEVIOUS
THIS
PRESENTLY
AID STOPED
1
BALANCE
NO DESCF:PTI'N OT P.M.
VALUE
APPLICATIONS
PERIOD
STOP.ID
T: DATE
CORP.
TO FIRI5H
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •- - -
15d03 4';AC
- - - - - - - - - - - -
123700.00
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
43:95.04
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
31110.00
- - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
80405.03
- - - - - - - -
65
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
4', =95.0
- - -- - - - - --
4'1•?.5'
1543 1LU4!ING
25115.00
11598.75
5155.00
0.00
1( 153.
65
9 @:1.:5
'
t550 FIFE FP 1 :N
19503.40
9250.00
1850.00
0.00
11100.00
60
1 441).'3
I.Oa1 !'LECTF'r!L
57695.00
.'5962.75
11539.00
0.00
- . 37501.15
65
19'
l;d?•? EFHE! -C r FR�FIT
53k)0 -d -?
29154.44
1950.04
0.04
31104.04
'd
IS9��!.'•)
3'l�.?'
-- - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 6UI'T9 "AL - .:PIGIN!L CONTRACT
- - - - - - - - - - - - •---------•------------•--------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - • -
163297.40
- - - -- •---
390380.55
•--------------------
141349.05
- - -
0.00
- -- --------------------------
5311:9.64
------ ----
1d
-- ----------
'31561.48
--- - -----
531' ?. "
-
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
HARGE
uPDEPS:
1 'HAN'78 74"EP. h
5500.00
1103.00
1375.00
0.00
2475.40
45
2 DELETE DIF'SCTIOIAL SIGN
-798.00
- 798.00
0.00
0.00
- 199.04
109
0.�'(+
-'9. °'
? SUBSTITUTE CONTFOL STS
- 1004.00
- 1040.00
0.00
0.04
- 1°00.04
100
0.3?
- 10 . ??
4 ;4A1 BUILD CUT 1 CVEPHA,, "G
6350.00
1270.00
1581.50
0.08
2857.50
45
3492.51
55.'5
6 DELETE SIGN CORSTP.UrTION FP,
- 300.00
- 300.00
0.10
0.00
-309.04
100
0.09
8 ADD 'N OF MOKIRG POOR
2974.00
892.20
446.10
0.00
1338.30
45
1635.
13?
9 ADD'L 814!UST IN P.04 11)5
511.20
0.40
511.20
0.10
517.24
100
0.09
S1.'.
iP FAINT METAL CAP PLASHING
1130.54
4.00
4.00
0.00
9.19
0
1130.50
a.P?
11 LOCKS F'P COURCI6 CHA4ESPS
1102.44
0.00
1.09
0.00
4,00
0
IIO2.03
3.P'
SOFT ^t AL C9ARGE OPDEPs
-- - - - - - - - - - -
154
- - - - - - •• - -
;164.24
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
39.5.80
- - ---------------
0.10
-- ---------
5390.03
-•- ---- .............
33
10385.'3
-----------
- . -- - --
- - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - • ----------•-------------•-----------
�FAND T'tALS
----- ------------------------------------
11511;.1@
?91544.75
- - - - - - -
------
145214.85
• - - - - - - - - • - -
---- ----- --------
v.dd
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- --•
536819.60
- - ------ -- -•
....................
69
-- --- ------
:4114 10
-- • - - ----
. - - - - --
- -- -
r�
r 1 1 l U4 c3 U F1 1- E?: 1-11--) .L L. I.> H. i 2 y 1 rt c- .
1'IFASE SIGN AND REIMN ONE OUPY
CEIANI_ M URDMR
•
VIt11JF.C.r WoIt%I City hill C11 AN( ;G ()RI)FR NI1. 1`?
DA "TF Sept(i4Ier 11, 1990
TO! Ci t y of Mound r NU: _ 40Q8_ _
IN amordsnce TM the torn of this eontrsot, the folloaing ehongto ore spprevedt
Move du,t work and exhaust fan for elevator roam $197.(X)
SNINOOIIF'E 10 $ 2 0.00
TOTAL ONANGE ORDFR $217.00
0
PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS
Originst project costs
1're.leue rhenge Orders it thro FOURTEFN
Thin rhongo Order 1 FIF'IM -
Roa project roeto
S_763 _
ADD - - 32
ADD 217.00
S 796 _
IN Rl1RF55 IIHERMT the said patties bait csuead Chia ogreesent to be executed as of lhp day and pear elgned helm .
SHIN BUIL INC
Contractor ' - -` -- — —
_ 27 N. Medina Street
Address -
Lor M N 55357
BY:
- — - -!� � - - - - --
DATE : Svpt ernlx>r 11 1990 - - - - - --
C ity o f Mou_n_d_
Owner
5341 Ma ywoo d R oad_
Address
Mound MN 55364
BY-
DATE :
ARCH I'IF.C7 API'ROVAL:
HY
DATE: '
Mr(;Ir+s Frank R(r)s A.,rnc'. Irx.
1 f)`O 23rd Avc >iri( pk)t c h
PI h t -t! 5 '✓Ji 7
=:II L ri (- I (i F I F-* F. I)U .L L.. L) E.ItF-3 1. rI(I .
111ME SICK AN) RFIVRN UNE (X)IY
C.I'IANUF; CJRDM 2
i s
rttl►.►r.Crt M"Ind laity III ll (MANGE OITl)Fn 14I1. 18
D A T F : Sept etrlx,Ir 11, 1")
1 City of Mound I'R(1.IF,t T 1,t1s_ 90U$__
In ramerdll?" with the trrrr of lhir Contrrot, the folloring chimpt rrr rpproradr
Hori::on(al tratitian txtr atxl rEvrwable vertical million to fran-w for op(Ining 7/ft.
Pttrerial $245.(X)
l�atx�r $ 64.(X)
SI- IMPilT: 1Cf/ $ 3 1.CX)
'111FAI. (11tUx,T: (xiDfR $ Y.O.(X)
0
rnCT.TF( ;T COST ADJUSTMENTS
Otlglnrl Prnjerl Cnalr
prPVInllr rhange Ordprr 11 lhru SEVFNIr71J
Thin Change (hdpr 1 EI
IPt prnJecl Coatr
S _ 716 3,297-.00 - .
AID - 3 5, Q' 70 - - -
AFXJ - - ...A?.. QQ - -
798,687.70 -
IN IIITAFz�, YNFACOF the eatd Paulo" have caused thin agtpownl to he Pnprutpd is n1 the day and year rtgneaf Sp1na.
;ill l Ni; WEE Itl! 1 LITERS INC.
cent r.ict or
i 1'i N. M(I i na ;t t c
Lorry t I) MN 55 1
I,. Y .
I)AIF.: ����I�t�yiix�r lt, 1`pxt
0
Ci ty of Mound
Owner
5341 Maywood Road
Address --
Mou MN 55364
13Y
UATE:
APCII11KC1 APPROVAL:
RY: -
UATE:
M ��rrbs Frank P w)-, A,s,r, ITv
It I Avc-Tru t
H "ninut b r.y V
eL, 11 _1_ U4 C-4 lj F l F: I?: I l t J. C 1— . U E f 2 F= I- I U.
PIF:tiE SI(,N A ND HF1URN ONE 0017
C,; F I A N C-1 ?' CJ f t L*J M R
0
f'f11),IE(' htxnxl City 11111 t;IIANI;f•: (If1DER Nt.l. 19
DA r F Sept ° r 11, 194)
TO- City of Mound f'12t),IF:t:T NU' 9U(.!8_.-
In w order" elth the term of this Contract, the follovin0 chomps ere epprovedr
Naul 6 1(x3ds of Class 5 @ `t3ywi?)d and haul away 60 yards of hid mat erial
$780.00
SHIiJCZ)R1� 1CP; $ 78.(x7
lUrI 1, (I Mx.Y: ORDER
0
rno.iECT COST ADJUSTMENTS
Orlginel project Cnete
prrvions fhenge Ordore II thru Fl(kflftN
This Chenge Ordor 1 NINI'11kN
Rol prnjrcl Coots
_ 76_1,297.0 -
AD) 3 5, 3`)0.70 .
ADD - - 8 _
S 799,545.70
IN YItAF S VNFRUff the said pertioR have ceuRrd this agrppwnt to hr rrtocutpd an of tho day and year nignwf hrinv.
SH I NGORFE BUILDERS INC.
(;ont racI or
?70 N. Medina St rer•t
AdlIres
Loret MN V) V)
— - C t.y of Mo in(I
Owner
5 i!a l fta ywoorl Koad
Add rp- c,
MMIod MN
IIY:
1,
BY
DA"1 F. :
API l I F.( "l APITOM,:
By
DAIF:
MI(�rrf); Fr:34 Poo k; `,'x
7lid Aveoiw fk
I kI m it h !-V ')'-'V47
�T�
ME TROPOLI T A N T R A N S I T C O M M I S S I O N
560 -6th Avenue North, Minneapolis, .Minnesota 55411 -4398 612/349 -7400
September 4, 1990
Mr. Steve Smith
'b SEP 10 , -jju
Mayor of Mound
2710 Clore Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mayor Smith:
As you know, the Metropolitan Transit Commission has been conducting public
hearings regarding the elimination or restructuring of several MTC routes
including the subcontracting of Minneapolis Route 51, Saturday, Sunday and
Holidays. As part of their deliberations, the Commissioners have asked me to
prepare a marketing plan which could be implemented if the service is retained.
In the past we have asked cities or communities to assist us by giving us either
access to water or utility billing lists or authorization to insert a marketing piece
in such billings. Since Mound supports continuation of Route 51 service, we
would like to put this option in our marketing plan.
Is this option available to as? If so, what are the deadlines, sizes of materials and
quantities we would need? Also, can these lists be segregated so we can avoid
mailing to individuals who -ack access to the service?
Finally, if this option is not available or there are additional options, can you tell
me what they are?
The Commission will be completing the review process in September. Your
prompt assistance is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bob LaShomb
Director of Planning,
Development and Communications
cc: Bev Auld
NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE
i s
CITY OF MOUND WORKING WITH MPCA
ON SOIL CONTAMINATION AT CITY HALL
The City of Mound has been in the process of constructing an
addition to the city hall at 5341 Maywood Road. The project also
includes a complete renovation of the existing facility.
Part of the project called for the construction of a new parking
lot on the south side of the building. The City's contractor,
Shingobee Builders, Inc. of Loretto began working recently on the
excavation of the parking lot. In the process of that
excavation, a portion of the city hall parking lot was found to
• have contamination in the soil due to leaking underground
gasoline storage tanks during the 1970 The tanks had been
installed at the city hall parking lot site in the early 1970's
for the purpose of providing a fueling station to the Mound
Police Department. The tanks were removed in the early 1980's
and had apparently leaked to the point of contaminating the
immediate area where the tanks were located„ The City has not
had gasoline stored on the site for 9 years. Upon excavation,
gasoline odor was noticed by the contractor. Tests were then
tak by the City of Mound's environmental soil consultant, GME
Consultants, Inc. The Minnesota Pollution. Control Agency (MPCA)
was notified and directed the City to have environmental soil
borings drilled to determine the vertical and lateral extent of
the contamination. The first boring was done at the edge of the
1
existing parking lot (west side) in the immediate area where the
• underground tanks and gasoline pumps were located. This boring
showed moderate to high levels as read on GME's hand held organic
vapor monitor, but no direct impact to the groundwater was
encountered.
The second boring was then put down in the woods to the west
approximately 60 feet from the edge of the parking lot. This
boring showed only very very low readings, until the groundwater
was encountered at 2 ftet, at which time free product (gasoline)
was found floating on top of the water table. The City's
immediate concern was if the wetlands of Lost Lake could be
impacted. Therefore, a third boring was placed at the bottom of
the hill, to the west, adjacent to the wetlands. This boring was
drilled to a depth of 34 feet, with no contamination or
observation of any gasoline. The soils in this boring showed a
heavy clay. This was helpful because the clay soil is not porous
and contained the gasoline spill further up the slope.
Two additional borings were then put do %.n in the woods to the
west, approximately half way down the hill and on either side of
the second boring, which contained the free product. These
borings also showed positive readings, but the groundwater had
not been affected. GME then drilled two borings in the parking
lot, about straight south from the old main entrance to city
hall. The boring taken in the center of the parking lot
indicated moderate readings of contamination, but the one at the
south property line was negative and indicates that the private
2
property to the south is not impacted.
A temporary monitoring well was then installed at the boring in
which free product was encountered to try to determine the
apprcximate depth of the gasoline floating on top of the water
table. A sample was taken that same day, which indicated a
little over one inch of gasoline was floating on top of the
groundwater. The soils encountered in the seven borings indicate
a silty to sandy clay with lenses of gravel at varying depths.
GME believes that the free product has made its way to one of
these gravel pockets and is contained there, but has indicated
that the only way to be sure of that is to install monitoring
wells.
is The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and GME have made
the decision that three monitoring wells are required. One will
be located at the east side of the parking lot and two in the
woods to the west of the parking lot. Following the drilling of
the monitoring wells the next step will depend upon the results
of samples taken from those wells, but this may not be known for
some time because laboratory analysis is required. Also,
depending upon the analysis and other factors, additional samples
may be needed which could put the construction of the parking lot
into late fall or early winter before a decision is made on the
clean up process by the MPCA.
.7
3
At this time, it appears that the only clean up procedure
is feasible would be soil venting. This involves the installation
of vent tubes and the forcing of air through the soil to
eliminate the gasoline vapors present. Because of the soils
present, it is questionable if this process would work.
Therefore one trial vent tube would be installed to test the
effect. If it works, this would probably be the method of clean
up required by the MPCA. If this doesn't work, t1 n the MPCA may
say do nothing but keep sampling the monitoring wells and let
nature take its course. The course of action the City follows
will depend upon the initial results from the three monitoring
wells and the advice the City received from the MPCA and its
environmental consultants.
is The City of Mound is proposing to h�,� >hingobee Builders, Inc.
furnish a partial parking lot before winter arrives. The plan
involves approximately two- thirds of the lot being built and
would provide ; to 25 harking stalls instead of the 40 that are
proposed at the time the projec s completed. The west side of
the parking lot, in the area wher3 the old underground tanks and
pumps were located, would be left unfinished until next year or
whenever the final clean up is completed. A temporary bitur.i;.ous
curb would be installed across the west side and also a temporary
connection made to the in place storm sewer, which would drain
the new parking lot. The final bituminous wear coarse would also
be left off until the remainder of the lot is completed. If a
soil venting system is required, it can be done through t`a
surface of the partially completed lot and the base coarse
2
patched before the bituminous wear coarse is installed. The
City believes it is necessary to proceed in this manner because
O of the time involved before any final decisions can or will be
made by the MPCA to complete the clean up.
This complete statement is an effort to be completely open and
candid with the public about the problem. In today's world, we
are all becoming more aware of the adverse effects these old
tanks have had on our environment. Our case number at the MPCA
is 3059 and this would not be considered a major problem by the
MPCA. It is a problem that is being addressed and handled in
accordance with the most advanced techniques known to people
concerned about the environment.
Questions regarding the above information should be addressed to
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood
Road, Mound, MN 55364, telephone, 612 - 472 -1155.
�J
5
AIL
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 6, 1990
TO: City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT: August 1990 Monthly Report
CON ACTIVITY
lr August, 32 building permits were issued for a total valuation
of $465,858. This valuation is down 31% from the Month of August
1989. Total year -to -date valuation is 7% down at this point com-
pared to last year at the same time.
There were 26 plumbing, mechanical and miscellaneous permits
issued for a total of 52 permits issued for the month of August.
A complete breakdown is attached. This resulted in approximately
133 related inspections by this department. This number does not
reflect 5 inspections completed by Metro West Inspection Serv-
ices, or inspertions by our plumbing inspector, John Breitner.
PLANN i NG170N I_NG
The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and acted on
several staff recommendations that were prepared by this Depart-
ment related to planning and zoning.
TRAINING-
/MEET
" L.ake Country Chapter ICBO: met with other Building Offi-
cials at the regular monthly meeting, viewed and discussed
two educational tapes on inspection methods that were
produced by ICBO.
COMME:N TS
Progre_ls was made on the condemnation of the hazardous building
at 2142 Belmont Lane. The building is now vacated, utilities are
in the process of being disconnected, the health and fire hazards
In the building will be removed, and the first floor will be
bo<jr up and secured soon.
JS /p.; it 7
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
mo,Nd AUGUST ry 1990
NEW RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION tf.^IIIY)
N��
Iy,..,,
U.A.
^�"
r.•,yp�y
,» w+r
vlr
1 rw++.
4
4
321 ,
IL
.�'.Mi NMOM�
a 0.01
• , t 1�. rr,
A..rrwV
Totmt Fe" u
4
4
321,700
1,244,085
1'EW RESIDENTIAL
IGlwo t T .nu.np
1 n...r
- - --
aos� o.n..
Tgtl N*n Fs. ly
NEW NO,ARESIDENTIAL
tco^untrc,AVIMJ
pay,..,
ThM,IW
rwrOw
N. ►«�+
vNww
t
• a
A... S. w
Iw,NMP,/
I
l M»N N
A A..ti
1
1
1
11. p.wv.n OV�.r
n..
TOW Non RtNO..tW
_
RESIDENT UL ADDITIONS
AND ALTERATIONS
A.n.., tln—
, P.—i.
11.II�I1t♦,
S a-A AA —
,
4
21,047
20
decks
6
,
• �,..,.r..«.a
1
5,000
t M. remodel
15
34,525
86
296,875
r �ul
Tou PpWtnt
2 7
133,708
161
9 20 , 248
I
T ONS t A� ERAi 0 S
vbk.. ,
rAU N DN.
M .u.w.
wl.Nw
1. I^pII.u1A1 am
_
I "" wa.
1
)0,450
10
!24,945
a a t wwNww•
A 0 — church/
4
682,254
Taal No- nesdamial
l
10,450
14
807,199
TOTAL MONTH AND
TEAR TO DATE
_
32
465,858
�•r 13
2,971,532
.,�,
CONVERSIONS
ti•ywu
I
H
NN 1Mb
wWle.
rw
�.ON.
wwuw
Total Conrt,tiont
DEMOLMONS
R M
Iw•
T. D..
1 a.`"r
+olw (are e)
1
I
2
2
Tow De- ,owlw..
PERMIT$ INSPECTIONS, Ay
COL ECTIONS
1
....,II,
Nw•
1
rw w Ow
rho I,.nw r
3
Nrw !tU
3
32
189
fences walls
5
37
I►rwt
--
��
7
34
--
ty _
0
21 —
- --
-
.«... +,� .saw
r - M.� D.'.MOP••n !M
M t.n• DMICNw
—
4
24
♦K.i
-
TOTAL
64
373
(includes
City Hall addn.)
•
•
is
an
September 6, 11990
TO: MAYOR, CiTY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR J L r j
RE: AUGUST FINANCIAL REPORT
AUGUST INVESTMENTS
Balance August 1, 1990
Bought:
Farm Cr 7.9 Marquette Due 8 -1 -91
Matured:
Tr Notes 3.1 Shearson
Tr Notes 8.2 °iper Jaffray
CD 8.0 4M Fund
Balance August 31, 1990
Balboa Tax Payment!!!
$8,057,69"
125,000
(144,302)
( 84,170)
(200,000)
$7,754,222
The taxes are paid! We have been informed by Welsh Companies, the new
management company for the Balboa facility, that the taxes would be paid in
full. Hennepin County confirmed receiving a ciieck for 1988, 1989 and the
first half of 1990 taxes for the Balboa property, a total amount exceeding
$1 million. The City of Mound's share will be approximately $175,000. This
amount will replenish the General Fund balance to a more adequate level.
However, the delinquent tax payment does not change the proposed 1991 budget
amounts.
•
MOUND POLICE
v m , - - CTTa_ ;-'- 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472 -3711
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544 -9511 1 0
LEN HARRELL EMERGENCY 911
Chief of Police
September 6, 1990
TG: Ed Shukle, City Manager
FROM: Len Harrell, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Mont'ily Report for August, 1990
STATISTICS
Due to our recent move, the normal compu generated
statistics are not available. There were approximately
139 combined Part I and Part II incidents.
There were 98 hazardous citations, 28 non - hazardous
citations, and 11 parking tickets issued. The depart-
ment assisted at 7 accidents; 2 with injuries. There
were 9 medicals and 95 animal complaints.
The department arrested one adult for a felony and one
juvenile for a felony. There were 23 adult misdemeanor
arrests and 1 ju.enile misdemeanor arrest.
II. .JESTIG
The investigators worked on 5 child protection cases
and 1 criminal sexual conduct. Those cases accounted
for in excess of 35 hours of investigative time.
Forty -three child protection matters have been inves-
tigated through August. In addition, cases involving
burglary, felony and misdemeanor assaults, theft,
damage to property, criminal sexual conduct, harassing
communications, escape from custody, domestic assault,
and NSF checks have been investigated.
•
A 773
0
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - AUGUST, 1990
Formal complaints were issuer for window peeping, theft
of public funds, dog at ls_ge, criminal damage to
property, aggravated DWI, falsely reporting a crime,
hit and run accident, harassing communications, as-
sault, and escape from custody.
III. PERSONNEL /STAFFING
The department used approximately 46 hours of overtime
during the month of August. Officers used 61 hours of
comp -time and earned 29 hours of comp -time. There were
144 hours of vacation used, 47 hours of sick time, and
34 hours of holiday time used.
•
•
;1»y
A 77r
THIS LAST THIS YEAR LAST YEAR
MONTH OF Allrl T 1990 MONTH MONTH TO hATV TA -
NO. OF CALLS
29
49
315
253
MOUND - FIRE
EMERGENCY
10
10
58
52
9
11
116
93
M'TONKA BEACH - FIRE
EMERGENCY
1
1
11
10
0
0
1
1
MINNETRISTA - FIRE
_ EMERGENCY
2
6
25
13
0
6
23
12
ORONO - FIRE
EMERGENCY
3
3
25
32
0
3
9
5
SHOREWOOD - FIRE
EMERGENCY
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
SPRING PARK - FIRE
EMERGENCY
3
2
20
19
1
6
24
14
MUTUAL AID - FIRE
EMERGEN
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
TOTAL FIRE CALLS
19
22
141
127
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS
10
27
174
126
COMMERICAL
1
2
9
12
RESIDENTIAL
6
8
56
51
INDUSTRIAL
0
0
2
4
GRASS c MISCELLANEOUS
7
9
45
34
AUTO
2
2
13
15
FALSE ALARM
NO. OF HOURS - MOUND FIRE
EMERGENCY
TOTAL
- MTKA BCH FIRE
EMERGENCY
TOTAL
-M'TRISTA FIRE
EMERGENCY
TOTAL
- ORONO FIRE
EMERGENCY
TOTAL
- SHOREWOOD FIRE
EMERGENCY
TOTAL
-SP FARK FIRE
EMERGENCY
TOTAL
3
203
160
1
189 -
192
14
1433
2175
10
1049
1661
363
381
3608
2710
11
9
265
298
0
0
14
11
11
9
279
309
29
135
565
412
0
101
474
232
29
236
1039
644
43
58
695
962
43
109
877
1060
0
0
0
0
n
12
12
13
13
30
374
$8
462
211
75
133
992
585
- MUTUAL AID FIRE
EMERGENCY _
TOTAL
TOTAL DRILL HOURS
0
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
87
157'
159
!3319
1277%,
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS
168
444
2 226
TOTAL FIRE HOURS
353
436
3579
3182
TOTAL FIRE L EMERGENCY HOURS
521
_
F_1%
68 98
5408
WOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR MOM OF X:( - V.S'C 14 '90
•
•
SIRE FI(:l[TERS
DRILLS 3 1.AINTE;iA710E
FIRE L RE: - ,CUE
DATE
DATE
DRILLS
DRILL
WAGES
MAIN.
WAGES
TOTAL
HOURS
HOURLY
RATE
WAGES
J. ANDERSEN
X
X
2
19.00
20
6.00
120.00
C.
X
X
2
19.00
l y
13
6,00
78.00
0
21
6
126.00
D. BOYD
X
X
2
19.00
6
12
6.00
72.00
Q- RRYCF
X
X
2
19.00
0
25
6.50
16 2.50
S. BR CE
0
14
6.00
84.00
D. CARLSON
X
X
2
19,00
2'
11
6 00
66.00
J. CA SEY
X
X
2
19.00
2
17
6.00
102.00
`S . _r
19.00
2
11
6.00
66.00
M. LAVID
X
X
2
19.00
1'
25
6.00
150.00
R. ENGELHART
X
X
2
19.00
2
11
6
66.00
S. ERICKSON
2
6.00
.00
P. FISK
X
X
2
19.00
2
15
5.00
90.00
J. GARVAIS
X
X
2
19.00
3'y
13
6.00
78,00
K- rRADY
X
X
2
19.00
17
6.00
102.00
X
X
2
19.00
3
25
6
150.00
P. HLNRY
X
X
2
19.00
5
7
6.00
42.00
G. OHNSON
E
E
0
-0-
0
0
6.00
-0-
N. LAN
2
12
6.00
72.00
k' MARS'HKE
X
X
2
19.00
0
14
6.25
87.50
J. NAFUS
X
X
2
19.00
11
6,00
66.00
M. NELSON
2
10
6.00
60.00
B. NICrUM
X
Of
1
9.50
2
17
6.00
102.00
A. OPITZ
X
X
2
19.00
2
14
6.00
84•x1
G MM
X
X
2
19.00
2
19
6.00
114.00
M. PAIM
X
X
2
b
1`
18
6.00
108.00
T. PALM
X
X
2
9.00
0
18
6.00
108.00
G. PEDERSON
X
X
2
9.00
2
11
6.00
66.00
T. RASIUSSEN
X
X
2
9.00
0
12
6.00
72
M. SAVAGE
X
X
2
9.00
10�
13
6.00
78
K. SIPPRELL
0
6.00
R
X
E
1
9.50
0
6
6.00
36.00
T. SWENSON
X
E
1
9.50
2
15
6.00
90.00
W. S W E N N
E
E
0
-0-
1
10
6.00
60.00
R. WILLIMIS
X
X
2
19.00
9%
15
10
6.00
90,00
T. WILLIAMS
X
X
2
19.00
2
A nn
60.00
6.00
33
30
63
598.50
79% HRS
521
3.142. 00
82=
75
157' HRS
DRILLS
598.50
MINT
1,167.00
A 7 74
MOUND VULUN'YEER FIRE Ut1;?MY1 N`C'
MOUND, MINNESOTA
Date: g - 3 r - /t"
D R I I, L R E P O R T
Ti Irng
Discipline and Team work
Critique of Fires
Pre - Plaining and Inspections
Tools & Apparatus
Identifying
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wear_ 1 Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescu3
Operation
Use of Self- Contained Masks
Pumper Operation
_ Fire Streams & Friction
Loss
House Burnings
Natural & Propane Gas
talk & Demonstrations
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions
Nozzle & Hose Alliance
Inhalator Operation
Note: Ho4rse Training Paid
Excused X Unexcused Q Present, Not paid
•
Time
a 1 4._
Miscellaneous: J. ( rv.s - 11 e P,'Y ed Cre J.' A- ,Jto1, d c ;.i a -3 -20
A dde, - �Addfr fy q i, 0-1-S
".L J.
_7 � G .
, avY J.
D.
3X S.
i- D.
�' Y j.
S.
'' M.
�1�- R.R.
1�
Andersen
Anderson
Babb
Boyd
Bryce
Bryce
Carlson
Casey
Collins
David
Engelhart
S. Erickson
W/4 P. Fisk
K. Grady
P . Henry
� C. Henderson
G. Johnson
_ L - B. Landsman
R. Marschke
J. Nafus
B. Niccuml
e-, �+ive C
1 R �
`YT c PAY
� M. Nelson
a'?Y A. Opitz
I� G. Palm
I/ M. Palm-
T. Palm
a� G. Pederson
' } T. Rasmu6sen
a M. Savage
K. Sipprell
R. Sta?lman
T. Swenson
W. Swenson
1 R. Williams
Dr lmaster
3
•
2177
j4Q1jND V OLUNTE ER EIRE 12-EIPA?TLN-T
MOUND, MINNESOTA
•
•
•
Date: 9 ?0
D R I L L R E P O R T
Discipline and Team work
Critique of Fires
Pre - Plaining and Inspections
Tools & Apparatus
Identifying
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue
Operation
Use of Self- Contained Masks
Note: Hour—pa Training Paid
Excused Unexcused
Pumper Operation
Time
Fire Streams & Friction
Loss
House Burnings
Natural & Propane Gas
talk & Demonstrations
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
_
Radio "aerations
House Evolutions
Nozzle 6 Hose Alliance
Inhalator Operation
_
Q Present, Not paid
Miscellaneous: 14V( `v, -e (ti, )c A ovv�c,�;Qy
J.-- - JA d pr (1- �- tZvolid ,'S ' Re / ;L
t t ti►'1 lJ: h - (D. 13 , y d - 1� c' I v P c� ['r t /' hyt : K,P W oh In - d 9 9
w;
J J. Andersen
G Anderson
J. . Babb
a.
D. Boyd
D. Bryce
S. Bryce
D. Carlson
/ J. Case
a S. Collins
may. M. David
9i- R. Engelhart
S.
P.
�j/ J.
- a%
a► K.
P .
—� G .
B.
R .
J.J.
B .
Qmw_�
�'% M. Nelson
Erickson a��' .... A. Opitz
Fisk A G. Palm
Garvais M. Palm-
Grady _ T. Palm
Henry _3 ►_ /� G . Pederson
Henderson �� � T. Rasmussen
Johnson - ��7� M. Savage
Landsman�dT /J. K. SiFprell
Marschke / R. Stallman
Nafus J- T. Swenson
Niccum W. Swenson
_a} R. Williams
a' W;0. A
a.L_ (f 4 j�pillmaster
1,
3j
A778
DATE f,6 S, /990
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT •
TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF ,tSr 0
MEN ON DUTY
o?
J. ANDERSEN
J.
N �FUS
oZ
G.
ANDERSON
o
M.
NEL60
J.
BABB
B.
NICCUM
/ D
(p
D.
BOYD
oZ
A.
OPITZ
O
D.
BRYCE
,Z
G.
PALM
�,2
S.
BRYCE
/
M.
PALM
o�
D.
CARLSON
D
T.
PALM
J.
CASEY
aZ
G.
PEDERSON
o�
S.
COLLINS
D
T.
RASMUSSEN
M.
DAVID
/Q /�.
11.
SAVAGE
R.
ENGEUMT
a2
K.
SIPPRELL
o?
S.
ERICKSON
O
R.
STA LMAN
02
P.
FI SK
T.
SWENSON
J.
GARVAIS
I
W.
SWENSON
Q
K.
GRADY
q
R.
WILLIAMS
.3
C.
HENDERSON
o 'L.
T.
WILLIAMS
P.
HENRY
O
G.
JOHNSON
�-
B.
LANDSMAN
R.
MARSCHKE
TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS 9
0 1" Ai
IN 1Ot T D
Sept. 5, 1990
TO: Ed Shukle
City Manager
FROM: Ceno Hoff
Street Supt.
SUBJECT: August's Activity Report
�,; a!a .v. "? r;C a;
'd0 L'NJ VINNES,�'TA :..
The first part of the month we finished cleaning up the buckshot
from the sealeoatin.g project. We swept up 160 loads of rock
which was hauled back to the stockpile and mixed with pit run
sand and used for filling the hole from watermain breal; in the
winter.
The Water Dept. had a number of curb boxes that had to be dug
Lip and repaired, 12 of them to be exact. They were located in
blacktop driveways and in the street. It took about 4 days to
clean up the mess and repair the blacktop. The patching crew
was also out crack patching for about a week.
We've slowly but surely getting the fill dirt hauled out of the
stockpile area. It's netting tougher every year to find a place
cohere they will take it, unless it absolutely clear, and as you
know we have some small chucks of blacktop .ad rock mixed with
the dirt.
V- wer0 out spraving retaining walls and street right -a -ways
for 2 days.
We had some vandalism to the Union Cemetery this munt_}�, someone
tipped over and d;rmaged 8 stones and urns.
SIGN WORK
Replaced 2 Stop, 5 No Parking Anytime. 6 street names and
4 post,.
CEMETERY
6 stones and 3 Kr,rves. '�D
Ai
c :I�1��� (�t is �L TND
Scptein1)er 5, 1`g90
'10: F Shukle
City Managrr
FROM: Greg Hergquist
M0chanic
SUBJECT: August's Garage Report
P OL1C1•, t)F.PT.
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNEFOTA 55364
(6121 472 -1155
'phis rnc,n'h 6 ca, had complete service (oil, lube and all fluids
checked) < <•ars needed exhaust replacements. 1 Alternator was
replace.t 1 set of brakes, 1 spot light, 1 transmission and
1 t of front_ struts. 6 new tires were mounted and balanced
,nd instal led.
hFf: "f fil:1''i.
Unit rtl, 87 Chc•v. pickup was s,�rvicc•d, #5, 83 Ford LN8000 Dump
nn d n " .,I n. t 1apti.
'rid l r r hi • .ati•. -t our 1970 Ford Sr Rodding truck a new fuel
1ur + - an�i _ .arhurrtor had to be instal led because original
;ui1,�, nt i_art.. arr ii loni�cr available. #3, 87 Chev. pickup
11, 87 Chev. pickup needed service
rv:
rv. 1.
-.1., c +O 1 -ton dump wits serviced
•
PLI?aj
(;ITY A NKA Ir I:I�
September b, 1990
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK
RE: AUGUST MONTHLY R'-PORT
This was ar extrem -ly busy month. There were tw-) regular meeting with
agendas, packets and minutes. There were follow -op item from Each meeting.
We got packed up and moved to the new addition. I obtained quot— from
two different moving companies and we used Apollo (North Amo- ican). We
will be js1ng them to move us back when the remodeling, is done in the old
building.
I have been preparing for assessment hearings in September. Notices,
resolutions, lists, levy numbers, etc. had to be done.
Linda !nd I are preparing for the Primary Election.. Al. the Optical Scan
mochtnes were tested Test decks (phony ballots) needed to be prepared to
run through the machiii-s to be sure of their accuracy_
� 3
C7
� -1
I _J
w �5
AUGUST 1990 MONTHLY REPOR
PARK DEPARTMENT
Pa rks
In August we saw the season for summer park activities closing.
All park and recreation programs ended, softball and little
league finished along with the closing of all beach areas, except
Mound Bay Park. Mound Bay Park beach remains open on weekends
through Labor Day.
The park crew begins to be reduced, two of the seasonal help have
returned to college. Currently, we have one person on the mowing
crew, two people working on park projects such as the Improve-
ments at Centerview Beach and Chester P= #rK.
This time of the year is when we have a chance to catch up on
many projects. We will be losing the two seasonal maintenance
workers in four weeks. So they will be quite busy unti' then.
Tree Removal / Weed Noti
Eleven trees were removed from City properties. Five of these
were from onP area on Island View Drive and consisted of very
large cottonwood trees. This is going to be a costly removal and
we will not know the full dollar amount for a while. Also, we
had three forced removals from private properties.
There were eight weed notices sent out to private properties.
Commons Docks
The dock program Is winding down, with the water level coming up
and little l oss of depth over August, we have been a b l e to see
progress in rental of dock sites and boats registered to the
docks.
Cemetery
With Labor day past, the maintenance of the cemetery will slow
down. Phil Naugen has done an excellent ,job of keeping the
grounds up and will be returning ne season.
v8y
September 1 1990 ' T I w 1 , l N K A , N1
6'7i 47; -11"
TO: MAYOR, CITY MANAGER AND CITY CCUNCIL
FROM: JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER
RE: AUGUST MONTHLY REYCRT
August was an uneventful month. Eusiness was good however.
We had a 6$ increase in sales over August of 1989, bringing our
gross sales to date at $662,000. Last year at the end of August
we were at $622,000.
The "bu:z words" it '-e beer industry this month were:
"Federal Excise Tax T • -rea ". This fall congress will be
proposing a $.63 federi !cise tax increase on a 6 pack of beer.
The purpose is to creas tiilliun dollars in revenue to be used
to help the federal deficit. Preposterous! Recently, congress
eliminated excise taxes on expensive perfume, jewelry and fur
coats. These are the kinds of things only the wealthy can
afford. Yet, beer is taxed at three times the rate of most •
other consumer goods. In fact, you pay more for the taxes on
beer than for the cost of the brewing, labor and ingredients
combined. Apparently, some special interests think you aren't
paying enough.
To put this in perspective, let me give you an example of
how this would effect th 80 million beer drinkers in America. At
this moment when there is not a sales promotion on a national
premium 12 pack of beer, our retail price is $6.59. This is an
average price in the State of Minnesota. If the federal excise
increase is approved, what happens is this: The increase is
passed along to the brewery, who passes it along to it's
distributors, who pass it along to the retailers, who pass it
along to you. That $6.59 12 pack will now cost you $8.99. The
lower income people in the United States, who proportionately
drink more beer than any other soeio- economic, group, will not be
able to afford to drink as much as they were accustomed to. By
the way, this tax hike will also touch the liquor and wine
segments. This ridiculous idea will devastate the spirit
industries. There will be considerably less distributors and
retailers. Consequen'ly, more unemployment.
If you feel that this is an unjust and unwarranted proposal,
I urge you to take action. All you have to do is call 1- 800 -33
TAXES. Your message will be sent uo Congress by Urgent Letter
within 48 hours. Both the call and the letter are free.
JK.ls
6? 7 $ S 1
•
c;F FY I' N10[VN1)
Sopt ;- h, l +l)
T0: Ed Shukle
CitV Manager
FROM: Joyce Nelson
Recycling Coordinat
SUBJECT: Auhust's Recycling
For the past 2 weeks I hive teen mooting with t xecVr
Coordinators from Wayzata tmi Wi—,t Hennr - pin Rr(Vclini� C�)mmission.
Tho roason we have been me(-t ing s wo are going to t.r,y to form
a "Joint Powers Agr:cment' this i= i w o almost guarantee
a lower price for curbside pickup.
No one have won the Westonka Doll,irs yct. We are now up to
300 dollars. I have hear many ment that they se. morF
households participating now.
0
Total tonnage for August was ') 7.38 ton, with 5,268 households
participating. We have ')4'L, of the hous,•holcls recycling. We
recycling 18% of our waste stream for August.
Ai
A 9714
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
473 -7033
L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE •
September 1990
RF-7 AUG 31 1990
Monday 3 Labor Day Holiday, LMCD office closed
Saturday 8 Water Structures & Environment Committee
7:30 a.m. Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road
Monday 17 Lake Use Committee
4:30 p.m. Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road
Thursday 20 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
8:30 a.m. Freshwater Voundation
Navarre
Wednesday 26 LMCD Board of Directors' Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m. Tonka Bay City Hall
8 -30 -90
•
A It 7
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
• A i; E N L A
7:30 a.m., Saturday, September 8, 1990
Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road AUG 31 1990
ItL�
1. Commercial Marina code amendment to clarify the code definition of a
commercial marina.
2. Chapman Pla.e Marina operators agreement and analysis of 1990 changes
for compliance with license order per LeFevere correspondence of 7/16/90.
(Licensee Robert Cuthill requested to meet with committee to review
the changes and their effect on the marina's commercial operation.)
3. Amenity study comparison with p oposed code amendment as it would have
affected special density allowances for licenses granted in the past
three years.
4. Lake Virginia control strucutre and staff analysis cf options under
consideration, LMCD response to MN DNR pending committee and Board recom-
mendatfon.
5. Interagency Agreement on Dredging status, following agency review of
7/23/90, pending a MN DNR report expected the week of September 4.
6. Wayzata Yacht Club communication on Site 2.
7. Staff report, Administrative Technician Rachel Thibault:
a. Multiple dock inspection progress
b. Complaints processed and resolved
8. Additional business recommended by the committee.
ENVIRONMENT, Chair Reese
1. Eurasian water milfoil weed harvest progress report through 8/24/90
with update through 9/7 to be provided at the meeting.
2. Preliminary financial analysis through 8/31.
3. Projection for season close, equipment maintenance and storage.
4. Forecast for 1991 preltminary projections.
5. Building height analysis of new bank building in Wayzata as governed
by the city's shoreland building - height regulations.
6. Additional business suggested by the committee.
i s
8 -30-90
A 7 pg
LAKE MIN NFEIONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
473 -7033
•
8 -29 -90
m n
E
V E N
T S
S C H E D U L E
46
September
1990
- C
iss4
Race
Schedules:
REC AUG 31
Sep
1
Sat
10:00 am
Lower
Lake
Burton Cup
10:30 am
ewer
Lake
Burton Cup
2:00 pm
Upper
Lake:
Burton Cup /Lower Lake
Sep
2
Sun
10:00 am
Lower
Lake
10:30 am
Upper
Lake
1:30 pm
Lower
Lake
Sep
3
Mon
10:00 am
Lower
I.a k
10:30 am
Upper
Lake
Sep
4
Tues
6:00 pm
Lower
lake
Sep
7
Fri
10:00 .am
Lower
Lake
Catamaran 10,000 Lakes
Regatta
1:00 pm
"
of
3:00 pm
of
11
Sep
8
Sat
10:00 am
Lower
Lake
Catamaran 10,000 Lakes
Regatta
1:00 pm
of
if
2:00 pm
Upper
Lake
3:00 pm
Lower
lake
Catamaran 10,000 Lakes
Regatta
Sep
9
Sun
10:00 am
Lower
Lake
Catamaran 10,000 Lakes
Regatta
i
10:30 am
Upper
Lake
1:30 pm
Lower
Lake
Sep
15
Sat
10:00 am
Lower
Lake
2:00 pm
Upper
Lake
2:00 pm
Lower
Lake
Fall Color Regatta
Sep
16
Sun
9:30 am
Lower
bake
Shoot Out Regatta
10:30 am
Upper
Lake
11.30 am
Lower
lake
Shoot Out Regatta
1:30 pm
11
it
to of of
Sep
22
Sat
10:00 am
Lower
bake
2:00 pin
Upper
Lake
and Lower Lake
Sep
23
Sun
10:00 am
Lower
Lake
10:30 am
Upper
Lake
Sep
29
Sat
10:00 am
Lower
Lake
2:00 pm
Upper
Lake
Sep
30
Sun
11:00 zm
)wet
Lake
•
8 -29 -90
m n
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTHICi
LAKE USE COMMITTEE
A G E N D A
4:30 p.m., Monday, September 17, 1990
Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road
RECD SEP 12 1990
I. LMCD /Water Patrol Special Deputy award for 1990, to be presented
at LMCD annual dinner -- discussion of criteria and selection process
2. Report of 1990 Lake Use Study, boats stored and boats in use- -for
committee evaluation and comment
3. Code amendment: observers required, 53.10, Subd. 1, as tabled by
the Board
4. Update Resolution 62 to change late fee requirement for open water
fishing contests from 60 days to 90 days
5. Review of winter rules
a. Buoy removal from the Lake (52.12, Subd. 7)
• b. Delete reference to deicing prohibition for new installations
c. Other
6. Deposit refunds
a. MN /W1 Pro -Am Bass Tournaments
5/27, 7/28 and 29, 8/25/90
b. Wednesday Night Bass Tournaments
6/13 through 8/22/90
7. Water Patrol report
a. Authority to close a lake during the winter to motorized vehicles
when a hazard exists (e.g., unusually warm weather)
b. Personal watercraft operation and safety evaluation
C. Charter b -at operation evaluation
d. Additional reports, information
8. Additional business recommended by the committee
0 9 -11 -90
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
• August 27, 1990
Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Vice Chair Geoff Michael,
Commissioners Ken Smith, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Thal, Frank
Weiland, Bill Voss, and Michael Mueller, Council Representative
Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy
James.
There were no citizens present.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES:
The Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 1990 were presented
for approval. Michael noted a change on page 1, within the mo-
tion for Case 90 -925, the motion was made by Michael, not Muel-
ler.
Mueller clarified his statement made on page 7 relating to Public
Works Storage Materials, and amended it to read as follows:
of some type of surface under the any salt piles being
stored, at- -t-l-►e -1-91 -and- Park -Garage and not to allow drainage away
from that storage site.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, t ap-
prove the Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 1990
as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
a. Case No. 90 -92 John Grossoehme, 5001 Woodridge Road
Shirley Hills Unit A, Lots 10 & I1, Block 4, PID #13- 117 -24-
44 0047. VARIANCE: side yard s etback .
The applicant, John Grossoehme, withdrew his application.
Review of Tax Forfeit Properties
Thal raised the issue of assessments, and concluded that more in-
formation was needed to determine if the city can negotiate sale
prices.
Aft,;r further discussion regarding parcels in Devon, Block 4,
lots 13 thru IE. the Commission concluded that it would be
favorable, in a planning sense, to separate parcel (27) and offer
lot 16 to the owner of lot 17 since it is currently an undersized
lot, and therefore, would create a conforming lot. Then combine
lots 13, 14 and 15 Into one parcel and put them up for auction.
By combining lots 13, 14, and 15 a more favorable parcel would be
• created for construction of a new dwelling since it is a corner
parcel and setbacks are more restrictive. The topography of lots
13 & 14 alone may create a hardship for construction.
A 7fe
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27, 1990
Page 2
The Commission determined they need more information on the
rules, policies, and procedures to prepare these tax forfeit par-
cels for a more favorable sale. The City should be able to make
the parcels more marketable. It was confirmed that the goals for
undersized tax forfeit properties is to get them back on the tax
role and to create conforming parcels, as stated in Resolution
$#84 -94. Jensen commented that the City of Mound has more tax
forfeit properties than most communities. It was suggested that
maybe the City Clerk could come to a meeting and answer some of
their questions, as follows:
1. Can the City negotiate the sale price of a conforming tax
forfeit parcel?
2. Can tax forfeit parcels be separated?
3. Are the abutting property owners of conforming tax forfeit
parcels notified of the sale?
4. What if a con`' rming tax forfeit parcel abuts a nonconform-
ing residential parcel, can they get assessments waived the
same as nonconforming tax forfeit parcels?
•
The Commission briefly discussed the tax forfeit parcel on Haw-
thorne, comments were made on the topography and available green
: •
,pace in the Highlands area.
D owntown Stuuy: Discu
Thal commented on the fact that the City of Mound does not allow
"major automobile repair" in the Central Business District.
Thai referred to page 50 of the study and commented that multi-
family dwellings should be considered a future land use for the
Commerce Blvd. stretch. Thal believes the Planning Commission
should be active in only zoning for the Downtown Study. Clap -
saddle disagreed, he believes they should be active in planning,
as well.
C 1 apsadd 1 e commented on the need for the C i t y of Mound to first
create some space in its downtown area. He stated that economic
studies show that a large grocery store, such as a Cub, is needed
in the Mound area. Approximately 30,000 square feet would be
required for a grocery store, where could one be placed?
The Commission agreed that the Downtown Study, as submitted, Is a
good start, but it is not a solution. The Planning Commission's
role was questioned. How involved can the Planning Commission be
In developing downtown?
1]
all/
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27, 1990
Page 3
The priorities as IIsted in the ;mplementation Section on pages
77 - 83 were addressed. A majority of the Commission agreed that
Priority #4, Land Acquisition, should be Priority ##2 or #3, and
that there is too much emphasis on developing Lost Lake. It was
suggested that the current downtown needs to be redeveloped, not
developed.
The Commission questioned what is the Economic Development
Commission's role verses the Planning Commission's role? The
priorities need to be discussed. Jensen confirmed that the City
Council, as a council, has not discussed the Study or its
priorities yet.
C; ty Council Representative's Report.
Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of August 14, and
the Committee of the Whole meeting of August 21. She enlightened
the Commission on such topics as: a new water treatment plant,
the potential of storage of public works materials at the Van -
DerSteeg property, and CBD parking.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Smith to adjourn the
me ^tang at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair, Bill Meyer
Attest:
•
;k7fo2
IS
1ti4 ;� 'A KAN
August 27, 1990
KF AUG 2 81990
Honorable Mayor Steve Smith
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 5536
Dear Mayor Smith and Council Members:
TRIA?< 10
C,NPLEVISON
Triax Cablevision will introduce several new monthly rates for
basic and premium cable TV services, effective October 1, 1990.
The new rate adjustments are a direct result of increases
associated to operating expenses, the addition of new satellite
channels, channel realignments, and spiraling program costs.
BASIC cable service will be adjusted to $19.99 per month and
referenced as "EXPANDED BASIC ". There will be a total of 39
channels of programming, which includes the addition of a new
comedy satellite channel-- "HA! ".
"HA! ", the television comedy network launched in April, 1990, •
features the best television comedy of the past 1 10 years- -
Love American Style, Saturday Night Live, The Best of Croucho,
Candid Camera, Mork and Mindy, Rhoda, TV Bloopers and Practical
Jokes. With a programming mix like this, "11A!" appeals to every
age group.
A new 19 channel "BASIC" service will be introduced simultaneou:;ly
for $12.99 per month. This economy service consists of bvoadc,i,,t
networks, public broadcast stations, independent network. Supr�r-
stations, local and public access channels, C -Span, rind Home;
Shopping Network.
Premium services are being adjusted as fo llowo:
HBO HOME BOX OFFICE
SHO SHOW" IME
MAX CINEMAX
DIS THE DISNEY CHANNEL
from $9.95 to $1.0.95
Remains thy: ,wane at; $9.95
from $9.95 to $6.95
from $9.95 to $
Movie channels can be packaged to obtain
follows:
HBO & MAX $15.90 p�r r;c�nti,
HBO & MAX & Dl i $19.85
•
1713
Page 2
0 Triax cable TV subscribers will receive a letter by
September 1, 1990, which highlights the upcoming adjustments
including a revised rate schedule, a new channel brochure, and a
new channel line -up card which distinguishes the difference
between "BASIC" and "EXPANDED BASIC" cable services.
Subscribers wi -1 receive a new monthly cable bill on
October 1, 1990, reflecting the new rates for the cable services
they have at that time. Additionally, all subscribers will be
given the opportunity to change their services at no additional
charge, through October 15, 1990.
Please feel free to call me personally, at 1- 800- 33:' -0245 in
Waseca, MN., should you have any questions regarding these
changes.
Re ectfully yours,
Paul Nazarow
Regional Manager
TRIAX CABLEViSION
Enclosures (3): Subscriber notification letter
Revised channel line -up card
October 1, 1990 rate schedule
0
6? 47 it f
„d M) STREETS E
FL) Box 110
WASECA MN 56093
1, 07835 5975
FAK NUMB; R .`,x
Lake Minnetonka TRIA?<
CABLE` /ISION
Dear Subscriber:
On October 1, 1990 new monthly cable 'I'V service rates will take
effect on several Triax Cablevision services. The new monthly
rates are a result of channel additions and realignments,
operating expent ;es, and prograrnming costs.
ThF existing basic cable TV service which you currently receive,
will become known at "EXPANDED BASIC” cable TV service and
consist of 39 channels of programming for $19.99 per month. This
service inc the addition of the new satellite comedy
channel-- "HA! ".
A new "BASIC" cable TV service will be introduced and consist of
19 channels of programming for $ 12.99 per month.
HOME; BOX OFFICE (HBO), currently at $9.95 will change to $10.9
per month. SHOWTIME (3110), will remain the same at $9 per
month. CI14EMAX (MAX), currently at $9.95 will change to $6.9
per month. THE DISNEY CHANN'L (DIS), currently at $9.95 will
change to - $4.95 per month. Additional discounted movie packages
will also become available as follows: HBO and CINEMAX at $15__.
per month, and HBO, CINEMAX, and THE DISNEY CHANNEL at $
per mor) th .
In order to offer the new economy "BASIC" cable TV service and
the new channel, it will be necessary to change the existing
channel 1-in -up. Tune in cable channel 19 f'or current. infor-
mation on these changes.
The enclosed new channel line -up card will h- i I; yc,u in 1 0(c :at' j r 1i;
your favorite channels and the new channel. i':e=r: F, kF I, it•
handy and in a safe pl-ce for future
If you are interested in receiving; the ne -w "f1A:;IC" sir ✓ic ,
please call one of our cu2tomer service rep: :; nt,;itivF,s cEurir;�f
normal business hours at 1 -800- 332 - 0215 to a
Free Installation ($1 savings) . .his
October 1`-), 1990.
We appreciate your co:)tinued patron,
subscriber, and look forty. :!cd to providing , " -'i 'r, `.', r1 % %: -`•y
programrni ng a,:d improved sery i cf_1s .
Sincerely, 0
The Staff at THIAX CABLEVISiON
a qul�
CITY COUNCIL PACKET - - .9 -12 -90 #3
•
C]
•
Lake Minnetonka
BASIC SERVICE (19 channels) ................. $12.99
EXPANDED BAS (39 c hannels) ............
PREMIUM SERVICES
A' LA CARTE RATES COMBINATION RATES
Home Box Oldce(HBD)_$10.95 HBO/Cinemax ---------- $15.90
Showlime ------------- (Save S2.00)
Cinemax ------------- $69S HBO /Cinemax /Disney _419.85
The Disney ChamW - -- SL95 (Save 53.00)
1 ADDITIONAL OUTLET .......................... - ..52.50
24 ADDITIONAL OUTLETS .............$4.95 (max)
INSTALLATION
BASIC SERVICE .......- ........... .........................$45.00
E)PANDED BASIC SERVICE .....................$45.00
RECONNECT SERVICE ...... ......................... $25.00
DELINQUENT RECONNECT ....................$35.00
TRANSFER SERVICE ...:........ ........................$15.00
PREMIUM SERVICE UPGRADE ................$15.00
DOWNGRADE FROM EXPANDED BASIC
TO BASIC ONLY ......... .........................515.00
CONVERTERS
REMOTE CONTROLLED
CONVERTER ...................$3.50 per month
SALES TAX NOT INCLUDED ON ABOVE RATES
FOR INFORMATION, PLFASE CAi.L:
1- 800 - 332 -0245
FOR SERVICE AND REPAIR, PLEASE CALL-
1 -800- 422 -1473
T RIAX
„r CABLEVISION
„r TRIAX r ` :VISION
Lake 1yi g...:: ' L»
F 2 3 4 5
KTCA ND. CBS AW
PBS �' - -- - - - -�.
MINNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS
6 7
R 8 9
KMSP
R EGIONAL
INNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS
WOMS
18
PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC
ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS
22 23 24 25
Electronic
prosrem
ov * Guide
26 27 28 29
�o� 3TNN w ` �
30 31 32 33
w i ..&AjA
4rwy- 40 m
34
35
AC RESERVED
36
FUTURE
37
R
o`er
�:.:._..
RESERVED
RESERVED
39
p*
PUBLIC
N0.
45
46
ACCESS
MINNEAPOLI
10
11
12
13 -
KTMA
C•Sm
VM
D
NBc
so
* options
INNEAPOLIS MINNEAPOLIS
WOMS
18
PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC
ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS
22 23 24 25
Electronic
prosrem
ov * Guide
26 27 28 29
�o� 3TNN w ` �
30 31 32 33
w i ..&AjA
4rwy- 40 m
34
35
AC RESERVED
36
FUTURE
37
R
o`er
�:.:._..
RESERVED
RESERVED
39
p*
41 *
43
,
44
*r
45
46
47
48
TBN
NETWORK
D
49
so
* options
2.23 BaSlc
Q ! •
H`
Premium
Service
Service
14 15
16
t7
FUTURE
FUTURE
KTq
PBS
RESERVED
RESERVED
MINN
20
21
Pr
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mena Pork centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291 -6339.
REGIONAL BREAKFAST MEETINGS
FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS IN
HENNEPIN CO LINTY
Metropolitan Council Chair Steve Keefe invites you to his annual
regional breakfast meetings for local officials in Hennepin County.
These meetings will provide an opportunity to talk about the issues
the Council is dealing with and for you to express your ideas about
the Council and its work.
Chair Keefe will discuss the Council's priority projects for next year,
and some of the metropolitan issues the Council thinks the legislature •
may address in 1991. Council members are also interested in hearing
what you think the Council is doing right, what it is doing wrong and
what it should be doing in the future.
Two meetings are scheduled for local officials in Hennepin County.
You may attend one or both of these meetings. Following is the
schedule.
WHEN: Wed., Sept. 19, 1990
WHEN: Wed., Oct. 3, 1990
7:30 - 9 a.rn.
730 - 9 a.m.
WHERE: T. Wrights
WHERE: Days Inn
3310 S. Hwy. 101
1501 Freeway Blvd.
Wayzata
Brooklyn Center
COST. $4, includes breakfast,
COST: $6, includes breakfast
tax and gratuity
tax and gratuity
RSVP BY: Sept. 14 RSVP BY. Sept. 28
To RSVP, please call Bernadine Scott at 291 -6500.
417f7
• MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - AUGUST 15 1990
Members present: Paul Meisel, Mark Brewer, Tim Kenealy. Absent:
Steve Smith, Fred Guttormson, Chic Remien, Ben Marks (excused due
to illness). Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle and Finance
Director John Norman.
The June 21, 1990 Minutes were reviewed but due to a lack of
quorum, were not approved.
The Commission then discussed the results of the meeting held
August 7th with the City Council and the Planning Commission on
the Downtown Study. They reviewed the Implementation Plan and
indicated that the City Council was responsible for priority item
#1, which was the Public Works storage area. It did however,
focus on priority #2 which is the Development of Lost Lake. They
were interested in the soil condition studies that were done
previously on the property, and wan" information on those soils
reports. They asked for information regarding the monitoring
wells and what's being done with those wells. Also discussed
with regard to the development of Lost Lake was the County Road
15 Beautification Plan in relationship to the Lost Lake area.
Also discussed were the student proposals that were made through
the University of Minnesota Student Project done in the fall of
1988. Priority item #3 which was Physical Improvements was also
discussed. Questions were asked with regard to the CDBG program.
Also a possible tour of buildings with a video tape of the
buildings to be done. Mark Brewer and Paul Meisel agreed to do
this video.
Items for the September meeting include the following:
1.
Status
of the
Lost Lake monitoring wells
2.
Review
of the
County Road 15 Beautification Plan
3.
Review
of the
CDBG program
4.
Video
tour of
the downtown buildings
The next meeting will be held at Dr. Mark Brewer's office at 7
AM, Thursday, September 20, 1990. The meeting was adjourned at
8:40 AM.
Reseectfu ll submitted,
d ukle
City Manager
ES:ls
•
,2711
,1
CITE' of N loll \'D
RECD SEP 51990
September 4, 1990
Ed Shukle, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 MAYWOOD ROB-
MOUND MINNESOTA
i612i 472 -1155
I have held the position of the Mound Dock Inspector for the
past 7 boating seasons. It has been a challenging but regarding
job for me and I have enjoyed the relationships it has provided.
The responsibility and time required to do an effective job,
however, keeps me from doing some summer activities, traveling,
etc. Therefore, I am resigning for these reasons. October 15,
1990 will ' my last day as the Mound Dock Inspector.
I will have all things in place for the end of the year, •
records up to date, etc. I am also making some recommendations
to t; ' e Park Commission-for changes in the Dock Ordinance and some
site changes at their September meeting. If the Park Director or
MY successor has need of some part -time help this fall or next
spring, I would be available to help on next years program.
Respectively,
Aa
Dell Rudolph
cc: Jim Fackler
DR:ls
L�
12 7d?l
MINIYC\
v �
9
• •
M
A
o �-
ys = sI 111! 111 1 -
f,P114 r_1 ON 0�5�
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. NWINESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
EUGENE R. 5 IiVMMCN. k XECUI IVE UIRFCIOR
BOARD MEMBERS
David H Roc tw: . Char
G
Aiberl O FoSir•r, Vic. Char
Oeephay.n
Jan Hocwn,ka. S.c,elwy
Mnx,otonka tleach
_'oh- 1 Pw I fi.asu,er
M,n "m �cta
Douglas F 11 .0,, nck
_;1— q Park
Marv,n BI—I.n
Tonka Bay
James N G,athwol
r „c r.l %.",
Jot II•a, 1 14"',
C)•orn.
John G A1:Ihnka
V,c tuna
Thornas Mart,nson
Wayzata
Robed N Pdl•:bury
M, nn••lonka
Robert R:wcop
Sh0 r• '0d
Thomas W Re—e
Around
Robert E �;In un,
August 15, 1990
Non. Steve Smith
Mayor, City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55354
Re: Response to Comments
Draft Lake Minnetonka Long -Term Management Program
Dear Mayor Smith:
on behalf of the Advisory Committee, we want to express our
appreciation for the time that your city spent reviewing the
Draft Management Program for Lake Minnetonka. Attached are our
responses to your comments. It is apparent that your City
conducted probably the most thorough review of the Draft Program.
The Advisory Committee carefully considered each comment
presented by your city. While we did not make every change
sought, we did some major rewriting. Specifically, the chapter
on "Management Structure" has been extensively reorganized to
present the material more logically, clearly and coherently. We
believe that you will find our explanations acceptable where we
did not make changes to the Management Program.
Your review was quite detailed. If you need further
clarification, do not hesitate to contact us.
Staff, elected officials and citizens of Mound dedicated numerous
hours to developing this Management Program. Your contributions
Improved our programs.
Again, thank you for your past support. We look forward to a
continuing close relationship with the City of Mound.
Sincerely,
RE T AUG 2 8 1990
RE ' L" AUv - o 1 J90
LAKE MINNETONYA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
ohert Rascop, Chrrr
Advi ;nry Committee
c: Edward SilukIv, MilnaFcr
ELI AUG 2 8 1990
is CITY OF MOUND
(Public Hearing Ccminents)
Paragraph 1. We thank the city for its compliments.
Paragraph 2. , over the years, the LMCD has been effective within its limited
authority. The long term plan calls for some changes in its structure that
includes giving it the ability to be a stronger taxing authority. The City of
Me nd believes that if such authority is granted, members should be elected by
the people that they are taxing rather than the current system of appointments."
RESPONSE: The Intergovernmental Relations subcommittee gave serious
consideration to elected directors. The consensus was reached that the
appointments should continue as specified in the enabling legislation.
The Advisory Committee gave serious consideration to changing the Management
Program to provide for direct elections. However,there are numerous boards that
have the power to tax and are appointed here in Minnesota. These include:
Suburban Henr.apin Regional Park District,
Housing and redevelopment authorities,
Metropolitan Airport Commission,
Mosquito Control District,
Port authorities,
Regional development commissions,
Regional Railroad Authority,
• Regional sanitary sewer boards,
Regional transit boards,
watershed districts,
Lake improvement districts, and, of course,
Metropolitan Council
For various reasons, it appears that the Legislature did not intend for these
types of districts to be subject to direct voter review of their decisions. But
more important for Lake Minnetonka, we believe that it is essential that the
LMCD remain very close to the cities since implementation of the environmental
controls for the lake are largely controlled by the cities. Because of that,
and various other reasons, we feel that model provided by the agencies listed
above is more appropriate for the LMCD directors to continue to be appointed by
the 14 cities.
Specific Issues:
Item 1. The City of Mound applauds the I*A':D for its .fforts to fight the
Eurasian Water Milfoil problem in Lake Minnetonka. This effort is an example of
the LMCD's interest in protecting the environment. The City of Mound encourages
the LMCD to continue to take a strong stance on the envirorunent.
We thank the
ir,.I >lernenia' ivn of tl"e Manal ,,, nt:.
city for its
Prog:am, as prohc.::�cl,
believe that
ropre "erits the best
rn•rchinism f
:Moving e n v i r c�n:,..
nt a l pr oI, o cn th.
lake.
•
Item 2. "The City of Mound believes that land use rc?gula'.ions should remain
•
under city control."
RESPCNSE: The Managerr.ent
Program calls for no change in the individual
city control over land use.
The LMCD seeks no authority in this area but it
does seek the following:
1. A consistent set
of ordinances adopted and enforced by the cities
that protect the
lake, insofar as possible, from the adverse effects
of development.
2. Opportunity to have
staff review and comment on variances that may
affect recreational
use of the lake, environmental quality or
aesthetics prior
to the city taking final action on such requests.
Note that this is
review and comment only. No veto authority is
proposed.
Item 3. "The City cf Mound is
against programs to reduce, and ultimately
eliminate, grandfathering at
municipal and homeowner association docks. It is
the position of the City that
it has itself 400+ Commons Docks which are
maintained for the benefittof
all residents of the City."
RESPONSE: Shoul
ity on the lake reach 6.0 acres per boat, the
concept is to further re
ccess growth. The City of Mound is not now
grandfathered since the"
s dock allocation is consistent with the one for
fifty feet rule.
f '
Implementation of the p!
slow access growth after an initial increase
resulting from incrPasia
at access ramps. Individual cities may
influence the growt
rago on the lake through their ordinances
controlling land us
t
Reduction and elimi
df1thering will be particularly unpopular. The
way to avoid it is
:e Panagement Prcgram. but other, less
unpopu: +r, re3trict
r 'jt§ be strictly enforced.
Elimination of gra
R
6o•be implemented only when the directors
believe it is neces
idati oft of the lake to control unsafe
conditions during
r the first group
h3n making that tough decision, g p
targeted are those
oy a - level of access not available to all
residets and prop e q
n
,Vj con3ider this an extreme measure to be
implemented only in
eitrem conditions on the lake.
1
r
Item 4. "The City
1Ples t at the LMID should not incrc'a e access to
Lake Minn•�t_nka f %r
Cejre_ °i nte> at the t':;pi•.:3e ut ldx":;1,:'Ie owners."
r
, t • Froq
an .Ines ir..:cas� ; +_ c >s foz no.,-
1 aK:'3h7I� I' lent:i
e i�f; i. The ��ar:A:�nC1,• } }I'.:8 Cl?�'S
in
er lair rng ran t } r 1,3ke in r� �niti n of the
•
h ii`Y e li.,hc ?
`,
':].,an A. �i_t.'e. ,.t •r r,t<;anization3
rr: nt a ;r. t' ! 1• •r:? '. - +t 1 y with
c,f t.l:at r r.,.tt._n
.,', y .,
or without the support of the LMCD or the cities. It would be w,ong to develop
a management program that does not take into account such standards.
Lakeshore property owners are granted certain access rights under the state and
Federal constitutions as well as by the LMCD. Should the conditions on the lake
deteriorate to the point where it is necessary to reduce boat storage, then all
forms of boat storage will be affected equally, in accordance with the
priorities established by the Management Program. Those priorities protect
lakeshore property owners consistent with applicable laws.
Item 5. "The City of Mound supports the LMCD in obtaining authority to charge
user fees for the use of Lake Minnetonka."
RESPONSE: We note the support of the City of Mound. Obtaining that
authority will be difficult. But, like so many worthwhile objectives, the
effort will be worth it. In our negotiations with the Metropolitan Council, the
DNR and the legislature we will need the support of Mound and all of the other
cities.
CITY OF MOUND
(Letter to Arndorfer)
• 1. "Page 18, under 'Historical Background' indi(- -s that there is a need for
700 caritrailer parking spaces for Lake Minnetonka. Assuming that the Hennepin
Park District goes forward and builds a regional park on Lake Minnetonka, were
the spaces created at the park (100 +) going to be counted within the 700 parking
spaces ?"
RESPONSES: Yes.
2. "Pages 29 -31, under item3 8 -6, 7 -6, 6 -4 and 5 -1. The word in 'review' is
used 1(peatedly. What does 'review' mean in these contexts? How serious are
you about these items?
RESPONSE: Serious, but we do not think there is anything sinister or
drastic about such reviews. Review means what it says. From time to time it is
appropriate for the LMCD to take a thoughtful look at particularly important
parts of its regulatory program.
8 -6 calls for a review of individual riparian :itoiage rules. The
N,anager..�_nt Program calls for leveling user fees to the maximum ext - nt of the
law. Right now, private riparian docks are riot 1 ir Ths� I,MCu should
cor:si.'.e: t!:i n1'ti?n, but it is riot ra :iuircxi to ai :,uch a f-e. Further, it
is r-ally n x :rs3ary for each lakeshore utsidernt to have up to four 1-.cats? These
are 1;ut ::a: rles. Frv;o tir;,e to time the L;:CD h aid review 1 :art.i
i :r.lr. r t..int l -ir is of their gul .. cy program.
• 7 -6 calls f - .r r :...w ,e a -i j r,r . S :o!
fur' f i :.il. dual trays for
h�• c r.ri':l at .cn Thi 3 1.a..3e :.,, a r i ;t r ,.i. t.t r r zh r ime Such
3
a review would reveal where change is taking place -- positive or neqative.
Then the LMCD can look for the reasons for the change. When reasons are
identified, regulatory changes may or may not be desirable. Again, it provides
one more opportunity to examine if the regulatory programs are achieving their
purpose.
6 -4 and 5 -2 calls for review of rules governing riparian storage of
boats. As with 6 -6, this provides for periodic review of the rules to determine
if changes should be made. No guidance provided since it is the review that is
important. The sitting Directors need to decide if change is appropriate.
3. "On page 21, you indicated present practice by one of the cities on the
lake. We understand this to be Mound. Is this correct? If so, on page 28, you
indicate: 'Accordingly, Lake Minnetonka access and use shall be managed to
remain open for all citizens of the state, while riparian landowners have
certain constitutional and common law rights of access, no other group shall be
recognized as having special privi ?eges or other rights of access.' Is it the
intent that the City of Mound's Commons Dock program should be open to all
citizens of the state of Minnesota ?'
RESPONSE: On page 21 the word "one" is used as a general term. There
are saven lakeshore communities that have such docks. Mound is not singled out,
but
it is one of the seven.
• On page 28, the Management Program does not prcpcse any change in the way
that you operate your Commor.3 Docks. As background, when reviewing all options
open to the management of the lake one alternative was forcing cities to open
their docks. That alternative was considered and rejected by participants.
(Rather quickly, we might add.)
4. "Payer 30 -31, items 6 -2 and 5 -4. S•7hat do these mean? Is it the intent of
the LMCD to eliminate expansion of the City of Mound's municipal dock program?
RE PCaISE• The purpose is Lo reduce grandfat tier ir,g at municipal. docks (6-
4), ultimately eliminating it (5 -4). Our understanding is that Mound is not
grandfathe:ed, that it is within the 1:50 rule. Therefore, the-te have no effect
on the City. Others would be affected. If the 1:50 rule does indeed apply to
municipal docks, then Mound could only e::pand their dockage if more lakeshore
property was acquired.
5. "Page 30, it « 7 -4. what is ratio,: ale l.,c'hin.s "more restrictive
frontave - fo , t ruir7
r. - � t.t. ;n tyre L.:CD hculd :•. lust a review to
determine if .� chc;r:ge is Warrar:'_ed. Periolir_ : ^= W of ?uch fundareental rules is
f rani, i�,t. If th_:e .s a reason for a
ct'r'rn. ^d hr a i thy .ltt J
-tran'�n, thrr .. _;? :,c _ 01 ; . , Z .
4
6. "The City of Mound cornpl3ments you on items 8 -10, 8 -11, a! -: 8 -13 on page
30. These are positive statements.
RESPONSE: On behalf of all the participants involved, thank you.
7. "Page 30, item 8 - 9. Is 24 hour presence of the water Patrol necessary all
year round""'
RESPONSE: No. We seek it only during the peak period from May 15
through Septerr)er 15 (page 42).
8. "Page 30, item 7 -8. Please clarify t:,e phrase 'following day on -
and holidays'."
RESPONSE: You have found a typographical error. Delete the words "the
following day"
9. "Pages 30 -31. 'To i7.plement such an ordinance, the LMCD shall meet with
each individual municipality to determine the classification of the nearshore
waters of the lake. It is conceived that the cl.assifIcatiens adopted would be
that of the city. The known exception would be the manufacturing district in
one city on the lake.' Which city is this ?"
0 RESPO Spring Park.
10. "Page 32, the statement 'further public access points shall utilize remote
parking and shuttles as appropriate.' How is this going to be paid for.
RESPONSE: To be determined. First there are state funds administered by
the Department of Trade and Economic Development for constructing access ramps
and car /trailer parking areas. Second, there are regional 1�rogram3 also
available. Third, we would like to see fees levied on users to pay for services
rendered (parking and shuttles). However, the DNR has a serious problem with
those kinds of fees. It remains to be seen if state mr_,nies will be available if
parking fees are to be charged. If municipal funds are included, they will be
included at local option.
11, 12, 13. On Lehalf of all of the part iciparitn, thank you.
14. "Pa�
`.7,
itc - --m
#15. Cn pa -je 42, refetencc
is made
to the wr;rC
under itc:n
il.
This
word houl l be m.3dn a-ender
neutral.
Thr.re may
Le othor
refe1(_1I1 s
tc
Iranp-Dw(�T
thr.,,:?h the :op rt that ft
Id b
changed.'
iti< li''. ;:;` F: Aral w•c .. i l 1. . r y t.o f i r:-! an1 'Vol y onfr.
•
16. "Faye 39, last paragraph scems i_� be overstating the use of law enforcement
agencies for the lake. The Boa..'. of Peace Officer Standards and Training
licenses peace officers in the State of Mirnesota. We don't believe that it
dictates how many positions there should be in each law enforcement unit. that
is usually up to the city wheie the laM enforcement agency is located."
RESPONSE: Yoi are the second to raise this question. we believe that
part- tirt:a officers are tri.ated differently from full time positions by the
P.O.S.f. Board.
17. Typographical error noted and corrected.
18. "gage 50, 4th paragraph. References the Excelsior Commons. It states that
'only the Commons has the capacity to serve a significant regional population.'
Is this referencing Excelsior Commons? If so, it should be stated as such.
RESPONSE: Change made.
19. "Page 51. The statement is made: "The LMCD has a legislatively- mandated
responsibility for public water - oriented shoreline recreational opportunities on
the lake.' Is this true ?"
RESPCNSE: Yes, see page A -1 second paragraph under Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District.
21. "Page 51. The ztatement is made: 'The Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District has legislative au;.hority over shoreline use and shoreline public
lands.' Is this true ?"
RESPONSE: Yes, for recreational activities. See page A -1 second
paragraph under Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
22. "The statement :s made at the top of the page: 'There is also a direct
link between public ownership of shorelines and boating patterns. Where large
parcels are in public ownership, and where physical features are favorable,
rafting is an important activity.' We don't understand what this means; could
you please clarify ?"
I:ESFONSE: P +e recorn:nend adding a phrase so the sentence reads: "Where
large parcels are in public ownership, are availahle for use by the boater, and
where physical features are favorable, rafting is an important activity." this
means that boaters will moor, beach or raft their boats together when given the
>hportur,ity. if there is land available and if the l.ottom slope is gentle and
covered with sand, t ;oat will beach tl.cir hats in:.t.<aad of cruising.
2 3. Faye_ :, itcm tl3, sub. b. O.�r. ur,c:« rstanling i.. Lhat thi., . ;t.,1t, ;: «11t allows
• the I'MCD to have ?ut h0rit.y c «'r land u: >e ronLr l , rtn pr ✓iously st at�d in our
6
0 presentation at the June 6th public hearing, that we are against the LMCD having
land use control."
RESPONSE: A separate respinse on this appears above.
24. "Page 55, under item #8, it states: 'The present LMCD policy is to
encourage development of additional intermediate or regional parks.' You should
be more specific, i.e., Lake Minnetonka Regional Park.
RESPONSE: No, the present LMCD policy is not limited to one single park
on the lake.
Second to the last paragraph of letter. "The City of Mound is also concerned
with the statement under shoreland protection dealin with the thousand foot
control of development, redevelopment and land uses. This becomes a very
serious restriction, particularly as it pertains to industrial use, i.e., the
former Tonka Tovs building, currently owned by Balboa of Minnesota."
RESPONSE: The Shcreland Protection Program is the DNR's program not the
LMCD's. What the LMCD has done is prepare a set of standards and criteria that
we would rather see adopted by the 14 communities because we believe the lake
will be better protected by our set. Even if this Management Program was not
adopted, the City of Mound will have to face the requirements of that DNR
program. Under the standards and criteria listed in Appendix C, the Balboa
• property would be allowed to persist in its present use.
Neither this Management Program or Appendix_ C gives the LMCD any
authority over land use or zoning above the 929.4 contour.
i s
IN
. / MINNE
/ ` O
M
A
i t au
toH 51
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
402 CAST LAKE S1REL1 `AAY AW UNNLS01A ;'.391 IELEPHONE 6121473 7033
EUGENE_ W sIHoMMEN ( xtcif11VE 01111 (.1(111
BOARD MEMBERS
Oavrd H Cr•, reran. Ch;.rr
Greenwu„A
Albert O Fume, V.ce char,
Deepha —,
Jan noswa. knl. S.+rrntary
Mrnneionka E1 -ach
John L,.wrnan. Treasurer
Mmr.elr.sla
Douglas F Hat, wk
Spnn9 park
Marv... F41... lm
Tonk.a (fa
James N (:r:a hw01
F C.0%.",
JoEllen t. liar,
O,00n
John G PA .Omka
f hu.na•: M rrhn .un
Way,.,t.,
nobert K P.11,hury
Mr no..I ... ka
Robert na1: Or.
Shore ....d
7ho ....... W H,..•:e
Moun.f
Rnbprl E Sin,_ urn
Weodl.."d
J
0
August 15, 1990
REC'u AUG 2 8 199
The Honorable Steve Smith
Mayor, City of Mound
2710 Clare Lane
Mound, MV 55364
Dear Steve:
Enclosed is a letter addressing the 'written concerns posed
by your city with respect to the draft long-term management
program for Lake Minnetonka. It is our sincere hope than
we have provided satisfactory answers to your concerns and
that you can now fully endorse and support the plan.
From the many public responses it was evident that some
topics needed clarification, and a few needed modification.
The Advisory Committee has so directed. I have attached
a summary prepared by our consultant of the changes recon.-
mended. We want to give everyone the chance to read and
comment on the changes we are making in response to your
comments.
You are aware that the positions and concepts presented on
each subject represent a consensus of the participants on
the Advisory Committee and its subcommittees. In their judg-
ment this plan is the best guide for the management of
growing pressures of lake use and development. Each lake-
shore city had input to the deliberations, both through its
appointed representative to the LMCD Board, and through
whomever they sent (staff or elected official) as an expert
on the subject under discussion.
Lake MinnetJnka by its very existence is the major attraction
spurring the local growth of population, rl ,, velopment, and
demand for lake use. it is a prime contributor to the tax
base of the lakeshore citie It is a regional asset which
we cannot allow to deteriorate.
The Minnesota Legislature in 1967 established the LMCD with
considerable authority to govern the lake through appointed
representatives from the 14 lakeshore cities. Sincere, dedi
cated, broad - thinking volunteers have given us 23 years of
successful lake management. Other ay;encies have a somewhat
(continued)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The Hon. Steve Smith
August 15, 1990
Page 2
parallel authority on the lake, which has caused some diffi-
culties and a considerable amount of negotiation. This plan
seeks to more fully recognize the LMCD as the lead agency
to coordinate the activities of all.
The lakeshore cities have had control of the management
(within the statutory limits anc' requirements of other
agencies and obviously don't want to lose that level of
control. Those cities have also provided 100% of the oper-
-iting budget other than fees, fines, etc. This plan seeks
to broaden the funding base and at the same time gain the
advantage of direct input at our table from some of the
agencies without seriously diluting the local control.
I urge you and your council to subordinate local concerns
to permit you to endorse t his comprehensive plan. The
alternative is legislative tinkering which in my judgment
will be a superimposed bureaucratic agency with loss of local
control. If the 14 cities can stick together on a single
plan I believe we will be supported by the Met Council and
the DNR, thus reducing the chances for legislative tinkering.
10 We expect the final draft will be presented to the LMCD Board
on Wednesday, August 22 for consideration, with probable
adoption on September 26. Please call me (474 -4743) or
Executive Director Gene Strommen (473 - 7033), or any of the
Board members if you have questions.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
David If. Cochran
Chairman
DIIC: jlm
i
enc: Agency & Public Comments
c /er.c: City Administrator /Manager /Clerk ,
•
LAKE r11NHE TUN ,A r-IANAUr-IENT PROuRA11
AGENCY AND F'1-1PL 11- Curt/ -TENTS RECT AUG 2 1990
D u r i ng the pul- I i r e v T 'w'w pe i ("I , : 0!11ne 11 t 5 war e r er, z i f r .: ty re le 1 .1 C it i e
regional and state agencies, and the general p u b l i c . 0 , e - a I I , th c rmint2'n t 5 w e r e
favorable, 511E pwo ive and incisive. ColmlewF received fall into four
categorieK
supportive Yatement3, which require no change in Hw progr
owme n t z managem F , ?
that require change=. in the manaz�-�nl it 'f C am , ,
3. . onunents that do not warrant a change i t h e program, and
4 . comrinen it S based on mi !under standin It with r•D change rojA red.
These falling into category 2 will materially contribute to the xu",5s of the
program. Tho5e in categories 3 and 4, whi not f equir ing a :h3n;e in the
do, urnen It , sometimes. r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d r e z pc- r. - -- ! .
There is a clear con enSL15 Of the lakethore =ommunities and Of the COUllt
regional and state agencies to adopt the m9nagement plan. Most comments were
directed t, -ward the political aE; of i and Me n1ential for a
, -
hift i the power I a5e. Very few comment_ addressed technical all Ots Of the
s tud y. tec i c from VuLurban Hennepin Fwks, hIt"Tolitall
Co"nil and the EMR.
EXECUTIVE r-AltNARY
The primary or ithion on this Section was the werding of the goals for
recreation management. As originally written, son-e : --,=trued the goals to favor
,growth of access. That is not accurate, Chwqev in wording were W& to
IN reflect the actual goals:
1. we recognize that growth in arress will continue,
2. given that growth, the intent A to more effectively control that
gi owth,
In the -:,horelarid management section, =rime cities construed the Lr11,D review of
variances to mean that the WOW sought authority over land use decisions at
the expen-,e of the traditional authority of the cities. That i,- not true; the
U11 seeks no r- +tjthority in this area. A minor wording change was made to
clarify that point. More extensive chariqw5 are made in the later chapter on
shore l a n d m a n a g e m e n t .
INIRODUCTION
i r e3pwie t.o one city's cor,ment, a clan -ge i*. made AE-Ji clarifies tl.=
,31.ithor it y of th Metropolitan Council od th I — to "K is nonaniu-0 i rmt am.
Al a chrlj-'Jer :,f n1inn Statutes "OF mi it.-I that il-jf -d tr• the
in i 5 u n e r 5 1 a n Ql i n q.
RE f P[ A T PMJ no N A WHIHIf 10 A
Alain, Lilt 11113tol' the ii roaWn lwnaj" nt j I clam Wr' ied as
e . p I a i n n r e n d e r th 5 -N" r y .
manaq�:-111 fj�, F� t j,: u jai I y the i i.: tat. i :4 jt t i ves
is qeneratyd c'-,"1110-rit
8-2 (p. 2'i) was changed to assure a"formance with Minnesota and ccmnan law.
8 - 3 (p. 291 was changed for two reasons. The first is to assure corrc•rmance
with law. The second reflects a --omment made by tno :iti -s concerning outlots.
• Several clarifications were requested by individual cities. The DNA and tV.
Metropolitan Council e:•pres°ed concern; for licansing requirements.
Details on how the future el:cess =rudy for additional t•oat ramps were
questic.r,ed. The Met r.;Pol itin Counc i 1 reque_ tell that th,, i ue of pr i.: inq ramped
access to the lake be addre -d. We feel that k m appropriate for the
detailed access plan that the program identifies as needed. A change has made
accordingly.
The DNA raised an issue with ice hou.e statistics. Minor wording changeL were
made to ref lect those concerns.
U` --ER EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACT1CrN
One city :ought authority to enforce LMCD ordinances on the lake surface, even
though it did not plan on providing ac!.ual boat patrols. The Sheriff's
Department continued its Wong cpp to such, proposals. The Department
also took strong exception to common access to the 4later Patrol radio frequency.
A clarifying stat ?mint was added about the P.O.S.T. Board's actual authority.
The nanagem.=nt objective on radio frequencies was changed to reflect mare
general technological improvements and innovations.
A major clarification is that the LMCD seek_ no new authority over land use in
the 14 cities.. Instead, it _eek_ voluntary processes that improve coordination
and communication.
The Metropolitan Council sugae_ted that the LMCD _pek to be added as an agency
providing comments on And use plans and land use plan amendments. Again, this
is for comment purposes only, not for veto authority. It also requested that an
operating plan be developed for new boat access parking lots where fees are
charged.
ENVIP t11Ai_ i tolUl 11;!N
A new :n Par? and End- 3n ed spec iei will he aided.
Mana?ement �hjvcniwe 0 will to changed to call for approved ern "on and sediment
control plans on d ^vel;lmenes in the wdter_he Thi =. is n.ictent with the
blatershed District requlations. Further, the LHW will adopt a policy of no net
to *.s of wetlandi from d. +vnlc�Fment5, .vith e node for public, agencies.
SHORE LAND PROTECTION
This is the chapter
that rased the most
soncerns with
four of
the Wks. Fart
of the problems refl =cted legitimate
concerns about the
effect
of the DNR
shoreland management
rules on cities
with downtown_ within
the
shoreland ::on- -.
Others reflected th-
concern that the
LMCD was seeking
further
authority over
land use decisions.
One or two take
exception to _-:-me
very basic
goals. of the
DNA's program.
A major clarification is that the LMCD seek_ no new authority over land use in
the 14 cities.. Instead, it _eek_ voluntary processes that improve coordination
and communication.
The Metropolitan Council sugae_ted that the LMCD _pek to be added as an agency
providing comments on And use plans and land use plan amendments. Again, this
is for comment purposes only, not for veto authority. It also requested that an
operating plan be developed for new boat access parking lots where fees are
charged.
ENVIP t11Ai_ i tolUl 11;!N
A new :n Par? and End- 3n ed spec iei will he aided.
Mana?ement �hjvcniwe 0 will to changed to call for approved ern "on and sediment
control plans on d ^vel;lmenes in the wdter_he Thi =. is n.ictent with the
blatershed District requlations. Further, the LHW will adopt a policy of no net
to *.s of wetlandi from d. +vnlc�Fment5, .vith e node for public, agencies.
At the request of the UNR , a - -ta t?ment explain the ef of the 110, the
Watershed District and the LrI1-D to jointly develop a policy on minimizing the
• effects of dredging will be added.
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
The Management Structure chapter has been re-written to allay t! concerns of a
number of cities, to improve understandinq of the intent of the pro and to
better )rqanizF- the inaterial- Several citi? felt that th- additional tax levy
was not p iat,le. Others felt that the LMCD was se,:-kinq addit e,
over upland areas. A final major concern was that reztru the LMCD Board
WC-Uld make the LMCD lass responsive to the need= of the 14 cities.
Rewr it inq and r ! tur ing of the chapter better pre!ent s the materia zo that
these concerns the cities are addressed. Clarification of our intent also
zhr,uld re-Ult in decreased opposition to -;,Dnia of the=• well under;.tood
p o r t i o n s .
Fit—J, f and mq for the program_. -".01tained in the Draft will be obtained
a c c o r d i n g t o the following p r i o r i t i e s :
3. max revenues. to the f ul l extent of the law, and
a u t h o r i t y b. seek f or a boat stic or other i n n o v a t i n g f unding
mechanism
2. Gr an t 3 g i f t.. and donations - improve the existing program
t. Ta•: levy
8. levy to the full l imit of the existing legislation (14 cities),
b. extend the levy to the remainder of Hennepin County, and
• C. riiak,- the levy independent of the individual city's limitation.
Even th it is not fair, Carver County will not be includ in the di=trict
since the political opposition to 1 .1 - tat, proposal makes it unrealistic in view of
the amount of revenue expected.
The LMCD Hoard will continue to be cornpo-I-d Df the 14 city appointed '
until =.itch time as regional funding is forth After regional rev is
o b t a i n e d , t f ou r ri,--w Dir r z vv i I I be add -d The 14 c it ies will -.,-,nt inue to
a p p o i n t t c•oin Dir•- ctor The new Directors will be s u bj e c t t 0 1 e
1 i it i i t a t 4 , n t t , he y ni u t b e c i t i :- e n v o l u n t e e r s , an not elected, PUbl i
o f f i c i a l . . or staf f .
The la t tr-r re- tr i t i =, al - 'Ur eS that the P•11 Doard c ontinues t,-, be 1:1]1nT of
inter(--zto citizens as has been the case for more than 20 ptat I t is
e -..enf: ia I that the Lr-l(.
-0 remain especia C lo: to the 14 c i t ie- -,inre the
,:nv it onni-rif a 1 p -- t r t 1 n n s fo r t h e lake are large inip lern-ntc -d and =rifer rd [
f I , : - i n d i v i d u a l - i t i e -, - 1 .1 l t h e r e I a t i -D ri h i p b� t we e n the : i t i es a n d t h e LMC
remain=. at lea=t as it ha =. been in the past, there is a rea dander that the
e n v i r o n m e n t a l quality of the lake will de ad-> - vp n f a' te r than I t, w i I I if t
Mana j e in - ? n t F' i (, q r a m i =- f i m p l e m e n t e d .
Management )e t i — 2. were reorder --d. M 1 ri,:,r - I a r i i ( at ieDn s �- P" J.? t", ; "11 -.
•
'SUMMARY
We have attempted to resolve the concerns of each or-ganization comn,enting.
N-tailed responses to each comment have been prepared and are being di =.tributed
. to each organization or person that re <ponded. The primary problems that remain
relate to shore land management. The continuing concerns of the few cities still
unresolved directly relate to the provision of the ONR Shoreland Manag -ment
Program. There is no change that we can make to our Management Program that
will remove those concerns. Tho_.e citie_ will have to deal with the ONR.
0 4
•
0
LAKE MINN ET
DIRECTO N SERVAT I ON DIST"MV AU 2 8 Wo
Douglas F. Babcock Home: 471 -8757 SPRING SARK
2450 Island Drive
Spring Park, MN 55384
Marvin Bjorlin
115 Crabapple Lane
Tonka Bay, MN 55331
Jan P. Boswinkel
P. 0. Box 117
Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361
David Cochran
4640 Linwood Circle
Greenwood, MN 55331
Albert (Bert) Foster
18900 Rutledge Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
James N. Grathwol
216 Water St.
Excelsior, KN 55331
JoF.11en L. Hurr
930 Partenwood Rd.
Long Lake, MN 55356
John Lewman
6250 Game Farn. Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
John G. Malinka
7300 Lilac Lane
Victoria, MN 55386
Thomas Martinson
140 Barry Ave. N.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Robert K. Pillsbury
16560 Grays Bay Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Robert P. Rascop
4560 Enchanted Point
Mound, MN 55364
Thomas W. Reese
5641 Bartlett Blvd.
Mound, MN 55364
Robert F. Slocum
2530 Spirit Knob Rd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Home: 474 -7848 TONKA BAY
Home: 471 -9448 MINNETONKA BEACH
(Secretary)
Home:
474 -4743
GREENWOOD
Bus.:
341 -4444
(Chair)
Home:
413 -2240
DEEPHAVEN
Bus.:
941 -2995
(Vice Chair)
Home:
474 -9230
EXCELSIOR
Bus.:
474 -2955
MOUND
Home:
471 -9801
ORONO
Home:
473 -4347
(Past Chair)
Home:
471 -4524
MINNETRISTA
Bus.:
341 -4444
(Treasurer)
Home:
443 -2580
VICTORIA
Bus.:
941 -2995
(Past Chair)
Home:
473 -5259
WAYZATA
Bus.:
473 -4133
MOUND
Home:
473 -6642
MINNETONKA
Bus.:
476 -3520
(Past Chair)
Home:
474 -1517
SHOREWOOD
Bus.:
Pager number
(Past Chair)
640 -0944
Home:
472 -4435
MOUND
Bus.:
540 -2583
Home:
473 -4347
WOODLAND
Bus.:
334 -6212
0 9 0
■
Sailor RIrDAL628 1990
MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS
& A with th LMCD — Comprehensive Manageme Pl under scrutiny
hat is the Lake Minnetonka
(Wrnprehensite Management
'Ian*
it's a plan, a program. for
.inaging the lake for the next
:Ears or so. Its a guide for the
CD to follow as well as the
:t,es and other agencies to
'How.
that was the impetus for the
reation of the plan"
'there were several. If you go
lick to around 19K. the LIICD
card and some of its former
:embers and chairman and in-
•rested citizens thought we
wind look into the future and
-e sure we were doing the nght
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors will soon vote on accepting
the Lake Alinnetonka Comprehensive Management Plan, a plan outlining future management of the
lake.
The plan is the result of a two -year study conducted by a consultant in conjuction with LMCD board
members, other interested state and regional agencies. the 19 cities bordering the lake, and interested
members of the commumtti'.
It includes 12 sections ranging from controlling density of boats on the lake to protecting the lake as a
natural resource.
In an effort to better understand the significance, and impact, of the plan. the Sailor conducted a
question- and - answer interview with Dave Cochran, chair of the LMCD and Greenwood's representative
to the board.
We were already in the throes
of saying we were doing one
anyway, so all these things
came together and we started
going.
Why were these agencies calling
for a longer -range lock at
managing the lake?
Part of it stems from a lack of
knowledge of what really was
happening on the lake. Both
agencies. and occasionally
members of public or the press.
have taken on a single issue and
not realizing that already in
place was a sound orgartiTaLion
thing or see if some changes
needed to be made.
About the same time there
w -:; some criticism surfacing
that we weren't getting some
things done. The big issue seem-
ed to be the DNR- instigated bat-
tle over lake access. That had
been brewing since 1982 through
two task force reports.
Out of those two reports were
the statements that the LMCD
should become the lead agency
working on lake access. The lat-
ter task force, set up by the
Metropolitan Council, said the
LNICD should do a management
plan.
Q do A: To page 12A
�,nennds 4J4hUr"V^_ Jd��Or — Wu6., Aug. 1. 1� • •
& A
m page 1A
ordinances.
the press of population
-uses and demand to get out
, : , .e lake, and, along w;th, in
>pinion, not a fint -lass job
.a and ccurtesv
rcemer,t.
Ito you see this plan affec-
users of Lak• Minnetonka?
shou:d ir.prove their ex-
nce, their enjoyment of the
We have certain provisions
'~e planl in respect to boat
tv that call for improved
�•n.forcement presence; and,
-!essay increases, the plan
-." for better and improved
enforcement -;ervice-s.
we don't get the latter, then
.would tighten down the
n.bscrews on the boats en the
-.e in a fair way. We would
ae-� up some public access,
:::e marina access, and some
of the rir access.
In the cc;_ of doing that you
reduce the density enough so
(the boatingl experience stays
the same or gets better. Either
way there should be improve-
ment for people (on the lake].
The plan also gets involved
with the shoreland management
concepts and those are pig -
g backed on the DN'R plan. I
think we have made im-
provements that fit this lake
better.
The plan then should either
hold the aesthetics of viewing
the shore from the lake at either
its present level or make some
form of improvement in the
future.
flow do you respond to some of
the cities that have raid that if
the plan is implemented as is,
that the LMCD will be moving
its authority unto shore?
Well they are dead wrong.
%Vhy does the plan call for levy -
ino a new tax?
One of the major issues and
concerns out there is the :eve! of
law enforcement. i t ma}• be a
percep :ien, it may be real. But
people thiruc there is a lot of buz-
z:r,, out there that is disrupting
their peace and quiet.
ki there is a need for an in-
crease in the presence of law en-
forcerr. also a nerd for doing
the lob. Part of the funds need to
go for an merease in the Water
Patrol or whatever else is going;
to do the lob.
We also recognize (that the
L.ICD hall difficulty making
inspe.. -,ons. We have difficulty
rtforcing rules because we don't
nav the time or the staff.
They just didn't read the plan.
Our consultant has written a
response to each question that
the cities submitted. For the
most part, I think it is either
misinterpretation or not looking
at the total of the plan.
Because really, the net effect
is that we are not introducing
another layer of government.
The authority that we have is
already there. We just haven't
used all of it.
In our shoreland rules section,
we basically would operate
through the city. The city must,
according to the DNR regula-
tions, adopt ordinances similar
to what is in the (the plan's]
shoreland regulations.
The Dti'R has written off on
our shoreland regulations say -
Lng they are OK and compatible
with theirs. The cities must
adopt ordinances, so they are
going to do the enforcement.
We are taking on the respon-
So we have to have an in-
crease in budge! is what it boils
down to. both for the LIVICD
itself and the law -enforcement
side.
And probably for the county
public works to do its work, like
dredging channels. Almost all
the money that goes directly to
the LMCD comes from the cities
themselves.
When most people stop to
think about it, it is the people
who benefit from the lake who
should pay. Certainly all the
boats out there benefit, so they
should also be doing some of the
paying•
sibibty to negotiate with the
cities to get those adopted, as op-
posed to the DNR doing it. Now
there is some objection to that,
but I think they would rather
deal with us than with the DNR.
Why do you think that?
Because we are closer to peo-
ple, we understand them and
they understand us better and
we are part of them in a sense.
The DNR is big daddy up there
and they have a big stick, and I
think there is more fear and
there is a certain amount of
rememberance over the issue of
Halstead Bay access.
I think the DNR sees that they
gain by having us do it, and I
think we gain by giving them the
cooperation.
We don't want to do anything
more than guide the cities in a
direction that is good for both
themselves and the boating
public and the lake -using public.
And certainly the people who
use the parks, charier boats and
so on get some benefit. Certainly
the riparian owners benefit, and
they will all scream to heaven
that they are paying now.
And they are.
As a side note, the cities of
course are screaming because
they have ceilings on the
amount of money they can raise,
and it is very difficult for them
to want to spend more money on
the conservation district.
So, somehow we have to keep
the monkey off their back. A
separate district would get them
out of the business of having to
put (LMCD funding] in their
mill-rate.
Some people have said that the
plan is really doing nothing but
creating another beauracratic
level of government around the
lake. flow do you respond to
that?
Basically that government is
already there. We have authori-
ty to tax, to make ordinances
and the authority to enforce
them. The question is shall we
do it, do it more strongly, or get
someone else to do it.
There are a number of
stakeholders that have authority t
over what happens around the
lake. The cities have a certain
piece, we do, the watershed
does, the DNR does, Hennepin
Parks does, and so on.
And the philosophy in the plan
is to try and get these groups to
work more closely together
behind a common goal. And we
hope this plan could be the com-
mon goal.
Why do you think the LMCD
should expand its membership
to include other regional
agencies?
If we are going to take tax
dollars from a broader area
than the 14 (Lake blinntonkal
cities, there should be represen-
tation from that broader area in
some way.
There have been many ideas
proposed. The second issue is
that there are a lot of agencies
that have some degree of
authority over what happens out
on the lake. And what better
way to get them into the same
forum to discuss what happens
Q & ro DeXt page
• • 0
Chenhamm, StAw —Wod., Aug. 1. 11100 -13A
rom previous page
rutead of everyone acting
Independently?
That is the philosophy of the
Man. The issue had many posi-
tions taken when we debated it.
I think it is obvious that the
- -sties do not want to lose control
of managing the lake. I think
:ere have been noises over the
years about higher -level agen-
cies wanting to do this sort of
thing. clear up to the legislature
and the DNR.
But the 14 cities don't want to
give up. When you look at it,
they are doing a good job. We
have good ordinances in place
and all we have to do is better
enforce them.
Ten dollars a year f a boat
sticker is pretty darn cheap
when thinking most of the boats
out here start at t1o.000 and go
up to $100,000. So there ought to
be more money from a boat
sticker.
But that's a wig political mish-
niash twat we don't see getting
settled in the next few years.
One would call for a Lake Min-
netonka use tax and that would
hit all equally.
But the DNR is opposed to
that sort of thing for a number of
reasons. Here is some talk
Dave Cochran
about a metropolitan boat
sticker, and I would suspect that
will get reviewed in Legislature
when (the plan] hits the
Legislature.
That form of income looks like
it's not immediate. It's got a
political process, therefor what
is the next best issue? Looking
at who the users are, statistics
show 92 percent of boats come
from Hennepin County, and
almost all the remainder from
Carver County.
So, therefore, why not set up a
tax ng district that encompasses
that area? That philosophy is
already in use with many agen-
cies like watershed areas, the
Metropolitan Council and the
Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission.
Politically, I think the way the
plan got written is that you could
sell a Hennepin County-wide
taxing district. The kind of
money we need w( be rather
minimal per household, so it is
spread pretty thin.
It's not as fair and direct as a
boat -user tax certainly, but until
we can get the legislative people
to see that, [a new tax] is the
next best issue.
What is the next step in adapting
the plan?
The next step it to have the
(LMCD's) Advisory Committee
decide what it is they will
recommend to the full board for
adoption.
Once adopted, then the Met
Council has the — I'm not sure
of the term — I think it may be
'review authority.' But I don't
think they can say, 'Hey, you
can go' or 'not go.' That's on
paper, but I think they could get
away with it.
Once all of these acceptances
are in synch, then all of them
have to go to the Legislature
with a joint package. In other
words, you have to get the fun-
ding for the Water Patrol, board
makeup settled, and the taxing
district settled.
There are very few changes
that we are advocating in the
plan to existing authority. Real-
ly we are just seeking to get all
the agencies and the cities work-
ing together by agreement, and
the agreement becomes the
guide and plan for this direction.
The LMCD Advisory Committee
will meet at 5 p.m. Aug. 1 at
Tonka Bay Village Hall, 9901
Manitou Rd., Tonka Bay. Com-
mittee members wi11 discuss the
responses to the cities' questions
and may vote on a final plan.
51
•
• LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR LAKE MINNETONKA
REC'b AUG 2 8 1yyU
PREPARED BY
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WITH GUIDANCE FROM THE
MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
0
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
David J. Arndorfer, Ph. D.
Arndorfer Associates, Inc.
8700 Villa Crest Circle
Knoxville, Tennessee 37923
With the Assistance of
Frank Mixa
William Kattner
Barr Engineering Company
THIS PROGRAM WAS FUNDED BY THE
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
• SEPTEMBER, 1990
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District extends a special appreciation to
the members of the Advisory Committee who dedicated many thoughtful hours
and committed numerous evenings over the twenty -four months spent
formulating this Management Program. Mayors, council members, public
officials, agency staff and interested citizens too numerous to mention
contributed the ideas that are reflected in the ensuing chapters. To `he
extent that those programs and concepts are innovative or creative, it is
because of them. Special thanks also goes to the patient staff of the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District who helped facilitate the planning
process.
Individuals who come to mind who made particularly important contributions
and were particularly dedicated participants include James Ault, Dr.
William Becker, Jan Boswinkel, David Cochran, Albert Foster, James
Grathwol, JoEllen Hurr, Timothy Marr, Jack Mauritz, Robert Rascop, Thomas
Reese, and Eugene Strommen. Shale Nyberg helped maintain perspective
during particularly important discussions.
Frank Mixa, the Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District during the formative months of this project, contributed a wealth
of knowledge, insight and past experience that greatly facilitated the
development of the Management Program. His experience helped avoid
pitfalls and clarified alternative approaches.
• The 14 lakeshore communities, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District,
Hennepin County Lake Improvement Program, Hennepin County Sheriff's Office,
Metropolitan Council and the Departmert of Natural Resources willingly
committed resources and provided data necessary to the successful
completion of this project. Additionally, their previous studies and
experience provided the foundation upon which this program is built.
The subconsultants, Barr Engineering Company and William Kattner made
important contributions in their assigned areas.
Finally, to all the individuals, whether in the cities, in government
agencies, or of the general public, who took time to review the Draft, we
express a special appreciation. Those comments either improved the
Management Program or caused us to pause and reflect on previous
decisions. The fact that we did not always change the Management Program
to reflect some comments simply confirms the complexity of managing such a
popular resource for the broadest possible range of users.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The Long -Term Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka provides a 25 -year guide
for maintaining, and enhancing where possible, the environmental quality,
recreational experience, and aesthetic quality of the lake. But the plan
cannot be implemented unless users benefiting from the lake provide
substantial new funds. Presently, the agencies managing the lake have
regulations and are lacking i. enforcement. The overall objective of the
Plan is to be active in both regulation and enforcement, and to develop the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) into a strong and consistent
advocate for lake programs in all organizations.
Not all the new revenues are targeted for the LMCD. Incremental funds are
needed for programs in other agencies who are already capable of
implementing needed services if their funds could be supplemented. But
implementation of the Management Plan also requires a new level of
courage. If the environmental quality and user experience on the lake is
to be protected, difficult decisions will have to be made by all managing
entities. Decisions that limit certain types of development and specific
types of access will not be popular. Popular or not, they are necessary.
Every agency involved with Lake Minnetonka is affected by this Management
Plan. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District need to better fund existing programs, tighten regulatory
controls and provide more enforcement. The cities need more extensive
shoreland management and environmental protection programs. The LMCD needs
more clearly defined goals, more consistent access controls and a program
• for better regulating ever increasing use of the lake in the summer.
RECREATION MANAGEMENT
The ultimate goal for recreation management is fourfold:
1) to more effectively manage access growth,
2) to establish priorities for such access growth as occurs,
3) to implement a set of controls that will be progressively more
restrictive as use of the lake continues to increase, and
4 to reduce conflicts, thereby maintaining the quality of the
recreational experience.
The MCD does not encourage increased summer use, but it will more
effectively control such growth as it occurs. The intent of the program is
to present modifications to existing management practices and regulations
and not to supplant those rules and regulations.
To accomplish these goals, managing entities shall:
1) continue present regulatory practices,
2) impose increasingly restrictive regulation as boat density
increases on the lake,
3) improve regulatory tools,
4) tighten existing practices,
5) support a program to establish 700 car /trailer parking spaces,, and
6) main*ain and improve winter access.
• vii
USER EXPERIENCE. AND SATISFACTION
The four major goals for protecting user experience and satisfaction are to:
1) continue and enhance basic public safety, .
2) better enforce all ordinances,
3) improve and expand activities in public comfort and enjoyment, and
4) facilitate coordination and cooperation between law enforcement
departments active on the lake and lakeshore.
Enhancing user experience and satisfaction on the lake i m„re than
protecting personal safety. Density of boats on the lak. dill increase
during peak hours. As that happens, additional law enforcement presence
and more active enforcement of all ordinances will be required to maintain
the current level of user satisfaction.
A significant portion of the funds needed for improved lake services are
targeted for increased patrol hours on the lake. Present density on the
lake is eight acres of usable lake surface per boat (see definitions in
Appendix B). When density reaches seven usable acres per boat, 3000
additional patrol hours shall be added. Otherwise, no further access
growth will be allowed on the lake.
SHORELAND PROTECTION
The LMCD seeks no new authority over land use on the shore. But it does seek
better coordination and communication between political entities with such
power. Lake Minnetonka is particularly affected by the actions of the 14
lakeshore communities, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the DNR in
controlling development and redevelopment within their jurisdictions. To •
protect the lake, controls need to be imposed beyond the shoreline and riparian
parcels of land. Accordingly, this Management Program presents guidelines for
controlling development, redevelopment and land uses within 1,000 feet of the
lake.
The overall strategy is to use a two - pronged approach to minimize the
adverse effects of development. The first prong uses the existing DNR
shoreland management program as the basis for developing a consistent set
of ordinances in the 14 lakeshore communities. The second prong uses the
509 Plan being prepared by the Watershed District to assure objectives are
met. The LMCD needs to provide review and comment and to assure that
individual communities and the Watershed District adhere to their rules - nd
ordinances.
Beyond the two - pronged approach, specific goals are identified to increase
and enhance shoreline recreational opportunities.
E.NVIRONMF.NTAL PROTECTION
The challenge facing resource managers protecting the natural environment in and
near Lake Minnetonka is to implement development controls that will inhibit the
inevitable decline in water quality and the functional values of wetlands.
Programs to protect the natural environment extend beyon(: 'he shoreland within
1,000 feet of the lake to include the entire tipper drainage basin.
viii •
In order to achievement environmental protection goals, the I_MCD has to
rely on other agencies and the 14 cities. The LMCD has authority to
• regulate activities below the 929.4 contour (ordinary high water), but it
must rely on cities, the Watershed District and the DNR above that level.
Rather than create a duplicative layer of authority, protection of the Lake
Minnetonka environment will continue to rely on the programs of the DNR,
Watershed District, and cities located in the upper watershed.
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
The Management Program forges a new working partnership between the LMCD,
municipalities, Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District,
Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the DNR. An important role of the
LMCD will be to act as an advocate for lake programs, to keep partnerships
functioning and to maintain consensus with respect to priorities and programs.
The management structure builds on strengths and does not create a new
layer of government with the concomitant bureaucracy. An essential
function of the LMCD, beyond its regulatory programs, is to help assure
that other agencies have the resources to implement their programs. The
LMCD does this by being the foremost advocate for the lake, not by direct
funding. In this way, traditional authorities and programs are maintained
and enhanced when warranted.
Funding for the lake shall be by shifting costs to users to the fullest
extent of the law. Beyond that, the existing taxing authority of the LMCD
• shall be extended to include most of the area from which users originate
and to be independent of the lakeshore municipalities.
If aad when regional funding is forthcoming, changes are proposed to the
LMCD Board of Directors to include four regional agencies as voting
members.
•
N
• I. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This Long -Term Management Program provides a 25 -year guide for maintaining, and
enhancing where possible, the environmental quality, recreational experience,
and aesthetic quality of the lake. It is intended for use by managing entities
to control the level of change that occurs both on the lake and in the adjoining
upland areas in order to:
a) protect the lake from pollution,
b) preserve and protect the natural environment of the lake and its
communities,
c) provide for open public access and use of the lake,
d) protect the local tax base,
e) enhance aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake's
surface,
f) protect public health,
g) protect public safety, as well as
h) assure protection of the lake from other detrimental effects of
human activities and certain natural processes.
To achieve these protection and management objectives, this Program covers
not only the lake and its shorelands within 1000 feet, but provides some
guidance in the drainage basin above the lake to assure environmental
protection.
The need for the Program arises from the multiplicity of political entities
• which have legislatively mandated programs affecting Lake Minnetonka.
Review of Minnesota Statutes leads to the conclusion that the Minnesota
State Legislature intends lake management to be jointly conceived and
implemented. To varying degrees, each state, regional end local entity
empowered by the legislature has programs that affect protection and use of
the lake. The intent of this Long -Term Management Program is to enhance,
not to supplant, those programs. The two -year, multi - organizational
planning effort has culminated in a single program of action that protects
the integrity of each individual organization's programs where possible,
enhances them when warranted, but above all attains consistent protection
for the lake.
The greatest threat to the lake in the next 25 years comes more from
re- development than from development. In order to control such pressures,
this Management Program reflects the multi - organizational decision to
assure that major actions which have effects extending beyond the purview
or jurisdiction of a single managing entity are subordinated to the greater
public good and interest. The guidance for determining the greater public
good and interest is contained in this Long -Term Management Program for
Lake Minnetonka. Within this context, the Program affirms traditional
local, regional and state controls and programs.
The Management Program can be implemented without significant alteration of
traditional authorities of State, regional and local political bodies.
Instead, the Program provide3 guidance on how existing authorities shall be
• used to control ievelopment on aAd near the lake for the next 25 years.
That requires implementation through cooperation and communication at an
unprecedented level. Each organization must formulate, or re- formulate,
programs and implement policies that are consistent with this Management •
Program. Without that, the fragmented and uncoordinated policies of the
past will continue to generate strife, controversy and conflict, with major
decisions resolved by the courts.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Perspective
In the last ten years, organizations involved in managing the lake have
developed increasingly divergent management goals for the lake. Differences
included shoreline uses, natural environmental protection, level and type of
recreational use, but the conflict between management programs focused on access
to the lake.
The conflict between state and regional interests and various local
organizations over boating access and management of Lake Minnetonka can be
traced to the change in state and regional priorities for boating access
during the middle and late 1970s. Prior to that, management of the lake
and its access was left exclusively to local and county interests. But in
1979, the Metropolitan Access Committee listed Lake Minnetonka as a first
priority lake with inadequate public access. In 1982 the Governor's Task
Force on Lake Minnetonka was formed in response to conflict between state
and local interests in locating a new access point on Halsted's Bay. In
1985 the Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka was
established to further resolve that continuing conflict.
Regional and state interest in access to Lake Minnetonka changed, but the
institutional arrangements, intergovernmental relations and funding for
lake management and access programs did not change. On one hand, state and
regional agencies raised their priority for involvement on Lake Minnetonka,
but local interests, including the LMCD, continued to operate with their
traditional goals and objectives. Improved cooperation, coordination and
understanOing were absent; conflict, misunderstanding and separate
priorities were inevitable.
Changing state and regional priorities for the lake was not enough to
change local programs and goals. Concomitant alteration of institutional
arrangements and intergovernmental relations were needed but were not
identified and implemented. A different level and scurce of funding were
required but did not develop. The local institutions did not respond the
way conditions required. The result has been misinformation, breakdown in
communication, finger - pointing, and lawsuits. The outcome was predictable,
inevitable and wrong.
Changing Priorities
From the late 1800s to the late 1970s interest and management f the lake was
c<.ncentrat d in local individuals an.i organizations. Despi', dvocacy by the
LMCD and other local interests, proposals to form one or more regional parks on
the lakeshore in the 1960s and early 1970s did not advance (LMCD Recreational •
Policy, 1972; Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986),
2
• presamably because regional agencies placed their priorities elsewhere. Wit)in
this framework of missed opportunities, in 1979 the Metropolitan Access
Committee, reflecting changing state objectives (as expressed in the State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan), listed Lake Minnetonka as a first
Priority lake with inadequate public access (Metropolitan Access Committee,
1979 pp. 4 and 7). For the first time, regional and state agencies expressed
interest in managing access to the lake to assure their regional and state
objectives. Unfortunately, inst'_utional arrangeme: and intergovernmental
relations were not altered in response to this chant' n regional priorities.
The 1979 Access Committee findings stated that their goals for Lake
Minnetonka were to be implemented by the Metropolitan Council "at the
regional and local service levels" (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979,
pp. 6 -7). Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District was Hennepin County's
primary lead regional agency; the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was
logically the lead local agency. But in less than two years it was ti,3
DNR (state) that began implementation of the access goals on Lake
Minnetonka. Therefore, by 1981 the boating access situation changed from
regional and local lead to one where the state began to take an active
interest in management of access to Lake Minnetonka. Unfortunately, the
change in priority and heightened state interest were not sufficient to
achieve the goals without conflict with local communities.
Lake Management
The formation of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) in 1967 was
precedent setting in Minnesota. As the State's first lake conservation, or
improvement, district much of the impetus and the underlying concept originated
from interested individuals living on and near Lake Minnetonka. The
organization formed had broad powers, but limited funding capability.
Apparently, the founding fathers of the LMCD intended to limit the real power of
the District through its funding mechanism. That mechanism precludes aggressive
and active management of the type demanded by recent events and that proposed in
this Management Program.
In 1972 the Minnesota State Legislature enacted the Minnesota Lake
Improvement District Act (M.S. 378.455 and 378.41 to 378.56) which was
obviously modeled after the LMCD organic act. Significant differences lie
only in the mechanism for funding; Chapter 378 districts are provided more
realistic methods to finance their necessary activities.
The first major focus of the LMCD was on environmental problems, reflecting
deteriorated water quality problems partly related to discharge of sewage
treatment effluent into the upper drainage basin and directly into the lake
(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1971). Also, through its first •-wo
decades, the LMCD established an impressive Code for lake access and use
management. It also fostered a water safety program - :entered on assuring law
enforcement sufficient to protect public safety, and generally controlled
structures placed on the lake and its shoreline. intergovernmental relations
centered on fostering local communication and coordination to solve common
lake management ,roblPms. One tacit objective of the LMCD through these
. years was to regulate "only as necessary" (Summary of Planning Conference,
1985).
3
During the last decade, the LMCD was less successful in intergovernmental •
relations with regional and state agencies active on the lake, enforcement
of District regulations, and management of conflicts both between users and
between local and reqional interests (Summary of Planning Conference,
1985). Throughout tuis period, and continuing today, the District relied
on inadequate funding that only permitted minimal staff. Given the fiscal
constrai..ts imposed by the 1967 legislation, the District focused on local,
not regional, relationships and concerns.
At this same time, the lake was in transition. In the 1960s and 1970s
various proposals were made for large recreational open space sites on the
lake, but none were acquired. Thus, when boating pressure was lighter,
when less shoreline was fully developed, regional interests did not seize
the opportunity for assuring a high level of public access. In 1979 the
Metropolitan Water Access Task Force (composed of State and regional
agencies) identified Lake Minnetonka access as a priority goal for
acquisition. By 1982 the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka was effectively
fully developed except for areas in Minnetrista and Mound. Late in 1981
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) announced intentions to begin
acquisition of an access point at King's Poin`. on Halsted's Bay -- too late
to avoid conflict.
The City of Minnetrista asked the State's Exec•.t.ve Council to intervene in
the ensuing dispute between the City and the DNR. The Executive Council's
response was to form the (Governor's) Lake Minnetonka Task Force. That
task force addressed three broad issues and concluded:
1) inadequate public access existed on the lake,
2) density of boats during some peak hours on some parts of the lake
present potentially hazardous conditions,
3) conflicts exist on the lake during peak periods,
4) existing law and regulations are adequate, and
5) enforcement is limited by inadequate funding.
An important conclusion was that adequate and continuing personnel and
funding are required to implement the recommendations of the 1983 Task
Force (Lake Minnetonka Task Force, 1983). No significant changes in
funding have been provided since.
The dispute between the City of Minnetrista and the DNR continued. In 1985
the City again appealed to the State Executive Council over the DNR's plans
for the King's Point access site. This time the Council instructed the
Metropolitan Council to review access to the lake. The Metropolitan
Council formed the Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka
(Report, 1986). This second Task Force addressed eight issues in four
broad areas:
1. boat and shoreline access on the lake,
2. find'ng for management and access,
3. intergovernmental relations, and
4. status of research.
The Task Force concluded that public access was indeed inadequate and that
700 car /trailer parking spaces were needed on the lake. Further, it called
for a new process for planning and regulating surface use of the lake,
formulation of a ManaS Plan for the Lake, and increased expenditures •
for lake management.
4
• The Systems Committee of the Metropolitan Council maintained the interest
of the Council in reviewing progress toward implementing the 1986
findings. In 1987 and 1988 it considered alternatives available for
developing a management plan for the lake. Ultimately, it endorsed the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's efforts to develop this Program.
But to gain the support of the Systems Committee, the LMCD agreed to
complete the Management Program within two years.
PLANNING CONTEXT
The Management Program was developed using concepts proposed by Stankey
(Starkey and MCCool, 1984; Stankey et al., 1985, Stankey et al., 1985a).
The process focuses on Limits of Acceptable Change. That is, it involves
the extent and type of change to be permitted on Lake Minnetonka and in its
shorelands. The focus is on both development and redevelopment; those that
are acceptable and those that are not.
Limits of Acceptable Change, as applied to this planning effort, means that
the various committees, subcommittees and the LMCD Board examined various
local regional and state ordinances and programs to determine the type of
change presently allowed. The second step was to determine the level of
change that was acceptable to all those with a stake in the lake and its
shoreline. Over the two -year period of development, goals and objectives
were established to identify types of changes that were acceptable and
those that were not. Implementation programs and long -term monitoring
programs were developed to assure that change is limited to that which is
acceptable.
Conceptually, such limits on change need not always be uniform around the
lake. Minnetrista, for example, has developable land remaining. Other
comn.anitics have no developable land remaining, but are experiencing
redevelopment pressures. Our panning efforts, management objectives and
implementation programs consider these inherent differences.
Further, the development of the management program for the lake was
considered within a three -fold organizational framework of concerns as
explained by Manning (1986). These concerns are:
1) natural environment,
2) social environment, and
3) management environment.
Each set of issues addressed were examined within these three contexts.
The four steps proposed by Manning (1986) are being followed to develop and
implement the Long -Term Management Program:
1) inventory existing conditions,
2) determine management objectives,
3) develop management prescriptions, and
4) monitor and evaluate success.
The contents of this Long -Term Management Program reflect the completion of
steps 1 throe;' 3. Implementation includes the Long - Term Monitoring
• Program which provides guidance for m and evaluating success (step
4) .
5
PROGRAM FORMULATION •
The LMCD Board formed the Long -Term Management Program Advisory Committee to
formulate the final program for action. The Committee was formed prior to
selection of a consultant and before the two -year work program was developed.
The Advisory Committee which developed this Program was composed of:
Representatives from the 14 lakeshore communities,
Hennepin County,
Metropolitan Council,
Department of Natural Resources, and
Other interested agencies.
Membership on the Advisory Committee was open. Depending upon the topics
being discussed, participation at individual meetings changed. Some
agencies sent representatives only to some meetings. At times, members of
the general public participated.
Virtually all decisions concerning the content were by consen-us.
Consensus was also maintained throughout each of the subcommittees.
Recognizing the level of effort and the time commitment required to develo
the entire Action Program, the Advisory Committee formed subcommittees to
address specific topics. Each subcommittee made recommendations to the
Advisory Committee concerning the twelve individual Preliminary Plans that
were developed. The subcommittees:
1) identified problems facing Lake Minnetonka and its upland areas,
2) selected those problems that should be addressed,
3) identified management objectives for individual problems,
4) discussed alternative ways of meeting the management objectives,
5) recommended the preferred alternative or set of alternatives, and
6) considered the environmental consequences of the proposals.
Thus, the Advisory Committee relied on the subcommittees to perfo-m much of
the actual planning.
Subcommittee membership differed from the Advisory Committee in two ways.
First, the Advisory Committee tended to be composed of agency
representatives that were more policy, not necessarily technically,
oriented. Partic ;pating organizations were a,ked to send their most
technically qualified individuals to subcommittee meetings. Secondly,
subco. ittees often had organizations represented that did not serve on the
Advisory Committee. These organizations normally had a more focused
interest in the lake and opted to participate only in those areas of direct
concern.
The active subcommittees were:
1. Shoreland Management:
2. Onshore Facilities
3. Upland Environmental Protection
4. Public Safety
5. Lakc Access
6. Lake Use •
7. Fisheries Manag(.�
F
. 8. Wetlands Management
9. water Quality Management
10. Institut_.;nal Arrangements
11. Intergovernmental. Relations
12. Funding
Elected officials, Mayors, public officials, and policy makers comprised
the subcommittees for institutional arrangements, intergovernmental
relations, and funding.
AUTHORITY
The authority of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to prepare a
comprehensive management program is contained in two sections of its
enabling legis:.ation. The first reference is in Section 3 (j): "To
undertake research to determine the condition and development of the lake
and the water entering it and to transmit their studies to the water
pollution control commission and other interested authorities; and to
develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution." Secondly, Section
13 empowers the LMCD to "adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the
purposes of its establishment and the powers granted to the district:."
Implicit in such powers to regulate is the authority to develop plans for
implementation (Laws of 1967, Ch. 907 as amended).
The Metropolitan. Council is also involved because the State's Executive
Council ordered the Metropolitan Council to use its powers to study the
a problems associated with access to the lake (Metropolitan Council's Task
Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986). To implement such directives, Chapter
473.244, Subd. 1 provides for the Council engaging in a continuous program
of research and study in matters under its authority. Ad.'tionally, the
Subd. 5 of the same section gives broad powers to develop long range
planning in the metropolitan area (Minnesota Statutes, Ch. 473.244, Subd.
5) .
Section 473.181 grants the Metropolitan Council specific authority to
view management plans prepared by local or regional (metropolitan area)
agencies (M.S. 473.165, Subd. 1). Subdivision 2 provides for a 120 day
review period for such plans and precludes implementation during the review
period. Subdivision 2 also grants the Council the authority to mediate and
resolve differences of opinion that arise between participating
organizations.
The Lake improvement District Act grants the DNR review powers similar to
that of t� ;e Metropolitan Council (Ch. 378.41, subd. 1). However, the LMCD
is nau a ,'hapter 378 lake improvement district; the LMCD has separate
enabling '-= gislation that does not provide for DNR supervisory and review
powers.
The sections of Chapter 473 cited in the above paragraphs makes the
Metropolitan !Council y particularly importar;t participant in this planning
process.
REGIONAL SF.T'Ti :�'(3
Lake Minnetonka is located in western Hennepin County and northern Carver •
County on the western edge of the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area. Tne
proximity of this major metropolitan area contributes to the lake's important
role as a recreational resource.
Lake Minnetonka is the tenth largest lake in Minnesota and the largest lake
within the sevan- county metropolitan area. The lake is a series of smaller
lakes and bays often interconnected by relatively narrow waterways
(Frontispiece). Lake Minnetonka has a lake surface area of 14,043 acres
and 125 miles of shoreline. The lake has a mean depth of 30 feet and a
maximum depth of 113 feet. Approximately 39 percent of the lake is
comprised of areas less than 15 feet deep.
Access and Circulation
The Lake Minnetonka area is accessible by several major federal and state
highways. _forth of the lake is east -west U.S. Highway 12, which serves as
a major thoroughfare for downtown Minneapolis. The portion of this roadway
from downtown Minneapolis to immediately east of Lake Minnetonka is
currently being upgraded to freeway status as Interstate 394. State
Highway 7, running east -west, is the major roadway providing access to the
south end of the lake. On the east sides of the lake State Highway 101 runs north -
south.
Numerc�is county roads provide secondary access to the lake. County Highway
15 runs east -west through a portion of the western half of the lake and is
an important corridor to several lake communities. County Road 19, running north -
south, separates the upper and lower portions of the lake and is a
significant secondary thoroughfare. Several other county roads service the
area but are generally linked to Highways 15 and 19. City streets serve
the entire area.
Considerable leisure and, to a lesser extent, non - recreational
transportation, occurs on the lake itself. In addition to residential
destinations there are several commercial establishments frequented by
boaters. During ice -over pe -iods transportation occurs by car, truck,
snowmobile, and off -road vehicles. The use of cars and trucks is often for
ice house access.
Physical Features
Much of the material in the following paragraphs are mo0ified from "Draft
Water Resources Management Plan, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District"
(Eugene A. Hickok and Associates, 1987).
GEOLOGY
The entire surficial geology of the lake area is comprised of glacial
drift. Inis unsorted sand, gravel and clay material was deposited on the
bedrock surface by two glacial lohe movements of the Wisconsin Age. The
Superior glacial lobe deposits included igneous and metamorphic rocks
within the sancy drift material. The more recent Des Moines lc;t)e retreated •
• 8
leaving a sandy layer that included limestone and shale. Glacial drift
thickness ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet.
Lake Minnetonka is located on the western en- of a bedrock formation
generally known as the Twin Cities artesian basin. This bowl - shaped basin
consists of a relatively complex layering of bedrock formations from the
Precambrian, Cambrian and Ordovician Eras. Because of the position of the
lake relative to this basin, successively older formations ^ome into
contact with the glacial drift when moving west to east across the lake.
These formations of either sandstones, dolomites or shales comprise the
bedrock surface.
GEOMORPHOLOGY
Geomorphology is the study of processes that shape the surface of the
earth. Lake Minnetonka is comprised of both till region and moraine
geomorphic types. The Lor.sdale- Lerdal till region includes Halsted Bay and
all of Lake Minnetonka that lies north of County Road 15 exceFt Crystal
Bay. St. Alban's Bay is within the St. Croix Morainic area, with the
remainder of the lake, including Crystal Bay, in the Emmons - Faribault
Moraine.
The till area is generally composed of unsorted clay, silt, sand end
boulder materials transported and directly deposited by the glacial lobe.
The till region is characterized by a ,hin layer of drift in the form of
. gentle hills. Moraine geomorphic type, in contrast, was formed by till
deposited at the edge of glaciers. These formations are distinguished by
steep hills, rolling topography and occasional deep depressions resulting
in small lakes. Lake Min.netonka's i- - icate shoreline is characteristic of
a morainic formation.
Lake Minnetonka is entirely within the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The lake
rece'_ves runoff from the entire upper portion of the watershed. The make
discharges to Minnehaha Creek at the Gray's Bay dam.
SOILS
The gen— al soil type is predominantly deep silty or loamy, well- drained
and lightly colored. T`is soil type is :moderately fine to moderately
course in texture has moderate transmission and infiltration rates.
rn area located at the southern shore of Wayzata Bay and Gray's Bay is
comprised of a soil type that is generally deep, sandy, well drained and
lightly colored. Tt ha1 a high infiltration rate and correspondingly low
runoff potential.
An area of sandy, well drained, dark colored soils is Located adjacent to
the north shore of Wayzata Bay. This soil type is characterized as having
low runoff potential, high infiltration rates and correspondingly high rate
of wager transmission.
0 CLIMATE;
The climate is predominantly continental with weather influenced by warm
air from the south and west and cold air from the north. Fluctuations in •
temperature, wind direction, precipitation and cloud cover are caused by
high and low pressure systems migrating across the area. Summers are
generally mild - -H occasionally humid. Winters are usually cold and
generally dry. Most precipitation comes during the warm season. While
winters are sometimes characterized by heavy snows, it is actually the dry
season in Minnesota.
The Maple Plain weather station located north of Lake Minnetonka has been
collecting weather data for over 95 years. Seasonal temperatures have been
found to vary greatly with a record high of 108 degrees occurring in July,
1936, and a record low of minus 34 degrees in January 1936 and 1970. July
is the warmest month with an average of 71 degrees. The coldest month is
January, which averages 9.9 degrees. Annual mean temperature is 43.6
degrees.
Precipitation averages 30.20 inches annually, with most occurring during
the summer months. The wettest month is June which averages 4.83 inches of
precipitation. February, the driest month, averages .78 inches of
precipitation. Winter snowfall averages approximately 49 inches, with snow
cover generally present from mid - December to early March. Lake Minnetonka
is usually ice- covered from mid- December to Mid - April, with an average
ice -out date of April 15.
WILDLIFE
"'he abundance and diversity of suitable habitat largely determines the •
ext�nt of wildlife populations. Continued development within the Lake
Minnetonka area has resulted in significant changes from the original
prairie, forest and aquatic habitats. However, wildlife populations c,..i be
found in relative abundance within the numerous and varied habitats
surrounding the lake. Breeding populations of prairie animals include
white - tailed jackrabbit, Brewer's blackbird, ground squirrel, and prairie
horned larks.
Hearty wildlife populations associated with wooded and brushy habitats can
also be found. Species indicative of the habitats include meadow voles,
rabbit: leer, shrews, moles, skunks, foxes, mink, weasels, raccoons, hawks
and owls. (Baseline Environmental Inventory: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
1977
Wetlands . marsh areas are refuge to large numbers of birds. Waterfowl
are relat.vc., y abundant and diverse with both migratory and year - around
species known to inhabit the area.
A diversity of aquatic habitats are present in Lake Minnetonka. These
habitats support a fish community typical of bass- panfish lakes in the
region. Game fish include: bluegill, black and white crappie, largemouth
bass, muskellunge, northern pike, walleye pike, sun`°sh and perch.
No game species present include bullhea' ir,d carp.
VEGETATION
The growth an'i s ; . , � iate7 lan'l u-e char.gE's c . Lr.c T w i n ( : : , -I :..: ��,...: relit -,n
� l
area have affected the vegetation surrounding Lake Minnetonka. However,
• many wooded, prairie and marsh areas remain as they were unsuitable for
development or similarly preserved.
Wetland vegetation typically found in the area include a diversity of
submerged, floating and emergent plant species and a variety of t.ee
species.
Native non - wetland, nun - aquatic vegetation in the Lake Minnetonka area is
primarily that of the Maple- Basswood Community. This community is
characterized by basswood, elm, maple and oak. Understory consists cf
shrubs such as hazelnut, chokecherry, Juneberry and elder, and herbaceous
plants including hepatica, violet, virginia creeper, climbing bittersweet,
sweet Cicely and large- flowered bellwort (Baseline Environmental Inventory:
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1977).
Socioeconomic Profile
POPULATION
The present population of the Lake Minnetonka area communities is presented
in Table 1. The information is based on the 1980 Census of Population,
updated by the Metropolitan Council. Populatior.. of Hennepin and Carver
counties and the entire Metropolitan .,rea are also provided. The 14
lakeshore communities have approximately 9 percent of Hennepin County's
population and 4 percent of the Metropolitan Area's population.
• Table 2 contains the estimates of households in the Lake Minnetonka area.
The 14 communities have an estimated 34,105 households. Of these,
approximately 3,000 have frontage on Lake Minnetonka. These accour.c for
approximately 8 percent and 4 percent of the households in Hennepin County
and the seven county metropolitan area respectively.
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
Table 3 present the forecasts of population and households in the Lake
Minnetonka Service Area. The service area is that part of the metropolitan
area where most users of the lake reside. Data presented later in this
document illustrates that approximately 91 percent of the users reside in
ciannepin County. For comparison purposes, the service area is divided into
four separate .arts. The first are the 14 lakeshore communities. Next are
the 15 first tier co= 'ties that abut lakeshore communities in Carver or
Hennepin Counties. The remaining 1 rtions of Hennepin and Carver counties
present he rest of the primary service area. The last part includes the
remaining five counties in the metropolitan area.
Table 3 forecasts `hat both population and the number of households in both
the lakesi. ore and first tier cc. are expected to increase at a rate
nearly dciuble that of the other parrs of Hennepin and Carver r'ounti 's. The
rate of gr(, th is also slightly more than projected for the otter five
met ropol ; , .:l counties.
•
it
Study Area Communities
TABLE 1
Population Estimates
Lake Minnetonka Region
Population----- -
1980 1988
Census Estimate
1988 Percent-------- --
Hennepin Metropolitan
County Area
u
Deephaven
3,716
3,714
.37
.17
Excelsior
2,523
2,574
.26
.12
Greenwood
653
656
.07
.03
Minnetonka
38,683
43,742
4.35
1.99
Minnetonka Beach
575
596
.06
.03
Minnetrista
3,236
3,662
.36
.17
Mound
9,280
9,951
.99
.45
Orono
6,845
7,284
.72
.33
Shorewood
4,646
5,094
.51
.23
Spring Park
1,465
1,584
.16
.07
Tonka Bay
1,354
1,479
.15
.07
Victoria
1,425
2,190
.22
.10
Wayzata
3,621
3,711
.3,
.17
Woodland
526
496
.05
.02
Total
80,952
89,165
8.86
4.05
Other Hennepin County
864,288
916,655
91.14
1.66
•
Other Carver County
35,621
42,784
-
.94
Other Metropolitan Area 1,904901 2,111156 - 5.95
SOURCE: Metropolitan Council, 1988
For the future of Lake Minnetonka, this means that households within the
primary service area of the lake will be increasing at a rate of
approximately one percent per year. As households increase, so will the
number of households seeking access to the lake.
Land Use
The Lake Minnetonka area is a typical suburban setting with single family
housing the primary land use. Shoreline commercial developments are
concentrated along major transportation routes, especially in Excelsior,
Wayzata, Spring Park, and Mound. Three areas of industrial or
manufacturing zoning jccur. within 2,000 feet of the lake in Excelsior.,
Spring Park and Mound. Shoreland use is primarily residential,
interspersed with commercial, recreational and one area of manufacturing.
As with several other suburban areas, the Lake Minnetonka area is
experiencing rapid growth. The natural beauty and water resc�urce_s of the
area make the area an attractive residential lccatie'n. Urban growth is
projected to continue in shoreland area, (Minnesota State, planning Agency,
0
Land use data base from 1984 aerial photographs).
•
TABLE 2
Household Estimates
TABLE 3
Forecasts of Population and Households
Lake Minnetonka Service Area
Households- - - - - --
1988 Percent-------- --
Households
1980
1988
Hennepin
Metropolitan
Study Area Communities
Census
Estimate
County
Area
Deephaven
1,223
1,332
.32
.16
Excelsior
1,149
1,258
.30
.15
Greenwood
234
255
.06
.03
Minnetonka
12,667
17,162
4.12
2.01
Minnetonka Beach
187
220
.05
.03
Minnetrista
974
1206
.29
.14
Mound
3,384
3,747
.90
.44
Orono
2,291
2,629
.63
.31
Shorewood
1,484
1,807
.43
.21
Spring Park
684
758
.18
.09
Tonka Bay
495
598
.14
.07
Victoria
427
692
.17
.08
Wayzata
1,560
1,699
.41
.20
Woodland
183
181
.04
.02
• Total
27,463
34,105
8.18
4.00
Other Hennepin County
339,021
382,686
91.82
44.85
Other Carver County
11,584
14,977
-
1.76
Other Metropolitan Area
693,894
819,067
-
96.00
SOURCE: Metropolitan
Council,
1988
TABLE 3
Forecasts of Population and Households
Lake Minnetonka Service Area
• Source: Metropolitan Council, 1986 aril 1988.
i3
Population
Percent
Households
Percent
Communities
1988
2000
Change
1988
1990
Change
Lakeshore
86760
93620
7.91
33544
37330
11.29
First Tier
221'755
243620
9.86
90148
101665
12.78
First Tier Counties
737657
747880
1.39
341059
361815
6.09
other Metro Area
1154149
1224860
6.13
38842.1
430190
10.75
• Source: Metropolitan Council, 1986 aril 1988.
i3
•
•
•
II. RECREATION MANAGEMENT
0 PERSPECTIVE
The ultimate goal for recreation management is fourfold:
1) to more effectively manage access growth,
2) to establish priorities for such access growth as occur,
3) to implement a set of controls that will be progressively more
restrictive as use of the lake continues to increase, and
4) to reduce conflicts, thereby maintaining the quality of the
recreational experience.
The 1,4CD does not encourage increased summer, use, but it will more
effectively control such growth that as it occurs. The intent of the
program is to present modifications to existing management practices and
regulations and not to supplant those rules and regulations. Terms used in
this chapter are defined in Appendix B.
Achievement of these goals requires that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District (LMCD) move to an active management posture from a more passive
one. Implementation requires increased staff and funding; a level of
commitment beyond the present financial capabilities of all of the managing
entities active on the lake.
Lake Minnetonka managing entities face significant challenges in the coming
decades as suburban development continues and use of the lake increases.
But growth in access and peak use depends on changing the level of law
enforcement presence on the lake. Proposed management practices can reduce
• conflicts and provide a more satisfactory recreational boating experience
only if there is a concomitant increase in Water Patrol presence on the
lake. More presence need not mean more citations; increased presence can
also generate greater compliance with existing rules and regulations.
For this recreational management program to work, significant new sources
of funding must be found. In the absence of new funds, growth of access
and peak use must be terminated, and terminated soon.
Growth in access and level of use during peak hours can continue as long as
resource managers adopt improved regulatory practices, provide more
enforcement, better control growth of access and use, and assure boaters
alternative destinations on the lake. Future recreation Management on Lake
Minnetonka relies on increasingly stringent access and use controls as boat
density continues to increase. To protect the quality of the recreational
experience as use increases, other management objectives call for increased
law enforcement presence on the lake and stress improved boating, education
and operator skills. To decrease the adverse effects of increased boat
density, boating destinations are identified and protected; new boating,
destinations are to be developed.
Participants in developing the program examined boat density standards and
other use capacity concepts and found them of little use for Lake
Minnetonka. Boat: density standards seem to vary with population density
and the amou;lt. of freshwater resource available. That is, �3t:,tes with few
water hO(Ii to si t Iow (few acres p. "r boat.) density standards; others
• i,
with abundant water resources seem
density standards. Accordingly, n
established or identified.
Historical Background
to set high (many acres per boat)
"capacity" for Lake Minnetonka is
In 1972 the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District adopted tha LMCD Code for
regulating access, use and recreational facilities located on the lake. The
Code continues to be the basis of LMCD management of boating access, whether
across private riparian lands, at marinas, through homeowner associations or
across publicly owned property. The code also provides the rules and
regulations governing recreational activities on the lake during both the
rummer and winter.
Since 1941, the DNR has held the responsibility for providing public
boating access to lakes in Minnesota. The State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan paces high priority on the development of public access
sites. In the 1970s, the DNR begar. placing a higher priority on
acquisition of metropolitan access sites (Metropolitan Access Committee,
1979). During that same decade, the Metropolitan Council adopted its
Regional Recreation Open Space Syster., which gave the Council a direct
interest in developing public boating access sites. "Against this
backdrop, staff from the Metropolitan Council, Department of Natural
Resources and State Planning Agency [now Department of Trade and Economic
Development (DTED)], with encouragement from the Legislative Commission on
Minnesota Resources, formed a Task Force to develop a strategy for
improvinE :,ccess to metro area lakes" (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979,
p. 2).
In 1979 the Metropolitan Access Committee adopted an access standard fir
metropolitan lakes of one boat (or parking space) for every 20 acres of
water (1979, pp. 4 and 11). The 1979 report defines "adequate" ramped
public access as where there is "access for one hoat per 2.0 acres of water
surface" for :metropolitan lakes (1979, p. 4). Development guidelines for
implementing that policy include "One (parking] space for each 20 acres of
lake surface" (1979, p. 11). Further, this policy for Lake Minnetonka was
adopted by the 1982 Governor's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka ( Governor's
Task Force, 1982, p. 6). That standard for access was re- affirmed by the
Metropolitan Council's "Cask Force (Metropolitan Council's Task Force on
Lake Minnetonka, 1986, p. 5). Therefore, state and regional agency
programs require 700 car /trailer parking spaces for Lake Minnetonka.
Studies sponsored by the DNR and LMCD in 1984 and 1986 indicated that there
are approximately 350 car \trailer parking spaces used during normal high
use periods on the lake. An additional 350 must be added to meet these
access goals.
Authority
Appendix A contains a more comprehensive discussion of authority for recreation
management. There are parallel authorities over access that involve the D`P ,
Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, LIMCD and thc 1 / 4
lakeshore communities. All of these organizations hav(c the authority to
acquire, construct, operate, and maintain public boat access to the lake.
•
•
•
16
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District has plans to develop a regional park
. in the southwestern part of the lake.
The LMCD regulates docks, whether private, homeowner association,
commercial marina or yacht club. The Hennepin County Sheriff also approves
dock placement to assure that a hazard to navigation is not created. The
DNR and Watershed District are involved under authority over construction
in public waters, dredging and the placement of fill.
The LMCD, Hennepin County and the DNR are most active in managing the use
of the surface of Lake Minnetonka. Of these, the Department of Natural
Resources and the LMCD have the most comprehensive authority, but the 124CD
tennepin County are most actively involved through their day -to -day
management activities.
Public safety on the lake is the responsibility of the Hennepin County
Sheriff's Water Patrol, the DNR and the LMCD. The LMCD has the authority
to form its own police force or to contract with another law enforcement
agency to enforce its rules. It contracts w the Hennepin County
Sheriff, who provides most of the patrols on the lake. The DNR has
authority in this area, but it complements the Water Patrol activities by
generally being present at different hours and frequently focusing on
compliance with fish and game laws.
IAKE ACCESS AND UJL' MANAGEMENT
• Conceptual Framework
Future recreational access and use management utilizes controls that ate
progressively more restrictive as boat density on the lake continues to
increase. The program does not establish an upper limit for the numbrr of
boats that will be allowed on the lake. Growth will be allowed, but it will be
concentrated on those types of access available to all citizens of the state
that wish to use the lake.
The approach of progressively more restrictive regulation satisfies
managers who subscribe to the two different alternative futures for the
lake. The two futures are: 1) the lake is self - limiting and, 2) the lake:
must be managed by use and access controls.
The first group believes that the lake is self - limiting. That is, the
users themselves will impose an upper limit on peak period use. Once use
reaches too great a density, this argument espouses, individual boaters
will be displaced to other less :.eavily used resources. Implicit in the
argument is that this displacement will occur at an acceptable point,
keeping normal peak use sufficiently low so that the recreational boating
experience is protected.
The second viewpoint is that access controls are needed, if not now, then
at some point in the future. This alternative proposes that as use
increases ome desirable user groups will be displaced from the lake. user
groups more tolerant of heavy use will remain and these remaining groups
likely will be the less desirable. That is, boaters that are willing to
tolerate high wakes, encounters with higher speed watercraft and rule
1/
infractions will remain. While use restrictions can solve some of these
problems, the correct approach is to manage the level of access.
Regardless of which philosophical view a manager subscribes to, the best •
management approach is to establish progressively more stringent access
limits as use increases. If the increased growth does not occur, or if
conflicts are kept at an acceptable level through use management, then
these access controls need not be implemented. But the management
strategies are in place and are available at the appropriate instance.
The approach is flexible. Through proper use of long -term monitoring,
emerging problem: in be identified. Appropriate management strategies can
be implemented wi,..,i.n the framework of this Long -Tern, Management Program.
The LMCD has implemented a set of access controls that have served the lake
relatively well. Limits are imposed by relating boat storage to length of
shoreline controlled (owned or leased). These controls have prevented
unrestrained growth on individual properties. But, taken collectively the
rules are too generous for future recreation management. An ever
increasingly greater number of households are gaining access to the lake.
Historical Pattern of Access Growth
Table 4 demonstrates the change in boat storage on the lake between 1974 and
1987. There is an overall decline in boat storage of approximately 1.4
percent. All of that decline occurs at individual lakeshore homes ( -19.47
percent). At the same time, storage increased at municipal docks, marinas and •
homeowner associations. Throughout this same period, there was no significant
change in parking available at boat access ramps, even though the King's Point
access was added in 1987. The increased parking at King's Point seems to be
offset by corresponding losses at other locations.
The records presented in Table 4 illustrate that there has been an increase
in restricted - rights access. Restricted- rights access includes homeowner
associations and municipal docks, were residence in certain subdivisions or
in lakeshore communities provides the right to the dock. At homeowner
associations, individual households may or may not be riparian and may or
may not hold an interest in the riparian land used. Municipal dock access
is based on riparian lands owned by one of the 14 municipalities on the
lake. In practice, these docks, slides or lifts are rented to residents of
the owning municipality whether or not there is a formal policy of
restricting the use to residents. No city rents a slip that is not either
to the resident or to the immediate family of a landowner in the city.
The stated policy of the II.ICD is to "Preserve and promote Lake Minnetonka
as a recreation and natural resource for all the citizens of the state"
(I.MCD Code, p. 1) which would encourage balanced growth in all forms of
access. New :management programs are needed that are cognizant of past
inequities then assure that the general public has adequate and continued
access through marinas and public access raids.
•
18
TABLE 4
Change in Boat Storage on Lake Minnetonka
1974 -1987
1974 to
Year------------- - - - - -- 1987 Percent
Type of Storage 1974 1980 1987 Change Change
Lakeshore Residents 6175 3555 4973 -1202 -19.47
Municipal Docks 632 797 1145 + 513 481.17
Marinas 1433 1716 1743 + 310 +21.63
Homeowner Associations 231 395 453 + 222 +96.10
Yacht Clubs 213 229 239 + 26 +12.21
Apartments 242 216 245 + 3 1 1.24
Total 8926 6908 8798 - 128 - 1.39
Based on LMCD file data. Lakeshore residents live in single family,
detached housing. Municipal docks are maintained by seven communities on
public lakeshore lands. Marinas are commercial boat storage and service
operations. Homeowner associations include condominiums, subdivisions
where purchase of a residence gives the owner access through an outlot,
groups of riparian homeowners, and at least two mu'Liple docks that allow
non - residents households the right to store a boat. Yacht Clubs are
non - profit membership organizations that provide storage for some members.
Apartments are rental housing units with a common dock for some residents.
• "1974 -1987 Change" is measured in boats. "Percent Change" is the 1987
count divided by the 1974 count.
Alternatives for Large Watercraft
Large watercraft have limited alternatives where they can safely and
properly operate. In 1987 a demand study was conducted for the DNR which
provides data on alternative water bodies for boats of marina size
(Department of Natural Resources, 1987). Lake Minnetonka, the Mississippi
and St. Croix Rivers, and White Bear Lake are the most attractive for sail
boats. Power boat owners prefer these same resources, but. also Fo: st Lake
in northern Washitipton county.
There is no question that Lake Minnetonka is the primary attraction for
both sail and power boats in the metropolitan area. The St. Croix anti
Mississippi Rivers are important alternative attractions. Management
practices of all agencies should be changed to reflect the needs of these
large power and sail boats.
Lake Use Density StandZ..d.
In considOring man;,t;,'ment options for Minnetonka, it: nc- ces:;;iry to
examine the densi, sL,ndards that other agenciar; ar,d o i,ant_atir_n.;
adopted, t hell ex:imilie the i r i;rpl i c. - I' ; ons for t hi s ] akr Tl<< data c.n
Z
density standards are not particularly useful because there is such a range
in the standards.
Table 5 presents a summary of standards that have been applied to various i s
water bodie^ managed by a range o. Federal, State and local agencies. The
standards fall into two groups: sin: standards and indivi ual boating
activity standards.
Agencies that have adopted a single standard include the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the States of California, Wisconsin arl Minnesota, and the
Province of Manitoba. Examination of the single s indards seems to justify
two conclusions:
1. The greater the population of the state, the lower t, acres
allocated per boat, and
2. The more acres of 'eland water available, the greater the acres
allocated per boat.
TABLE 5
Summary of Boat Densi: Standards
In Acres Per Boat
'That: does not help managers a great deal since Lake Minnetonka is neither
an average lakr . Zs it used by average sized watercraft.
Nor do standards :or individual boating activities provide a great deal of'
guidance for Lake Minnetonka. Standards for anchored fishing ranee from
0.2 acres per boat to 8.0 acres per boat. The standard for waterskiing
varies similarly hetween 5 and 40 acres.
In actuality, Lrr�:e Minnetonka serves a variety of hoat.ir;i; market
Individual rice Af tech i":c and ronrurrent 1.,' 'u;f },v:
Single
Anchored
10
hp
Sail
Water -
Agency
Standard
Fishing
or
i.ess
Boating
skiing
Army Corps of Engineers
1
California
1
•
Minne ota DNR
10
Ontario
10
Wisconsin DNR
20
Manitoba
50
Soil Conservation Service
0.2
3.0
3.0
5.0
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
3.6 -8.0
-
-
20 -40
Ohio
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
Park Planning Guidelines
0.2
1.0
0.4
-
Pennsylvanir
5.0
3.0
2.6
Modif?.ed from: Minnesota
Department of Natural
Resources, 1987: Lake
DeveloF.aent.
'That: does not help managers a great deal since Lake Minnetonka is neither
an average lakr . Zs it used by average sized watercraft.
Nor do standards :or individual boating activities provide a great deal of'
guidance for Lake Minnetonka. Standards for anchored fishing ranee from
0.2 acres per boat to 8.0 acres per boat. The standard for waterskiing
varies similarly hetween 5 and 40 acres.
In actuality, Lrr�:e Minnetonka serves a variety of hoat.ir;i; market
Individual rice Af tech i":c and ronrurrent 1.,' 'u;f },v:
sail boats,
• fishing boats,
small power boats,
large power boats,
personal watercraft, and
non - motorized craft including canoes.
The diversity of activities and types of boats active on the "Lake depends
as much on the different resource characteristics, attributes, or features
available on the lake as well as the range of boating densities available.
The lake is a general boating lake; one that supports a broad range of
activities and supports a diversity of use intensities.
Usable Acres
In considering density standards for Lake Minnetonka, adjustments should be
made to the traditional way that boat density has been computed on Lake
Minnetonka. Part of the lake has been dedicated to other uses, such as :.he
150 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline as well as marinas and other
multiple docks that extend beyond the 150 -foot buffer.
In recognition of this, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
has published guidance for determining the usable portion of a lake for
planning purposes (DNR, 1987, Lake Development. p. 21). The method
suggests subtracting the following areas from the grass lake surface:
a) a 60 -meter band around the shore,
b) a 120 meter band in front is marinas, public beaches, and access
points,
c) a 30 -meter band around all navigation hazards, and
d) the center portion of a lake more than 1.6 km from the shore
(optional)
The I-MCD has established regulations that provide for a 1�, foot buffer
zone rather than the 180 -foot zone (60 meters). It would appear that a
satisfactory alternative would be to take the shoreline length and multiply
by the 150 foot zone to obtain the square footage unavailable for general
L Table 6 presents those computations by bay, expressed as "usable
acres ". Accounting for the extra di— anres in front of marinas, beaches,
access points, and haz::rds does not seem warranted, since there are
probably more errors in the shoreline computation than in those minor
adjustments.
Lake Minnetonka has a gross area of 14,043 acres. Adjustment for the
shoreline buffer zone results in a net 11,773 acres that is actually
available for customary boating uses. This adjusted acreage is best for
regulation of the lake.
Table 7 compares the existing situation on Lake Minnetonka with various
boat densities. The comparison begins with 8 acres per boat (existing) and
extends to I acre per boat.
Active boats, in
Table 7, means that:
the boat is away f'-om its
uock on the
lake, or that it
has been put
on the
lake through one of the
public access
points. An active
boat may be
moving
on the water, on the open
l;:tke but
anchored or' otherwisE
restaur;ints), or
dead in
r,aftc(l at one
Ihe water,
of tl't•
at a trar dock
pop anchr,rages.
(bar,
7l
Table 8 presents the change in the density of active boats by bay for ti,
alternative densities ranging from 8.0 to 4.0 (usable) acres per boat. The
assumption essential to the table is: •
Boats added to the lake will be distributed in proportion to their
present distribution on the lake.
There are pr biems with that assumption, but only to a limited d>.gree.
Boats are distributed on a water body as the result of a range of different
factors, but two of the most important are:
1) location and availability of access po-nts (public, marinas,
private docks), and
2) the distribution of features, characteristics, or attributes that
attract the different boating markets served by the lake.
That is, given equal access, the geographic distribution of boats on a
water body will reflect the features, characteristics and attributes that
boaters find attractive. Thus, sail boats tend to be found in different
places than large power boats. Water - skiers tend to be on a different bay
of this lake than heavy concentrations of boats. Fishermen go to known
places of success.
If the assumption were n true, then boats would be distributed on the
laKe randomly. That is, if features, characteristics and attributes have
no effect on the boaters decision on where to go, then boats would be
randomly or evenly distributed over the lake. That is not what happens on
a water body, and on this lake in particular.
Therefore, Table 8 distri' the new active boats in proportion to their
resent distribution. In all provability that will nct happen, at least
beyond a certain point. When conditions become too crowded, thin certain
markets may leave the lake (sailing seems most susceptible). When one bay
becomes too crowded, another nearby bay with similar attractions may be
more heavily used. With this shortcoming noted, Table 8 still represents
*ire best distribution of new boats on the lake that the available data and
literature permit.
LONG -TERM RECRF'TION MANAGEMENT
Management Framework
The recreational use of the s —rface of Lake Minnetonka, the public and
private recreational lands surrounding Lake Minnetonka and the related
recreational lands in West Hennepin and adjacent Carver counties shall be
for the broadest public use, with minimum conflict between different uses.
Further, the lake shall be managed to maintain the lake's regional role a=
a general boating lake.
Specifically, the L"iGD and other agencies responsible for managing
recreational resources shall continue t manage recreational access and 11se
of the lake .):
0
TABLE 6
Derivation of Usable Acres of Water Surface
Is Lake Minnetonka, 1989
Area
Ac. s of
Shoreline
Buffer
Usable
Number
Description
Wager
Miles
zone Area
Surface
13
Emerald Lake
13.00
1.00
13.00
.00
31
Libb's Bay
17.00
1.10
17.00
.00
14
Seton Lake
44.00
2.20
40.00
4.00
38
Echo Bay
15.00
.50
9.09
5.91
33
Bay St. Louis
2( . w 0
.60
10.91
9.09
12
Black Lake
76.00
3.20
58.18
17.82
19
Coffee Cove
57.00
1.80
32.73
24.27
39
Big Island Passage 36.00
.80
14.55
21.45
32
Robinson's Bay
92.00
3.50
63.64
28.36
27
Tanager Lake
51.00
1.10
20.00
31.00
18
Forest Lake
82.00
1.80
32.73
49.27
40
Veteran's Bay
82.00
1.10
20.00
62.00
34
Carson's Bay
116.00
2.70
49.09
66.91
36
Excelsior Bay
90.00
1.20
21.82
68.18
10
Old Channel Bay
106.00
1.30
23.64
82.36
6
Smithtown Bay
110.00
1.20
21.82
88.18
2
Priest's Bay
144.00
2.10
38.18
105.82
35
St. Alban's Bay
161.00
2.90
52.73
108.27
30
Gray's Bay
180.00
3.2..'
58.18
121.82
23
Stubb's Bay
195.00
2.5,;
45.45
149.55
15
Harrison's Bay
215.00
3.50
63.64
151.36
9
Carman's Bay
294.00
3.90
70.91
223.09
16
Jenning's Bay
290.00
3.50
63.64
226.36
26
Smith's Bay
266.00
1.90
34.55
231.45
24
Maxwell Bay
300.00
3.70
67.27
232.73
22
North Arm
319.00
4.70
85.45
233.55
37
Gideon's Bay
'30.00
4.40
80.00
250.00
7
Phelp's Bay
345.00
:;.70
67.27
277.73
20
West Crystal Bay
325.00
2.50
45.145
279.55
3
Cook's Bay
343.00
2.20
40.00
303.00
11
Spring Park Bay
378.00
2.60
47.27
330.73
25
Lafayette Bay
454.00
3.80
69.09
384.91
21
East Crystal Bay
487.00
4.20
76.36
410.64
1
Halsted's Bay
)45.00
7.30
132.73
412.27
17
West Arm
514.00
3.90
70.91
443.09
5
South Upper Lakp
722.00
6.60
120.00
602.00
28
Brown's Bay
696.00
3.50
63.64
632.36
29
Wayzata Bay
718.00
5.50
100.00
678.00
8
East Upper Lake
814.00
3.60
65.45
748.55
4
West Upper Lake
873.00
4.60
83.64
789.36
41
Lower Lake South
9 •. 0
4.40
80.00
898.00
42
Lower Iike North
2,09
5.50
100.00
1,990.00
Total
14,043.00
125.30
2, %10.00
11,713.00
23
TABLE 7
Change in I'otential Active Boats and
Boat Density for Alternative Density Standards
Char;e in
Total
Usable
Active
Active
Acres
Acres
Boats
Boats
Per Boat
Per Boat
Acres
14043
1177?
Existing
Density
1453
9.66
8.10
Growth to:
8.00
Acres
per
Boat
1472
19
9.54
8.00
7.00
Acres
per
Boat
1682
229
8.35
7.00
6.00
Acres
per
Boat
1962
509
7 16
6.00
5.00
Acres
per
Boat
2355
902
5.96
5.00
4.00
Acres
per
Boat
2943
1490
4.77
4.00
3.00
Acres
per
Boat
3924
2471
3.58
3.00
2.00
Acres
per
Boat
5887
4434
2.39
2.00
1.00
Acres
per
Boat
11773
10320
1.19
1.00
24
TABLE 8
Effect of Various Density Standards
on Lake Minnetonka Active Boat Density
Acres
P,r Active Boat
Area
Acres of
!
Existing
By Incremental
Density
Levels
Number
Description
Water
Acres
Density
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.)0
'3
Emerald Lake
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
Libb's r-y
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
`4
Seton Lake
44
4
.15
.15
.13
.11
.09
.07
,9
Coffee Cove
57
24
.20
.19
.17
.14
.12
.10
38
Echo Bay
15
6
.39
.37
.33
.28
.23
.19
39
Big Island Passage
_d
21
.61
.58
.51
_ .44
.36
.29
3E
Excelsior Bay
90
68
_8
,P S
.75
.64
.53
.43
12
Black Lake
76
18
1.09
1.04
.91
.78
.65
.52
33
Bay St. Louis
20
9
1.20
1.14
S 1.00
.86
71
.57
40
Veteran's Bay
82
6e
1.91
1.82
1.59
1.36
1.14
91
34
Carson's Bay
116
67
3.13
2.98
2.61
:..24
1.86
1.49
18
Forest Lake
82
A9
4.::1
4.01
3.51
3.01
2.50
2
24
Maxwell Bay
300
233
4.
4.16
3.64
3.12
2.60
2.08
27
Tanager Lake
51
31
4,92
4.31
3.59
3.08
2.46
32
Robinson's Bey
92
28
4.94 _
4.32
3.71
3.09
2.47
15
Harrison's Bay
215
151
( 4.80
4.11
3.43
2.74
35
St. Alban's Bay
161
108
4 89
4.20
3.50
2.80
30
Gray's Bey
180
122
4.50
3.75
3
41
Lower Lake South
978
898
4.83
4.02
3.22
20
nest Crystal Bay
325
280
4.95
4.13
3.30
3
Cook's Bay
343
303
4.43
3.54
10
Old Channal Bay
106
82
4.76
3.81
22
North Arm
319
234
4.02
6
Smithtown Bay
110
88
4.19
2
Priest's Bay
144
105
4.26
23
Stubb's B:-.y
195
150
4.69
5
South Upper Lake
722
602
4.79
Number o`
Bays With
Less
than 0.5 acres /boat
5
5
5
6
6
7
Less
than 1.0 acre -/boat
7
7
9
9
9
10
Less
than 5.3 acres /1•1t
13
15
20
20
22
27
Usable Acres of Lake Surface
Less
than 0.5 acres /boat
34
34
34
55
55
123
Less
than 1.0 acres /boat
123
123
150
150
150
212
Less
thnn 5.0 acres /boat
561
620
879
2179
2564
3743
Percent of the Lake's Usable
Surface
Less
than 0.5 acres / oat
.29
.29
.29
r7
47
1 04
Less
than 1.0 .ores /boat
1.04
1.04
1.27
1 27
1.27
1 60
Less
than 5.0 acres /boat
4,77
5.27
7.47
18 51
21.18
31 80
Total New
Active Boats Added
19
229
519
901.
1400
Totai Active Boats
1453
1472
1652
1962
2355
2943
25
a) preserve and promote Lake Minnetonka as recreational and natural
resource for all the citizens of the state;
b) promote and regulate the orderly utilization of the lake and its
shorelands by all users of the lake and those placing structures
within it;
c) achieve a balance between the interests of public use and the
conservation of the lake as a natural resource;
d) prevent pollution of the lake and preserve its ecological balance
by regulating recreational use in the lake and in individual bays,
arms, lakes and channels; and
e) provide for the health, safety, order, convenience and general
welfare of users and lakeshore residents by ordinances not
inconsistent with the laws of the state.
Accordingly, Lake Minnetonka access and use shall be managed to remain open
for all citizens of the state. While riparian landowners have certain
constitutional and common law rights of access, no other group shall be
recognized as having special privileges or other rights of access.
Management methods required to achieve this include:
equitable regulation of access through ordinance,
imposing limitations on certain types of access, and
restricting certain access and use temporally and spacially.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
1. The LMCD shall continue its present system of managing access to, and
use of, the lake through ordinance and regulation.
The LMCD Code shall continue to be the basis of regulating lake use and
access. The policies and practices shall be reviewed from time to time as
use density changes to determine if more less restrictive management
practices are appropriate.
2. The management of recreational boating access on Lake Minnetonka shall
be based on density of use. As density increases on the lake as a whole or
on individual bays, lakes or arms, regulation shall become progressively
more restrictive.
Usable lake surface will be the basis of determining density on Lake
Minnetonka (11,800 acres). Past growth pat ~erns indicate an increase of
450 boats over the last 10 years, or 45 new boats per year. That means in
twenty years, the lake could be at a density of 5 acres of water surface
per boat. It is difficult to project with the limited data available so
the growth could ';e faster or slower than indicated. That is why
a.•lhievement of actual densities trigger regulatory changes.
Cr,. of boating use on Lake Minnetonka during the normal peak use period
is Inevitable.. As the population changes, should boating participation
. increase in the market area, or should boat size continue to increase, it
is likely that the lake will be subjected to greater pressure. The purpose
of progressively more restrictive access controls is to avoid conflicts, to
26
lake's role as a general boating lake.
To implement this objective, the following management practices shall be
imposed (each of these is explained in detail in the appropriate
Preliminary Plans and Working Papers):
Density 8.0 (Present Conditions)
Regulatory Actions
8 -1 Allocate 350 additional (to 700) car /trailer parking spaces for
public and private access ramps.
8 -2 Marina docks converted to individual ownership (condo) shall
cause the marina to lose grandfathering and shall be subject to
the most restrictive frontage -foot rule applicable to any
riparian parcel.
8 -3 Establish and enforce to the greatest extent allowed under law
a policy of no further use of outlots for non - riparian
landowner access on lands previously developed.
8 -4 Develop a policy restricting outlot ise at new subdivisions
subject to the 1:50 rule, a length -width limitation, one single
group dock for all landowners, and subject to other
restrictions imposed by the LMCD.
8 -5 Assure licensed marinas remain available to all citizens of the
state.
8 -6 Additional special density permits at municipal or homeowner
association licensed docks shall be banned.
8 -7 Review the rules governing individual riparian storage of boats.
8 -8 Restrict use of and /or license operators of personal watercraft
sailboards, and hovercraft.
8 -9 Designate anchorages on the lake with appropriate restrictions.
Intergovernmental Coordination /Cooperation
8 -10 Improve law enforcement presence on the lake.
8 -11 Coordinate development and implementation of an aggressive
boater education program in Hennepin County.
8 -12 Coordinate a legislative program to obtain state boat operator
licensing.
Studies
8 -13 Develop a plan for providing further beaching /rafting areas.
8 -14 Develop a plan for managing excursion boat docking and parking.
8 -15 Refine the established program of imposing limits on the use of
bays with the greatest use density.
8 -16 Study means of limiting boat wakes.
Density 7.0
Regulatory Actions
7 -1 Fix municipal access at existing levels.
7 -2 Link further access growth in any form (including ramped public
access) with increased law enforcement presence on the lake.
7 -3 Determine the source of the growth in density, then impose
restrictions to slow growth of the forms of access responsible
for the growth.
7 -4 Determine if more restrictive frontage -foot rules (1:50 and
1:10) are needed.
7 -5 Review the need for lowering the speed limit, day and night,
7 -6 Review use and storage densities of individual bays for
further regulation. .
7 -7 Require a certificate from an approved boater education course
to operate a boat on the lake.
7 -8 Restrict ultralight take -off and landings between 9:00 am to
6:00 pm on weekends and holidays.
7 -9 Review the maximum boat length for private watercraft and
excursion boats.
Intergovernmental Coordination /Cooperation
7 -10 Continue to develop anchorage opportunities, particularly
through public acquisition of riparian property.
Studies
7 -11 Undertake a study to identify groups in conflict and to
determine the appropriate management remedies.
Density 6.0
Regulatory Actions
6 -1 Link further access growth to development of anchorage
opportunities at a ratio of one additional access unit to two
rafting /anchorage units.
6 -2 Initiate a program to reduce and ultimately eliminate
grandfathering at municipal and homeowner associations docks.
6 -3 Review the frontage -foot rules to determine if a more
restrictive one is needed.
6 -9 Review the rules governing riparian storage of boats.
6 -5 Impose use restrictions between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm on
weekends and holidays.
6 -6 Review the need for additional patrol hours on the lake.
Intergovernmental Coordination /Cooperation
6 -7 Continue to develop rafting /anchorage opportunities,
particularly through public acquisition of riparia, property.
Density 5.0
Regulatory Actions
5 -1 Further restrict resident riparian storage.
5 -2 Review the frontage -foot rules to determine if a more
restrictive one is needed.
5 -3 impose a policy of no growth on all forms of access.
5 -9 Eliminate grandfathering at all forms of wet storage on the lake.
Intergovernmental Coordination /Cooperation
5 -5 Continue to develop rafting /anchorage opportunities,
particularly through public acquisition of riparian property.
5 -6 Review the need for additional patrol hours on the lake.
Justification for these progressively more restrictive limitations are:
provide for public safety,
provide for the broadest, most general boating use without displacing
traditional boating groups,
provide for orderly growth,
minimize co•iflicts between competing groups,
encourage open and free access to all residents of the market area, and
provide a safe, satisfactory and aesthetically pleasing boating
experience on the lake.
The LMCD has the legislative mandate to control boating and growth of
boating on the lake. Since growth is inevitable, management of use and
access is mandatory.
M 3. The LMCD shall adopt comprehensive ordinances, including zoning, to
implement its access controls.
The purpose of this objective is to better categorize the LMCD access rules
and regulations into an ordinance that links boat storage with existing
municipal zoning. This gives the LMCD the same .00l that riparian
municipalities use to control changes in land use. In this case, the LMCD
shall zone the water surface in the nearshore areas to control changes in
water surface use and boat storage.
This adds a new regulatory tool to the LMCD procedures that is readily
understood by developers and municipal staff alike. It further provides a
clear procedure for controlling changes in access to the lake and assures
that such changes are consistent with this Management Program and with the
policies of the district. This separates decisions concerning use of
shoreline areas from how many boats will be stored at the property.
To implement such an ordinance, the LMCD shams. meet with each individual
municipality to determine the classification of the nearshore waters of the
lake. It is conceived that the classifications adopted would be that of
the city. The known exception would be the manufacturing district in one
city on the lake.
Such zoning will be a useful tool in assuring that less densely used areas
are not converted to a more dense boat storage use unless it is consistent
with LMCD policy and with this Management Program.
4. Future public access points shall utilize remote parking and shuttles
as appropriate.
It is inconsistent with this Management, Program (Shoreland and
Environmental Protection) to create significant new hardcover surfaces
adjacent to the lake. Therefore, future access ramp design shall include
provision for off -site car \trailer parking. Shuttles shall be included as
appropriate to carry boaters and their gear from parking to their launched
boat. Parking and /or shuttle fees may be charged to recover service costs.
5. The LMCD shall cooperate with the Metropolitan Access Committee
(composed of DNR, DTED and the Metropolitan Council) to embark on an
aggressive program to obtain funding for assuring the availability of 700
car /trailer parking spaces at public and private launch ramps including
improving or closing existing access points.
The overall objective for Lake Minnetonka is to provide one car /trailer
parking space for each 20 acres of gross lake surface. As parking in
formal, controlled lots increases, on- street parking will I reduced. When
there are 700 car /trailer parking spaced provided in formal parking lots,
then on- street car /trailer parking shall be eliminated.
29
The Metropolitan Access Committee composed of the DNR, DTED and
Metropolitan Council staff have adopted a policy of providing t.:blic
trailered boat access at a level of one boat for every 20 acres of lake
surface. For Lake Minnetonka that is 700 car /trailer parking sp.�.ces. That
number was also agreed to during previous Task Forces addressing access to
Lake Minnetonka. Given tho policies, which the agencie9 involved are
fully capnble of implement under their own statutory authority, this
objective recognizes that le:el of access and goes one step farther. In
order for growth to take place with minimal disruption to access management
on the lake, the access points should be constructed as soon as possible,
certainly before use density significantly increases on the lake. But all
managing entities must understand that if patrol hours do not incr•:ase on
the lake when density 7.0 is reached, then there will be no further access
growth at public access points allowed until the problem is rectified.
A working par,nership of the appropriate implementing agencies - -DNR, DTED,
Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, LMCD, and other agencies is long
overdue. Since development of such access is likely to generate
controversy, it is intended that the public debate be held once and leg.'.
battles minimized.
The study for implementing the access plan should be jointly sponsored by
all of the major managing agencies and should include municipal
representatior. Small lots serving anglers shall provide access to as many
bays as possible. The study shall also address the issue of - pricing boat
ramp access to the lake.
6. The LMCD shall use existing authority to regulate parking, hard cover and
sanitary facilities at any facility that requires a multiple dock license.
The LMCD traditionally has used this authority at most marinas. The
practice should now be extended to any facility requesting a multiple• dock
license. Attention should be focused on any component of the site plan
that has the potential to impact the water quality, lakeshore aesthetics,
and lake use. From a functional standpoint, homeowner associations are
marinas operated for the convenience of a special public and not fjr
profit. Yacht Clubs function as marinas, but are not for profit.
Apartments have group docks that differ little from some of the smaller
profit- making marinas on the lake.
All of multiple dock facilities hive one important factor in corrunon: they
generate the same concentrated impacts to the lake as a co:-mercial marina.
It is inconsistent that on -shore facilities at marinas should be subjected
to LMCD review, but multiple dock on -shore facilities not.
7. The LMCD shall develop regulations for multiple docks that establish
specific criteria for determining the dock use area under high, nor:-,e and
low water conditions.
The purpos of "his objective is to establish criteria thai: pezmit tt:e
optimlm use of the lake's surface. pr regulations of tr. I'MCD
encourage lateral expansion of marinas (where allc ed by local .,...icipal 0
30
zoning) by application of its special density allowance (one for ten
rule). The alternative approach is to trade lateral expansion for
extension into the lake.
Therefore, a regulatory plan for multiple docks shall be developed that
considers high, normal and low water levels. The plan shall include:
1) criteria for determining whether lateral or lakeward expansion
are preferred,
2) the limits for dock adjustment under high water conditions, and
3) the limits for dock adjustment under low water conditions.
This study should be incorporated into the comprehensive zoning ordinance
for the lake.
8. Buffer zones and use regulations shall be reviewed from time to time to
maintain protection of lakeshore residents, lakeshore developments, and
certain users.
The width of the buffer zone may need to be changed in order to assure use
of the lake by the widest and most general population, both summer and
winter. The buffer zone provides for personal security while on the lake
and also protects lakeshore residents from high -speed vehicles and exposure
to noise.
Improved enforcement of rules and regulations establishing the buffer zones
is essential. This is especially true as recreational use increases, and
as the density of boats (summer) and motor vehicles (winter) increases.
Further protection may be required to protect visitors participating in low
impact uses, such as:
Summer Winter
canoeing cross - country skiing
paddle boating ice skating
fishing hiking /walking for pleasure
9. Speed limits and quiet water areas on the lake, summer and winter,
shall be reviewed from time to time.
These are two management techniques that have been used by the LMCD to
reduce conflicts and to provide an enjoyable recreational experience for
the broadest spectrum of users. Utilization of these techniques shall
continue. As appropriate, controls shall be imposed lakewide or on
specific bays, lakes and arms.
10. The LMCD shall work to optimize use of all public lands for winter
access to the lake for all user groups.
The purpose is to utilize all p ;blic lands for winter access to the maximum
possible extent and to produce a map of winter access for use by the
general public. This means that fire lanes, road ends, parks and other
public property should be open to at least some winter access consistent
with municipal goals. The reason for utilizinq all public lards is to
offer every opportunity for minimizing trespass on private property and to
31
enhance law enforcement activities. The advantages of these steps are:
1. Minimizing trespass as a problem for lakeshore residents. •
2. Maximizing convenience to legitimate users of the lake.
Implementation shall be by the LMCD, each local community, Hennepin County
and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Implementation would
involve:
1. Verification of data contained in the inventory of recreational
facilities prepared as part of this Management Program.
2. Meetings with each organization to identify allowable accesses for
each type of user group.
3. Assistance in needed ordinance changes, if any.
4. Preparation of maps and brochures for public distribution.
11. Improve regulation of ice houses.
Improved regulation is necessary for the control of litter that accumulates
on the lake in the winter and to support other regulatory programs on the
lake. Fundamental to a regulatory program is providing regulators with the
information necessary to enforcement agencies. That is not the case with
ice houses on Lake Minnetonka. Too high a percentage of ice houses on the
lake do not fully comply with identification regulations of the DNR. The
DNR and Water Patrol shall maintain a continuing effort to improve
compliance with ice house licensing and marking. The enforcement officers
will then use existing regulatory authority to assure litter is removed
from the ice surface o. i regular and timely basis.
Should these efforts fail for the LMCD, then there are three steps to
implementation:
1. Obtain agreement from the DNR to implement a record keeping
program that meets the needs of regulatory or enforcement
agencies.
2. Obtain the authority from the DNR to issue ice house licenses for
Lake Minnetonka.
3. Implement LMCD permitting authority for a separate permit for ice
houses on the lake.
Should item one not be achieved, then step two will be implemented. Should
that fail, then step three.
Regulators shall also consider requiring that a trash container be kept
inside each ice house.
•
32
III. USER EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION
PERSPECTIVE
Enhancing user experience and satisfaction on the lake is more than protecting
personal safety. Minimizing personal. injury and property damage, responding to
drowning and investigation of property losses does provide the base of the
public safety program. But protecting the recreational experience is also
important. Density of boats on the lake will increase. As that happens,
additional law enforcement presence will be required to maintain the current
level of user satisfaction with their boating experience.
Ultimately, it is expected that cond ;tions will require the LM,D to
exercise its authority to form a separate Lake Minnetonka law enforcement
agency. Currently, law enforcement on the lake is provided by the Hennepin
County Sheriff's Water Patrol. For now, the Water Patrol concentrates its
resources on basic protection of public safety; enforcement of ordinances
aimed at maintaining comfort and enjoyment appears to be a lower priority.
There are three major goals to protect user experience and satisfaction:
1) continue and enhance basic public safety;
2) enforce all ordinances and rules, including those aimed at public
comfort and enjoyment; and
3) facilitate coordination and cooperation between law enforcement
departments active on the lake and the lakeshore.
During the winter emphasis is on better control of litter.
One part of the ensuing program is aimed at increasing the number of patrol
hours on the lake. Resource managers express two major concerns in this
important area of recreational resource management.
The first concern is that there is a separation between the primary
legislative body for the lake (LMCD) and the aw enforcement agency (Water
Patrol). Budget for the Wat� " 01. is ult'.,iately funded by the
Department of Natural Resou�ct . ^lie Hennepin County Board.
DNR accounts for roughly 40 pet, .a th-. County for 60 percent of the
$350,000 law enforcement budget.
Thus, law enforcement on the lake depends on four separate public bodies
each maintaining their commitment. The LMCD enacts ordinances to be
enforced. The Water Patrol determines the level of enforcement for the
lake. The Hennepin County Board determines the amount of local Water
Patrol funding in view of internal Sneriff Department priorities and
county -wide priorities. The DNR ultimately determines the formula for
distributing boating safety funds to individual counties throughout the
state. The result is that four public bodies affect the level of Water
Patrol activity on the lake. This Management Program seeks to provide more
local c.ontrel and to assure optimum funding for this lake.
The second concern is that there will be increased competition for the
patrol hours within Hennepin County. The Sheriff's Eater Patrol is
responsible for providing for user safety on all recreational water bodies
in the co!uity. .n the future, it is 'ikely that more water bodies will
0 33
demand patrol time. Additionally, other water bodies, especially the
Mississippi River, will likely need more patrol hours than currently
received. Resource managers on Lake Minnetonka believe significant new
funds are needed to avoid a decrease in patrol hours on the lake and,
indeed, to provide for more patrol hours.
Accordingly, this Management Program calls for the LMCD to directly
contract with the Sheriff's Water Patrol for patrol hours over and above
the basic protection now provided. The mechanism for this is a broader and
more stable tax base for the LMCD and a new interagency agreement with the
Water Patrol. This gives the LMCD more control over enforcement of its
ordinances, and therefore, more control over the quality of the
recreational experience.
Public safety needs special attention because:
1) at peak hours an average of 1500 active boats generate conflicts
and at times unsafe conditi,,as, and
2) as growth continues there has to be a corresponding increase in
patrol hours.
It is important to understand that more enforcement need not mean more
citations or more arrests. The goal of public safety on the lake is to
provide a safe and enjoyable recreational experience. Deterring violations
r .st important. So the emphasis is on maintaining existing patrol hours
and enforcement priorities, and then increasing general visibility, e.g.,
the mere presences of patrol boats on the lake.
AUTHORITY
The responsibility for enforcement of rules and regulations, by statute, lies
with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Hennepin County Sheriff jointly. The LMCD
has authority by virtue of Chapter 907 of the laws of 1967 as amended. This
responsibility includes traditional water surface law enforcement as well as
regulating liquor licenses on charter boats operating on the lake. In addition,
the LMCD enabling legislation gives the District "operation, maintenance and
police" authority over all lands used for access to the lake unless individual
municipalities specifically reserved their local prerogative.
The LMCD has never had its own police department. Instead, the LMCD has
contracted for services with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol.
^n interagency agreement gives the Hennepin County Sheriff authority over
at part of Carver County in Smithtown Bay. The Hennepin and Carver
k.ounity Sheriff's Patrol Division also has enforcement authority over
adjacent upland areas around the shore of the lake.
The DNR also actively enforces rules and regulations on the lake.
Conservation officers are licensed peace officers in Minnesota and have
full authority to enforce state and local rules and regulations. Three
officers are assigned to southwestern Hennepin County. T wo of these have
assigned areas that include Lake Minnetonka and smaller nearby lakes. The
third officer dogs riot regularly patrol Lake Minnetonka, but does assist
porior'ically. Additionally, as with the Water Patrol, grant money has
IN
provided opportunity to supplement normal patrols in 1988 and 1989 with
officers working overtime on weekends.
The result is that the DNR provides approximately 36 hours of patrol each
weekend, between Friday and Sunday, during the summer. These patrols are
important for two reasons. First is quality; the patrols are conducted by
licensed, professional peace officers. Second, the DNR persona A are
likely to be on the lake during early morning hours if fishing regulations
are being enforced. That is a time when the Water Patrol is not as active
as later in the day.
In addition to the Hennepin County Sheriff, there are nine other
organizations that can enforce certain laws, ordinances or regulations.
These include:
Suburban Hennepin Reg,)nai Park District - upland areas within
regional parks under their jurisdiction
Local public safety departments include:
Carver County Sheriff - City of Victoria
Deephaven- Woodland - Cities of Deephaven and Woodland
Minnetonka - City of Minnetonka
Minnetrista - City of Minnetrista
Mound - City of Mound
Orono - Cities of Orono, Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park
South Lale - Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka
Bay
Wayzata - City of Wayzata
These departments may enforce local ordinances but do not have 1 -he
authority to enforce I-MCD rules and regulations on the lake. The Suburban
Hennepin Park District rangers have authority only on those lands
administered by the Park District.
In addition to these organizations, there is another state agency that has
;.he potential of affecting law enforcement on the lake and its shoreline.
The Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training licenses peace officers,
part time peace officers and constables employed in Minnesota. In any
effort for the LMCD to form its own law enforcement body, the P.O.S.T.
Board will be involved.
BACKGROUND
Data on user attitudes towards law enforcement on the lake and its shorelines
were collected through a series of surveys conducted during the summer of 1988
and the winter of 1988 -1989. Surveys conducted on boater groups include boaters
that enter the lake through:
1. public access points,
2. marinas and homeowner associations, and
3. private lakeshore residences.
Overall, orita from surveys indicate that users have a positive attitudes
toward thf courtesy and performance of the Water Patrol. The users feel
that- the 'Water Patrol is doing a good joh, but the users express the desire
for mort. patrol hours. To have more patrol hours requires additional
35
Users were asked about unsafe situations encountered during their last
boating trip on the lake. More Lhan 50 percent of the boaters identified
the following as having occurred:
high wakes,
alcohol abuse by boat operator,
failure to yield the right -of -way,
excessive speed, and
near miss /collision.
Other data from the summer surveys indicate:
1. Approximately one half of the access and shoreline resident
respondents feel that observance of the rules of the road is
lacking.
2. Approximately 70 percent of the marina -based respondents felt the
rules were not being observed.
;. The Water Patrol is perceived to be doing an adequate ,job, but
users believe that they are limited by staffing and equipment.
4. In all three groups, less than 40 percent (27.3 residents and 37.0
marina) have completed a boating safety course.
6. At the same time, 86.0 to 87.5 percent of the boaters in all three
classes were satisfied or very satisfied with their last trip.
Basically, the situation is as expected for a heavily used lake. More than
one -half of all boaters in each class are encoun "eying high wakes, alcohol
abuse, right -of -way problems, exce-sive speed, and near misses /collisions
during their trips. Such situations do not always adversely affect some
boaters enjoyment of the lake. Boaters on Lake Minnetonka expect to
encounter problems when they go on the lake.
Further, boi. ers on the lake feel that there are enough rules, but those
rules need to be better enforced. i.re major issues facing management of
Lake Minnetonka with respect to user experience and satisfaction is finding
a mechanism to increase patrol hours and determining Lhe number of patrols
that are needed during paak hours.
Winter surveys were conducted between December, 1988 and April, 1989. In
general, the pattern of responses parallels the findings of summer
attitudes. Three g roups were surveyed: lakeshore residents, residents not
on the lakeshore but within approximately 1/4 mile, and persons with ice
house licenses. Effective response rates were above 65 percent an., below
,A percent.
The overall level of enforcement was considered as deficient by 32.2 and
23.2 percent of the respondents with residents the highest and ice anglers
the lowest. Focusing on the components of enforcement, alcohol abuse, then
vehicle noise and the nighttime speed limit were perceived to be the major
problems. Again, the number of patrols is perceived as too low by between
45.6 and 36.1 percent of the respondents. The staff is considered too low
by between 1 ".0 and 29.1 percent of the users surveyed and the level of
equipment i_, considered to be loo low by betwee- 27.2 and 16.0 percent.
This pattern of respnnse is similar to those for summer use.
While out or, the la�:e, tho primary problem encountered is litter. Between
15.4 and 54.9 percei)t of ti F, respordents feel that the litter problem
primarily arises fr-ill per-,ons engaged in ice fishing. Ice fishing and
36
snou"obiling is believed to be jointly responsible for the litter problem
by between 92.4 and 78.0 percent of the respondents.
Unl:he summer, only between 9.1 and 4.0 percent of the respondents indicate
that the number of u-isafe incidents exceeded expectations. Similarly,
between 88.5 and 68.7 percent of the respondents were satisfied with their
last visit.
CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM SURVEYS
Data available from surveys conducted in the summer of 1988 and the winter
of 1989 reveal a consistent pattern of attitudes. The major conclusions
that may be drawn from these data include:
1. The level of enforcement needs to be increased on the lake.
2. The staff of the Water Patrol needs to be increased.
3. The number of patrol boats available for use on the lake needs to
be incr ,_ -�d.
4. Emphasi :.ould be placed on enforcement of existing rules and
regulations instead of imposing new rules and regulations.
5. More parking is needed at access points on the lake.
6. Increased boating safety education is needed among the user groups
on the lake.
7. Improved signage at and near access points should be considered.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
1. Managing entities shall work with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol
for a consistent and stable state and county funding procedure.
The Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol budget fluctuates from year to
year, often because of changing state funding procedures. To use financial
resources most effectively, . .rding sources need to be more stable than
they have in the past. More stable and consistent procedures allows
long -term planning which directly affects personnel assignments.
2. The level of staff and the number of patrol boats on Lake Minnetonka
shall be ti d to boat density.
As boat density increases on La'-,e Minnetonka, the number of patrol hours on
the lake need to increase. An important purpose of the additional patrols
is to maintair the quality of the recreational experience on the lake.
Ultimately, the goal is for 24 -hour coverage seven days per week. But in
the sl3rt term, the goal is to provide 24 -hour coverage for four days per
week for the 17 week period generally between May 15 and September 15. The
days would include Fridays, Saturda- and Sundays, with the fourth either
'rhursday or Monday, dependirlE upor the Water Patrol's judgement and
experience.
'File purpose of the increased patrols is to increase:
1) genezal visibility on the lake,
2) enforcement of ordinances aimed at public comfort and enjovn: r,Y, ar:i
3) proactive enforcement.
31
The LMCD shall contract with the Sheriff's Water P ^trol for the additional
patrol hours. Funding shall be the property tax levy discussed under
"tianagement Struc ". Implementation of the 24 -hour coverage on four
days per week and the additional 3000 patrol hours shall be prior to the
lake reaching a density of 7.0 (usable) acres per boat. After that, the
LMCD and the Sheriff's Department shall jointly determine the rate at which
patrol hours increase as density increases.
Specific duty assignments for the additional patrols must remain with the
Water Patrol command. However, LMCD shall discuss priorities of
enforcement with the Sheriff's Department annually et the tii..e of
contracting.
3. The LMCD shill take a leadership role in a county -wide boating
educatioi► program. The purpose is to provide a forum for coordination and
intensification of boating education in Hennepin County.
Data indicate that less than 35 percent of the respondents to
questionnaires during summer 1988 sur-eys have completed a boating safety
course. At the same time, additional survey data in::cate that observance
of rules -of- the -road is lacking. Emphasis on enforcement needs to be only
one part of a program to enhance compliance with safe boating practices.
Boating safety programs are presently encouraged by the Power Squadron,
sailing clubs and the DNR.
The percent of Lake Minnetonka boaters completing a boating education
course is in line with the average for the metropolitan region and the
southern tart of the state. Only the northern part of tae state :gas a
lower average. However, in view of the density of boats, th• percentagc of
boaters desiring more enforcement and the complaints that boaters do not
know the rules of the road, improved boater education would alleviate some
problems on the lake.
The objective requires a m,'ti- pronged approach whic'i includes:
1. Meeting with organizations with common int .esta to establish
priorities and ?rogram design.
2. Expand distribution of educational materials around the lake.
3. Assistance in development of ir,f - 3rmational programs.
4. Expansion of participation in boating aduc.,tion courses.
Organizations to involve include:
DNR Division of Water Safety
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District
Hennepin County
Power Squadron
Sailing clubs
Coast Guard Auxiliary
Minneapolis Park District /Other park districts
Co--,,unity education /service programs of school districts
4. The LMCD shall work with the Hennepin County court system to require
persons convicted of major infractions and repeac oftenders to complete ,,
boating safety course.
38
For this to work, the following must be available prior to contact with the
Chief .Tudge:
1. Regularly scheduled course!;
2. Courses with a mixture of voluntary and compulsory attendance
3. A shorter versicn of the course than the traditional power
squadron offering
Presently, boating safety courses are available manly certain times of the
year; they are typically not offered during the summer when most
infractions occur.
5. Responsible agencies shall improve noise enforcement on the lake.
Noise is an often - mentioned problem for boaters and winter users on Lake
Minnetonka. Based on survey responses, suggestions at public meetings, and
personal observations the following is the minimum that should be
implemented for noise reduction:
1. The Water F:.'rol shall provide the latest technology for noise
measurement in each patrol boat on Lake Minnetonka. This includes
having trained staff on each patrol. Similar provision should be
made for winter as appropriate for winter equipment and cold
weather operation.
2. The LMCD should revise their present ordinance to impose a 71
decibel limit aiter 11 pm and before 7:00 am summer aad winter.
3. Work with `he Hennepin County Chief judge to obtain increased
fines along with a doubling of the firs for noise violations at
night.
•
6. The use of personal watercraft, hovercraft and similar devises shall be
limited by ordinance.
arsonal watercraft shall be limited to the same hours of operation as
waterskiing. Restriction of other devises shall he determined by the LMCD.
The I:4CD shall work with industry trade groups, the DN'R, Water Patrol and
other interested organizations to encourage, education, self re,;ulation and
solutions to other proble,ns associated with the use of these types of
craft.
7. Responsible agencie- shall improve coordination of special events on
the lake.
The I:1CD shall sponsor semi- annual meetings to coordinate special events on
the lake. The puror;e of the meeting is to resolve problems that have
arisen or may arn.,e from scheduling such events. Participants at the
meeting should be
I M("D
Water .'atroI
Suln) ' Iik'11 i i_11
IndividII, +1 Pul Safcty Df'p,irtm� lit ;
(AppIicai�t; notifit I .ii,�i at tc-r( inE,)
3'�
8. The LMCD, the Sheriff's Hater Patrol and other involved Public Safety
Departments shall hold semi - annual meetings to discuss priorities for
enforcement of summer and winter rules on the lake.
Twice each year, the LMCD shall host a meeting of law enforcement agencies
to establish to enforcement priorities for the coming season. The meeting
should address:
1. Past problems and proposed solutions
2. Priority for proactive enforcement activities
3. Allocation of resources to Lake Minnetonka
4. Coordination and communication between the LMCD, Water Patrol and
local Public Safety Departments
S. Improvement of reporting between law enforcement agencies active
on and around the lake
6. Mai Ii� lists for notification of special events and other issues
9. The LMCD �zh;il work with the Hennepin County Sheriff, the Water Patrol
and local Public Safety Departments to assure direct communication using
the latest technology available to the various department .
Presently, the radio frequency used by the Water Patrol is for the
exclusive use of the Water Patrol and the narcotics division; local law
enforcement organizations do not have access to the frequency. That
presents a significant barrier to communications and coordination of
activities. The problem is difficult and will not be easily solved since
all frequencies have been assigned. But technological changes are
occurring anO will continue. As these changes are implemented locally, all
law enforcement departments shall work to assure the most direct and
efficient communication possible.
•
40
IV. SHORELAND PROTECTION
PERSPECTIVE
Lake Minnetonka is particularly affected by the actions of 14 lakeshore
communities, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) in controlling development and redevelopment within
their jurisdictions. To protect the lake, controls need to be imposed beyond
the shoreline and riparian parcels of land. Accordingly, this part of the
Long -Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka presents guidelines for
controlling development, redevelopment and land uses within 1,000 feet of the
lake (shorelands).
The LMCD does not now have, nor does it seek, authority over land use
decisions in the 14 cities. Instead, it seeks improved coordination and
communication with the cities and the Watershed District to assure
protection of the environmental quality of the lake.
The overall strat gy utilizes a two - pronged approach to minimizing the
adverse effects of development. The first prong is to use the existing DNR
shoreland management program as the basis for developing a consistent model
ordinance to be adopted and enforced by the 14 municipalities. The second
part is to use the 509 Plan being developed by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) needs
to provide an oversight review to assure that individual communities
enforce the Shorpland Management Standards and Criteria (Appendix C) and
the requirements contained in the 509 Plan.
t This approach does not alter the traditional jurisdictions and powers of
local government on the lake. Instead, it depends on intergovernmental
agreements and long -term cooperation to achieve the stated goals and
objectives. That requires greater commitment by the LMCD in order to
assure that all involved organizations consistently act in the greater
public good and sometimes transcend more limited local interest.
Accordingly, protection of the lake from the adverse effects of development
and redevelopment requires a strong working partnership between managing
entities and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District because the District
does not seek expanded authority above elevation 929.4 (Ordinary High
Water). Appendix C contains Standards and Criteria for municipal
ordinances and Watershed District regulations controlling shoreland
development in the 14 communities. The purpose of the Shoreland Management
Standards and Criteria is to protect:
1) the lake from pollution,
2) the natural environment of the lake and the commutil ti(s,
3) the local tax base,
4) aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake surface,
5) public health, and
") public safety.
The btandards and Criteria are designed to be the
D irtment of Natural Resource's "' io - eland Program as well as
t;, Watershed District:'s Re6111- ition>,
0 41
Management Areas
Shoreland Management concerns three inter- related areas: 1) controlling
development and redevelopment within 1,000 feet of the lake; 2) protection of
upland areas from development and redevelopment induced by use of the lake; and
3) management of public recreation facilities on the lake. Therefore, this part
of the Long -Term Management Program views shoreland areas from both the lake and
from the land.
It is essential to protect the lake and upland areas from adverse effects
largely arising from the popularity and the quality of the natural
resources of Lake Minnetonka. The use of the lake generates pressure for
development as well as the development of on -shore attractions that affect
water use patterns. Only some of these are bars, restaurants, bait shops,
marinas and other water- oriented facilities. Public recreation facilities,
including regionally attractive and neighborhood parks, vistas, lookouts,
fishing piers, picnic areas and swimming beaches, present another set of
problems to be minimized.
Shoreland Protection is closely related to both Environmental Protection
and Recreational Management Programs. Wetland and Water Quality management
objectives provide further restrictions on development along the shoreline
and in the upper basin. Recreation Management focuses on recreational use
of the lake and the shoreline.
AUTHORITY
The LMCD seeks no new authority over land use decisions in the shoreland
cities. Implementation of the Comprehensive Management Plan depends upon a
partnership and coordination between local, regional and state agencies. No
single agency is positioned to implement a unilateral shoreland protection
program for Lake Minnetonka. Local authority is divided between 14 riparian
communities. The LMCD has extensive authority over the lake surface, but very
limited authority over shorelands. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(Watershed District) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
have extensive authority, but both heavily rely on local implementation and
enforcement of their shoreland regulatory programs. Because of the political and
fiscal realities of budget and staffing, these two agencies tend more to
establish policy, standards and criteria; implementation and enforcement
customarily relies on local efferts. The Metropolitan Council is little
involved in the day -to -day implementation of these regulatory programs.
The authority for protecting the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka may be
shared between local, regional and state government, but it is the local
unit teat must enforce controls. For Lake Minnetonka, implementation must
be through a new partnership forged with involved agencies and through more
consistent. dialogue. This means that the LMCD is dependent on outside
agencies to implement development and redevelopment controls essential to
maintain the quality of the lake's recreational experience, to protect
upper basin wetlands, and to maximize water quality in the lake.
•
42
PLANNING CONTEXT
The Shoreland Protection Plan evolved from three concurrent forces:
1) development of the management plan for Lake Minnetonka;
2) revision of the DNR shoreland management regulations; and;
3) preparation of the 509 Plan by the Watershed District.
These three processes, arising from independent authorities and independent
setting of priorities, culminated in coordinated and cooperative local
response to state regulatory programs.
To varying degrees, each of the 14 lakeshore communities on the lake have
dedicated time, effort and resources to developing, implementing and
enforcing programs that affect the lake. The intent of this Shoreland
Protection Plan is to protect the integrity of those programs where
warranted, enhance them when possible, and to attain consistency when
appropriate. The result is a set of rules that are subject to DNR,
Watershed District and Metropolitan Council review, but that are
specifically tailored to protect the lake while reflecting the historical
development patterns on the lake.
Lake Minnetonka is a resource that merits protection. Future regulatory
programs need to assure that the development and redevelopment that occurs
on the lake in the next 25 years is environmentally, socially and
managerially acceptable. To date, management of the lake's resources has
not been comprehensive and has not been by consensus. The result has been
ad hoc compromise and dispute, sometimes pitting local interests against
regional or state agencies.
a The challenge facing the communities on Lake Minnetonka is to use the
state- mandated shorelano management program to implement the more
acceptable alternative Standards and Criteria that are contained in this
plan. These Standards and Criteria are established to assure optimum
protection for the lake, its shoreline, shorelands, and its resources.
Reservations were expressed by some communities that these Standards and
Criteria managed shorelands to the "lowest common denominator" on the
lake. But that is not what has been done. Instead, this part of the
program concentrates on raising standards without creating non- conforming
lots within certain cities. The compromise adopted was that used by other
cities on the lake with smaller than average lot sizes. Specifically, the
standards set a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. At least one
lakeshore community is presently developed at 6,000 square feet with some
undeve oped lands still zoned at 6,000 square feet lot areas. By allowing
flexibility to decrease lot size by up to 40 percent (60 percent of the
st,111(lard), these smaller lots fall into compliance.
This tr,;cie -off is allowed under the DNR regulations when areas falling
below tho DNR minimum standards aye offset by areas that are more
rep ; rrictive. The Management Program offers the opportunity for one
com.:r on the lake to be developed at smaller lot sizes as long as
community has more restrictive standards. Thus, the agreements
not. encourage smaller lots, but the agreements c:o allow them to
centir 1 to be used within a more restricted regulatory framework.
0 43
To protect cities that are more restrictive, the Standards and Criteria
include statements that encourage cities to be even more restrictive. In
order to achieve the goals set through the subcormittee deliberations, it
is imperative that some municipalities remain more restrictive.
Recreational use of the lake creites additional concerns for shoreland
protection. Such use create pressures for on -shore developments within
shorelands. Businesses and certain residential , ses are attracted to the
shoreline both because of the quality of the lake's resources and because
of the large boating population on summer weekends.
If Lake Minnetonka is to serve expander: regional demand for water - orient
recreation, the best place to do so is on its shoreline. During peak u.;
hours there is an average of one best for every 8 acres of usable water on
a summer weekend day. However, the busiest day recorder'. •i the lake. had
2256 active boats during peak hours which is one boat fo every 6.2 acres
of water. That is significantly greater than the other regional water
resources in the metropolitan, area; the Lower St. Croix River has an
average of 15 acres of water per boat.
It is logical, the., to examine increased use of its shoreline to meet the
expanding regional demand for water- oriented recreation. Regional
opportunities Zor picnicking and swimming are presently limiter; on the.
lake. Development of the lake shore is largely limited to neighhorhaori
parks and the Excelsior Commons. Picnicking and swimming opportunities have
been developed largely to serve resident neighborhoods. Only the Excelsior
Commr.ns has the capacity to serve a significant regional population.
LONG -TERM SHORELAND PROTECTION 0
The uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely affects aesthetics, both from the
shore and from the lake. U.,contrclled use also adversely affects the public
1 safety, and general welfare by contributing to pollution of Lake
Minnetonka. Very significantly, uncontrolled development adversely affects the
natural environment of the lake and community and impairs the local tax base.
In furtherance of the policies dec' r: in Minnesota Statute;, chapt:rs 105,
115, 116, 394, 396 and 462, and Mi.....sota Rules, sections 6120.2500 to
6120.3900, minimum standards and criteria are estahlished for the standivision,
use and d ,2velopment of the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka. The standards and
zriteria are intended to preserve and enhance the quA ity of surface water: ;;
preserve and enhance aesthetics for shoreland resi.lents and tiers of the: water
surface; conserve the economic arui na? errvir •na, n ?:al ..!lrac of shorelands;
and pro%ide for the wise use of water" and related `:arid rrsu,irces of th, lal�r.
The intent of the cities, agencir and organizatio :. involved in tier.
development of the Mariagement Plan for Lake Minnetu;;ka 's to encour,;f� an�i
enhance efforts by local government with jurisdiction uvie *r lan -i u:• arA
zoning to control development and rer'evelopmelit of the shorelands of L..�
Minnetonka. Coals and objectives as well as the Stanriardr; a A Criteria
contained in this Snoreland Yrotectior, Mall tll.at
management issues are to be interpreted a rninir���..� u.- iarr:� ;. ':�,thir;, in
these standards and criteria shall he c�.:r, ;t.r 1 :,,, i'l -hihil ia.r or
•
discouraging a local government from adapting and enforcing controls that
are more restrictive. Individual municipalities a.r3 encouraged to develop
more restrictive standards, rules and regulations in order to afford even
greater protection of traditional uses, environmental quality and
socioeconomic values.
The LMCD has a legislatively- mandated responsibility for public
water - oriented shoreline recreational opportunities on the lake. It is
long been the policy of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to foster
cooperation and facilitate coordination for better located and developed
on -shore recreational opportunities. The LMCD's interest includes:
1. each shoreline recreational facility in its entirety.
2. the inclusion, siting and number of recreational and ancillary
facilities in auch parks to protect aesthetic, natural, and
recreational values of the lake and its shoreline.
3. reducing conflicts that exist between shoreline users and boaters
on the lake.
4. encouraging and supporting county and regional funding for
acquisition, operation and maintenance of regionally attractive
shoreline recreational facilities.
5. optimizing shoreline use to better balance the demand for boat
access and the demand for shoreline recreational opportunities.
6. utilize appropriate on -shore facilities as destinatioriz for
boaters to decrease the density of moving boats on the lake during
peak periods.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has legislative authority over
r shoreline use and over shoreline public lands. The stated LMCD policy
includes encouraging management of local parks locally and regionally
attractive parks _egionally. Both the cities and regional agencies have
direct interests that need to be considered when additional parks are
developed on the lake.
Encouragement of transient facilities on the shoreline for boaters provides
destinations for boaters ghat removes their boats from the lake
temporarily, partic.,larly during peak hours. Each boat beached, moored or
docked during the day is one less contributing to the density and conflicts
characteristic of peak periods.
Further, the location, size and number of on -shore facilities slich as
fishing piers, transient docks, swimming beaches and other facilities
affect the LMCD's traditional authority by potentially:
a) affecting the water quality of the lake,
b) impacting shoreline and lake aesthetics, natural and recreation; value,
c) creating conflicts between other traditional uses, and
d) enhancing traditional uses of the lake by the general public rind
pri•,ate residents alike.
An example is shoreline fishing at narrow channels where there are
conflicts between fishing and boating. There is also a direct link between
p-iblic ownership of shorelands and boating patterns. Where large parcels
are in public ownership, are available to the boating public, and where
physical features are favorable, rafting and beaching are important
activities.
0 45
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
1. Managing entities shall facilitate, encourage and enhance local government
efforts to adopt shoreland management rules and regulations that meet the
standards and criteria that are rnncained in Appendix C.
During development of the plan, participating organizations arrived at the
conclusion that management of the shoreline was essential to protection of
the lake. In light of the flexibility provision A(7) of the revised DNR
shoreline management regulations (Minnesota Rules, Ch. 6120), the LMCD
shall take a more active role in assuring consistent regulation of
development and redevelopment of the shoreline. To do this, the LMCD shall
actively encourage the adoption of the more restrictive Standards and
Criteria in Appendix C by the 14 lakeshore communities as well as promoting
acceptance of such ordinances by the DNR and the Metropolitan Council.
The LMCD shall contact each city that actively undertakes land use planning
for development to determine if the District may participate as an
interested party. The District shall also meet with the Metropolitan
Council to establish procedures to allow the District to comment on the
plans and amendments as they are submitted to affected jurisdictions and
the Metropolitan Council during plan review process provided by the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
2. To reduce the aesthetic impact of high -rise development, the LMCD shall
encourage governing councils of nearby communities to exhibit restraint in
approving variances and conditional use permits for buildings that will be
visible from the lake's surface and shoreline.
Aesthetics directly impact both the shoreline resident and users of the
lake surface. Accordingly, the Minimum Standards and Criteria set maximum
building heights for the shoreland. But, it is not practical to attempt
direct regulation of structure heights beyond the shorelands given the
suburban nature of the lake and the fact that structure height in
non - lakeshore communities, e.g., Plymouth, have the potential to affect
aesthetics on and near the lake. Instead, the LMCD shall influence
case -by -case proposals through negotiation. 11 :is can be done directly with
the developers, the cities involved as well as with the Metropolitan
Council.
3. The 1,MCD shall develop the staff and procedures to review and comment
on the following variance applications in all fourteen communities:
a) building height variances anywhere in lakeshore communities, and
b) all variances for riparian parcels on Lake Minnetonka.
The participating oi felt that the LMCD should take an active
role in assuring that lakeshore communities consistently enforced the
shoreland regulations adopted tinder the Standards and Criteria with respect
to structure height. Since variances are the mechanism that developers use
to exceed structure limits, the LMCU shall develop agreements with local
communities to review variance applications. The LMCD shall notify the
city of its position on the variance. Thereafter, the city shall notify
the UMCD of the decision of its Plan Commission and its Council. In order
to implement this process, the LMCD needs the staff and capability to
r ++pidly respond to stick applications.
46
4. The Litt.: shall. take an active role in the development of plans for any
public shoreline recreational facility that is potentially of regional
• significance.
The LMCD has broad legislative authority over public lands on the lake.
That authority includes operation, maintenance and policing of lands used
for access to the lake. That authority shall be used to cooperate with
implementing agencies to assure the interests of all users of Lake
Minnetonka considered during the plan process as well as during
operations. _urther, the LMCD shall facilitate cooperation and ccordinate
involvement between regional agencies and local communities while
maintaining its role as advocate for the resource.
As plans are evolved for future parks of regional attraction, the LMCD
shall be involved from the beginning in decisions ahout facilities provided
and their location. The basis for this involvement is their considerable
authority over such facilities.
5. The 1ACD shall maintain its policy of not owning or operating shoreline
recreational facilities but shall continue to foster cooperation and
facilitate coordination for better located and developed on -shore
recreational opportunities.
Presently, municipalities, Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
District and the Department of Natur?1 Resources actively manage public
lands on the lake. There does not appear to be reason for LMCD to
undertake responsibility in this area. LMCD resources shall be allocated
more toward its traditional areas of operation.
6. The goal for parking at boat access points shall be to provide
sufficient formal parking in the vicinity of major access points which
utilizes remote parking facilities, facilitates handicapped access, and
minimizes on- street parking, lake frontage, water quality effects,
aesthetic intrusions and miaimizes effect on local and neighborhood traffic
flow.
Large parking areas adjacent to the lake are inappropriate since they are
counter to objectives developed to protect wetlands, water quality and
intense development on the lakeshore. The hardcover limitation of 25
percent of the lot area all but preclude continuing the existing practice
of building access point parking immediately adjacent to the lake. Under
the water quality, wetland protection and shoreland management: objectives;,
such parking areas shall be removed from the likeshore as Opp 'tunity
arises. New parking areas shall be subject to the shoreland nt,
water quality and wetland protections afforded in this Long ',er:, :igr,cent
Program.
On- strt .et parking causes cenl;estion on city and county streets, disrupt;
neiFhber;:oods interferes with traffic flow and inconvenie,,crs u;Ors of
access points. A bettt:•r arranl;e,rent is to use re:cot:e parkin,'„ witl,
!,i,io tic : as re,luired. 1'1e level of eaistirig shorelinr: develc,ii:r t.t p�
ditt i It tr�o!e -offs; of parkins; lots displace; exis' inr,
47
traditional uses. new parking areas are developed, an operating Flan
shall be develope 0401 includes the conditions under which the ramp
and /or parking Tuts inoy be closed.
While these factors present difficulties to implementing a solution to the
parking situation, the bes' course is to manage boat access more like the
National Park Service. Pu parking lots must be blocked off when full,
and then to let one vehicle in for each that leaves. Another needed
control is to rigidly enforce parking regulations through citation and
fine. These examples provide guidance for developing an optimum parking
arrangement for Lake Minnetonka.
Operation, maintenance and law enforcement responsibility for shoreline
r,ighborhood parks shall remain with the owning municipality.
Shore -based recreation represents an important, but sometimes overlooked,
part of the summer use of Lake Minnetonka. On the lake at the present time
there are at least two types of recreation areas. Most- of the parks on the
lake are small and are designed to serve local neighborhoods. Their size
and parking availability preclude them from being regional attractions or
from serving a large population base. The second type attr'Ict visitors
from outside of the local community. Noerenberg Park and the Excelsior
Commons are examples.
8. Water- oriented shoreline recreational facilities serving, a regional
population shall have regional funding.
Presently there are plans for developing a regional park in Minnetrista
wito significant public lands on Big, Wa »ratasso, and Wild Goose Chase
Islands. Present LMCD policy is to encourage development of additional
intermediate or regional , Funding of parks serving a county -wide or
regional population shall be at Cho regional level.
Basically, this is consistent with existing policy in the seven county
metrop,ilitan area. Throuf.li the Metropolitan Council's Parks and Open Spac
program an extensive set of. regional parks gave been developed that are
under the management of col_inty recreation agencies. This objective is
consistent with existini rerionil practice.
9. ManaLiny, entities shall. support enhancement of shoreline recreational
opportunities serving the regional population.
"Phis is cc li lit with I;i!;U stated p;,licy and reprf sent; no ch:. from
the preso� -. ine 191 pol states that such area,; area needed only one
or two locations on th" lake. The uobe'r of ret;ion:il par't nt.eded on Llie
lake is not specifii•d; th intent is to le,t fu I e .,t Idic s dt•terr,!int• the
r.umher anei si:'e of p:irl_r
GiVe'II the prestI:t P 'itl; for a paI "k 121 Mi ri "I n(i tire! (xi';te c,e Uf
Iarge public: prire:els on B i f, I,la2i(I , it is now preferable to foot, re,rn_irc «•;
an effort on cuilsolid.ition and devcIopr;enI in these arf After existing
<< 9
plans are implemented, further demand studies can est „`>lish the need for
further acquisitions and construction.
It is logical to adopt a position enhancing shoreline recreational use.
Use of the shoreline to develop attractive destinations to boaters could
increase rafting/beaching on the lake. Any increase in rafting/beaching
temporarily removes boats from the open lake, thereby decreasing the
potential for conflicts. Coupling new rafting opportunities with expanded
access decreases the net contribution of active boats on the lake.
Proper development of shoreline recreation opportunities for boaters, as
well as for the non - boating public, can enhance the boating experience on
the lake. Presently, every significant public area suitable for 3:ting or
beaching is heavily used by boaters during peak hours. Developmer_: of more
of these areas would temporarily remove additional boats from the open
lake. That decreases the density of moving boats and reduces the potential
for conflicts.
10. Managing entities shall. encourage further public development and
appropriate acquisition on Big Island.
Present use of Big Island could be improved if there is additionL'
acquisition and development. It is preferable to develop the future park
to serve a regional population with regional management and funding. Big
Island represents the largest block of public lands and the resource shall
be developed to its optimum extent.
in The Board of Governors for the Veteran's Camp on the island remain
concerned Orat this management objective could be interprete- to mean that
ownership of that camp should pass to another public agency. That is not
the intent. Instead, the managing entities shall share common resources
and services as appropriate and work together to maximize use of their
respective areas. Ownership and management shall continu to emphasize the
greatest public good.
11. Managing entities shall encourage coordinated development, management,
policing and regional funding of all lands of regional attraction on the
lake.
F,ffectively, this means that the proposed park in Minnetrista, Wild Co,,se
Chase I Wawatasso Island, Big Island, Noerenberg Park, the Hennepin
County ,al Railroad Authority right-of-way and future acquisitions
shall b., olidated into a single cohesive recreation resource with
unified aii-t coordinated management. Funding shall be given priority to
assure timely implementation.
1 2. A plan for fishing access shall be developed for the lake using,
fishing piers and provision for formal parking areas.
Fishing, c,111 be enhanced on the lake and conflicts with boating reducc
40 throui;h the construr tion of fishing piers on the lake. Fishing piers cin
49
be positioned so that the activity is relocated away from the shoreline at
narrow channels to adjacent parts of the open lake. This maintains
traditicnal uses in essentially the same location while improving the
recreational experience of both groups. 0
The State of Minnesota has a program which funds construcri.on of fishing
piers on public property. The LMCD shall work with Henne},n County and
local municipalities to obtain these funds insofar as available.
Further, the L.MCD shall use its regulatory function for marina
modifications to include fishing piers as a high priority amenity where
appropriate and as local conditions and municipal regulation permit.
While _.uproving car /trailer parking, provision shall be included for shore
fishing utilizing a site design that minimL contact between anglers and
boats in the water. Buoys, surface use restrictions and other controls
minimize conflicts.
13. Managing entities shall encourage development of scenic lookouts
around the lake.
As lands are acquired for other purposes (parking, Big Island) or developed
(rail right -of -way), provision for parking and sightseeing shall be
included as a priority activity.
14. Transportation agencies shall continue to provide ring routes to
divert commuter and commercial traffic from shorelands and work to
incorporate recreational access to Lake Minnetonka in future public transit
alternatives.
Presently, Highway 15 carries considerable traffic through Spring Park,
Minnetonka Beach, Orono and Wayzata. Future highway construction that
offers attractive, rapid alternatives away from the lake shall continue to
be encouraged. This will become more important as development occurs west
of the lake.
Further, if the decision is made to serve western Hennepin County suburbs
with alternative public transit, recreational access to Lake Minnetonka
shall be considered. This includes use of public transportation as a means
of reaching the lake shore for day use, as well as combining rernote parking
and with public transportation to the lake shore.
15. The I14CD shall coordinate placement and servicing of adequate trash
containers at all summer and winter access points on the lake that are used
by vehicles.
Winter users of the lake strongly feel that litter is the primary problem.
In addition to increasing enforcement, users need an opportunity to
properly dispose of their garbage. Various institutional barriers preclr
garbage collection on the lake, so trash containers shall be provided at.
the shoreline at all appropriate access points on the lake. 0
50
V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PERSPECTIVE
The challenge facing resource managers protecting the natural environment in and
near Lake Minnetonka is to implement development controls that will inhibit the
inevitable decline in water quality and the functional values of wetlands,
Programs to protect the natural environment extends beyond the shorelands within
2,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka to include the entire upper drainage basin. Water
quality ;n Lake Minnetonka cannot be protected without aggressive implementation
of management programs that include wetland protection and development controls
in the watershed which drains into the lake.
Accordingly, the Minnehaha Creek W, and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) become particularly important agencies if the objectives
for environmental protection are to be realized. These agencies need to
carefully administer their regulatory programs any+. sometimes to modify
their regulations in order to provide the requisite level of protection.
Without that protection and mitigation, Lake Minnetonka water quality --
and with it the quality of the recreational experience -- will decline.
The management program for environmental protection is integrally related
to shoreland protection programs. Most of the Standards and Criteria for
t'.,e shoreland ordinances are needed in order to protect water quality,
aesthetics and the quality of the recreational experience. Without
adoption and consistent enforcement by all 14 lakeshore communities, these
wate quality and wetland protection objectives cannot be achieved.
Implementation depends on improved cooperation and coordination among all
managing entities, better intergovernmental relations, interagency
agreements and modi.'ied regulatory programs. The role of the LMCD must be
to improve its regulatory programs and to provide oversight for other
managing entities during administration of their programs. The LMCD role
requires expanded and new staff capabilities.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has been involved in
assuring envirorunental protection of the lake since its inception. After
its formation in 1967, the IMCD sponsored a series of committees to develop
recommendations for action in several important areas. It also
participated in the funding of the 1971 study entitled: "A Program for
Preserving the Quality of Lake Minnetonka ". This comprehensive study
reviewed all sources of water quality pollution to the lake. The study
concluded that existing mi_.nicipal wastewater treatment plants were the
major cause of declining water quality. It recommended that the plants be
phased out and the sewage discharge be routed away from the lake, This
goal v s fully realized by 1986 when the last wastewater plant within the
watershed was phased out.
Management Areas
Water Quality manalement objectives call for improved monitoring, maintaining
• recre,,tion and sport fishing, minimizing the effects of non -point source
51
pollution and septic system leachate, and minimizing the detrimental effects of
dredging and upland erosion. While the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
(LMCD) has authority in these areas, most of the objectives need to be
implemented outside the geographic jurisdiction of the Dis�rict. Implementation
of the water quality objectives rely on interagency agreements, modification of
agency objectives, improved enforcement, improved intergovernm ^ntal relat!ons,
and consistent cooperation and communication.
Wetlands protection, focuses on improved regulation both in the lake and in
the upper watershed. Protection, both above and bel -w the 929.4 contour,
is essential if water quality and fishery objectives are to be realized.
Identification and acquisition of the most important wetlands protects the
natural environment a:,d maintains the quality of the recreational
experience. Noxious aquatic and emergent weed control assures functional
values of the wetlands.
The fishery of Lake Minnetonka appears to be in satisfactory condition,
although monitoring data is insufficient to support that conclusion.
Fishery goals are focused on maintaining sustainable populations of native
fish, improving regulation of fishing tournaments on the lake, and improved
population monitoring. Additional information is needed on the effects of
aquatic weeds and weed harvesting on fish populations.
AUTHORITY
The enabling legislation of the L4CD (Chapter 907, Laws of 1967, as amended)
gives LMCD authority to manage laki water quality. Specifically, the District
has been granted the following powers related to water quality management:
• to undertake research to determine the condition and development of
the lake and the water entering it, and to transmit their studies to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other interested
authorities, and
• to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution;, and
• to receive financial assistance from and join in projects or enter
into contracts with federal and state agencies for the study and
treatment of pollution problems and demonstration programs related
to them.
Besides the LMCD, four other agencies have the. potential to affect writer
quality on the lake. The Minnehalha Creek Watershed District was founded at.
almost the same times as the IhiCD. The Watershed District has independent
taxing authority, power to implement projects and p-�wer to regulate the
entire watershed of the lake and creek. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency establishes water quality standards and performance of on -sit.e
sewage treatment systems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Minnesota Department of N..'ural Resources (DNR) have permit program; that
directly affect the water quality of the lake.
Regulation of wetlands below the 929.4 contour is implicit in the I.MCD's
authority to regulate use of the lake and its shoreline. But- the most
active agencies are the Watershed District, the DNR and the 14 local
communities. The LMCD's authority is limited to those areas be]-w the
929.4 contour. Accordingly, imple::entation of important parts , this
program must rely on action by other organizations. Is
52
Fisheries are largA y the purview of the DNR under Minnesota statutes. The
DNR has the responsibility to conserve and enha fish and wildlife in the
state. Further, Chapter 91A,045 directs the Commissioner of the DNR to
manage fish and wildlife to ensure recreational oppot for anglers
and hunters. The IMCD traditionally has not been active in fisheries
management; its regulatory efforts have focused on managing fishing
tournaments. The potential exists for the I.MC'.1 to take a more active role
in this area.
PLANNING CONTEXT
Eater Quality
Generally, the various bays of Lake Minnetonka have exhibited improved water
quality since the diversion of wastewater trea,�ment plant effluents out of the
watershed of the lake. Measurements demonstrate improved summer water quality
c - editions. The quality is now adequate to support most recreational uses of
the lake. Exceptions to =his are Halsted's Bay, Crystal Bay, Tanager Lake and
West Arm. The lack of improvement in these: bays is probably due to internal
phosphorus loadiig from lake sediments --nd high loadings from non -point sour ^e
pollution.
The major threat to the water quality of �Ihe lake is the development and
redevelopment of the watershed of the lake. Additional. phosphorus leading
appears unavoidable. Deten: i)n ponds can reduce, but will not eliminate,
this impact. Because of than, eventually, in -lake treatment methods may be
needed to maintain water quality for recreational purposes. Additionally,
lesser sour-es of phosphorus loading include excessive and improper use of
phosphorus fertilizers, disturbance of highly erodibi areas, filling of
wetland and poor agricultural practices i„ the basin.
The aquatic weed Eur -{ cian Waterinilfoil has become-, established in all parts
of Lake Minnetonka a: 1 represents a threat to traditional recreational use
patterns on the lake. The weed may also cause depletion of dissolve,i
oxygen in the lake during periods when the plants die and decompose.
Generally speaking, the institutional framework nece'.sary for efr ctive
water qu.rlity management exists, bur cu m -nt standard:: and critt-:r,r do not
afford sufficient protection fur the lake.
Wetlands
Many wetlands have been lost in the last few decades as the -result of
development. The shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and adjacent wetla:,,ls have
undergone intense development over the years. As pressure incre ses for
additional lake access and redevelopment of low density resident .I and
commercial districts, the pressure to alter wetland areas will al,o continue to
increase.
The dredging of channels in Lake Minnetonka for navigational access through
wetlands is an activity that may have significant impact on wetland
environments and their functional values. Accordingly, the U.S. Army Corps
53
of Engineers, DNR, the Watershed District and most of the lakeshore
communities have regulations or ordinances that control the use of wetlands
in and near Lake Minnetonka. The institutional framework necessary for
effective wetland protection exists, but enforcement and inspection of
construction activities is lacking.
The infestation of the exotic plant species, purple loosestrife, in
wetlands in the Lake Minnetonka area has the potential to adversely affect
the wildlife habitat value of the wetlands. The plant aggressively
displaces the native wetland vegetation required by wildlife, while having
no value for wildlife itself. Loosestrife has been declared a noxious weed
in Minnesota. It is the responsibility of landowners Lo eradicate the
plant on their land and the responsibility of the D14R to control the plant
in protected waters and wetlands. The most effective control program
involves the eradication of the plant before it becomes a dominant part of
the wetland ecosystem. The LMCD shall track ongoing research and the
potential for improved control methods.
: isheries
The primary objective of fisheries management is th,_ protection and enhancement
of fish habitat. This includes maintenance of good water quality, protection of
spawning and nursery areas, and provision of adequate cover for juvenile fish
and forage species. These activities are essential for self - sustaining
populations of fish in the lake.
Potential impacts on the fisheries of Lake Minnetonka are primarily related
to loss or degradation of fish habitat. Some of the potential threats to
fish habitat include:
— invasion of exotic plant species such as Eurasian watermilfoil
- filling or alteration of wetlands or the lake
- development and redevelopment of lake shoreline
- degradation of water quality
- dredging and channelization
- invasion of exotic plant species such as Eurasian watermilfoil
- excessive control of aquatic vegetation
Regulatory programs have been implemented that protect fish habitat either
directly or indirectly. These programs include-
municipal shorelind protection ordinances
- Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit program
- DNR protected waters permits
- DNR aquatic nuisance control permits
- Watershed District permit programs.
In addition, the DNR protects a few designated bass spawning areas for the
purpose of obtaining fish stock for other lakes in the state.
Lake Minnetonka provides the most productive fishing in the seven country
metropolitan area. The lake is rated as the finest bass lake in
Minnesota. the diversity of aquatic habitat in the lake supports an
abundanc of fish species. More major bass tournaments are coed:_rcted on
the lake than on any other lake in Minnesota. The exceptional quality of
the lake and its proxinitf to the Minii- apolis -St. Paul rnetropolit.;n area
makes it imperative that the lako he m.inaged in such a rnanner as to protect
54
and enhance the fishing resources.
For Lake Minnetonka, the DNR has been the primary agency responsible for
monitoring and managing the fisheries in Lake Minnetonka. Staff and budget
limitations of the DNR have not allowed a full fish monitoring program.
Fish populations are monitored only indirectly through the present
fisheries survey program. Creel census data to determine harvest rates are
particularly needed. The limited availability of fisheries data for Lake
Minnetonka is a serious problem.
LONG -TER.M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRA."t
The uncontrolled use of shorelands, wetlands and fish resources adversely
affects the natural environment of the lake and community; adversely affects the
public health, safety and general welfare by contributing to pollution of Lake
Minnetonka; adversely affects aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake;
and impairs the local tax base. The Natural Environmental Protection Plan is
intended to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters; preserve and
enhance aesthetics for shoreland residents and users of the water surface;
conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands; and
provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the lake.
Therefore, the IMCD shall use its regulatory authority, to the fullest
extent allowed by law, to:
a) mitigate, to the fullest possible extent, the degradation of the
chemical and physical water quality of Lake Minnetonka and its
tributaries.
b) regulate the use of wetlands of Lake Minnetonka, especially in
connection with navigational access to the lake.
c) protect and manage wetlands within the OHW elevation contour of
Lake Minnetonka for preservation of their functional values,
including water quality enhancement, flood control, aesthetics, and
wildlife habitat protection.
d) promote a policy of protection and management of wetlands within
the watershed of Lake Minnetonka, yet outside the 929.4 contour at
least for water quality protection and flood control since these
functions directly benefit the lake.
e) encourage a more comprehensive wetland management program in those
communities now having minimal protection.
f) encourage projects and programs by responsible agencies to maintain
and restore the ability of wetlands to provide water quality
improvement, flood control, wildlife habitat and aesthetic
enjoyment.
g) encourage programs to control the infestation of exotic plant
species in the lake and in wetlan(ls.
h) encourage a scientific approach to wetland management for water
quality benefits thro�igh appropriate sedimentation and detention
practices.
i) ar;sist the Dt:N, fisheries management program by aiding in local
regulation of lake u,e and haabitat protection.
j) serve as an ad:•oc,a' for the lake resoi.arce during formulation of
fisheri --s pror,r.v ,.
5 `i
In other aspects, PCA and Watershed District should remain the lead
agencies for water quality; the DNR and Watershed District should retain
the lead for managemenr and protection of wetlands in the upper basin; and .
the DNR should continue the lead in managing fisheries on the lake.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
1. Ensure that a comprehensive water quality monitoring program capable of
diagnosing problems is conducted for Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is currently the only government
v agency that conducts routine annual water quality monitoring of Lake
Minnetonka. Other agencies, including PCA, DNR, and the Metropolitan
Council have occasionally monitored Lake Minnetonka water quality. The
scope of the Watershed District's monitoring efforts is severely limited by
financial constraints. Currently, only six bays of the lake and seven
tributary streams are sampled on a semi- annual basis. Analyses are limited
to only basic limnological parameters.
The I.MCD shall encourage all responsible agencies, particularly the
Watershed District, to expand the scope of their current water quality
monitoring activities to collect data that are diagnostic of lake water
quality problems. The expanded water quality monitoring program allows
understanding the interacting physical, chemical and biological processes
which control lake water quality. Such a program documents whether water
qualit) problems, including blooms of potentially toxic algae, are
developing in Lake Minnetonka. The water quality monitoring of Lake
Minnetonka and its tributaries shall be overseen by a committee comprised
of water quality experts and interested individuals from cooperating
governmental agencies including, but not limited to, the LMCD, DNR, PCA,
Metropolitan Council, Suburban Hennepin Parks, Watershed District, and
Interested lakeshore communities. The LMCD shall convene the committee.
2. Maintain or restore the water quality of Lake Minnetonka to allow
continued use of the lake for primary contact recreation and bass -pan
sportfishing.
As a preliminary goal, a mean summer total phosphorus concentration of 54
ug /l will he set. except in Halsted's Bay, Tanager Lake, and West Arm.
The LMCD shall work through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to
reduce the levels of phosphorus in the outflows from several small lakes
previously impacted b •,astewater treatment plant effluents. Internal
phosphorus loads derived from the sediments of Langdon Lake, French Lake,
Tanager Lake, and Peavey Lake are significant s.: of phosphorus
reaching Luke Minnetonka. The Watershed District plans to address these
problems shall be supported by other managing entities.
•
56
3. Minimize the impacts of non -point pollution on the quality of Lake
Minnetonka and its tributaries, by controlling urban and agricultural
stormwater runoff and erosion, and other appropriate management practices.
The LMCD shall )rk with the Watershed District and the Board of Water and
Soil Resources to require that the following occur:
a. Constituent communities shall adopt the stormwater management
provisions of the new Shureland Rules.
b. Manage stormwater runoff according to the regional detention basin
concept recommended by the U.S. EPA Nationawide Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) .
C. Oil -site or regional detention of stormwater runoff shall also be
required for developments in any land use category, regardless of
impervious surface area, if its stormwater runoff would otherwise
be discharged directly to a lake or to a stream discharging to the
lake without passing through an intervening wetland or properly
sized regional stormwater detention basin capable of improving
stormwater runoff quality. Wherever possible, stormwater
dc:tentio., basins, both regional and on -site, should be constructed
to NURP guidelines.
d. Impervious surface coverage of lots should not exceed 25 percent
of the lot area without an approvad stormwater management plan.
Where detention ponds can•iot be constructed according to NURP
design guidelines because of spatial constraints imposed by the
site, smaller ponds in series may be used instead to control
runoff water quality, provided they perform at least as well as a
NURP pond.
e. Performance of stormwater detention ponds shall be estimated
according to the algorithm contained in PONDNET ('talker, 1989) or
other comparable model.
f. Permit requirements for each constructed detention pond should
include a Maintenance Plan and provisions for access to perform
mairitenance.
Thew i`emms should be incorporated into the Section 509 Water Management
Plan of ehe watershed District as requirements for modification of local
ordin.—..:.,s under Minnesota Statutes 473.878, Subd. 4(g). The LMCD shall
t , * ition the Witershe.d District that it modify its Rule B to specify these
criteria, and that these requirements be applied to the entire Lake
Minnetutika watershed, not just shorelands.
The IMCD shall also encourage the Carver Soil and Water Conservation
District riiid the Hennepin Conservation District to identify critical
non -point solircrs of pollution from agricultural land within the Lake
Minnetunl; i 4,i', orShed. The LMCD shall support the adoption of best
management py ,;crices by area farmers.
1 :_ Minimize th- impacts of fertilizers and pesticides contained in
watershed ruli(,ff on the quality of Izke Minnetonka.
Lakeshore ;.;l i< shall adopt restrictions on the use of fertilizers
and b; t},. SI;,)rcland Management Regulations of the DNR. The
LMCD shall ,r rl t1 ;;e communities to adopt comprehensive lawn
51
fertilizer ordinances and to provi0e adeg staf foc c:rtrol of both
commercial applicators and hom.ec,wners.
Shoreland Ordinances shall incorporate re; :irt: ;rents that bare ground areas
be vegetated. and that vegetative matter not be Vlaced on ir,- .pervious
surfaces or In natural drainageways s_ -ice it x-, tl urha:l good
housekeeping is a significant. factor in determining phosphorus exhort from
the watershed. They I-tCD shall work with he. Waters :red District and
constituent commun'. ties to enforce these . ._ -e rec ;n( t:irouc,hout the
Lake Minnetonka Watershed.
5. Minimize the pollutants reac'Ing Iake Minnetonka and its tributaries
-.ia septic tank leachatc and re. fuer. from past treatment practices.
The Shoreland Ordina tes adopted by Lhe individual cities shall include the
requirements of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080, concerning individual sewage
treatment standards. These standards are consistent with the sewage
treatment provisions of the riew Shoreland Management Regulations of the DKR
and the Shoreland Man.igemenr Standards ar.i Criteria contained in Appendix C.
6. Protect ret living water qual it, from the detrim,.-rit,.l effects of serious
erosl.on, either during ar after construction of residential and commercial
developments, and t-) e,isure that runoff from the developed site is of good
quality.
Erosion and sedimentation. cor.tr:)l plans, ,'-Feting the criteria established
by thi Board of Water and Soil Resources, shall. be required on all
levelopments in the watershed. The lokeshore communities shall require
that stormwater runoff= he managed acccrdin� to mar.ag<ment uojective 3,
above. The maximuir imp_ coverage shall be limlLed to 25 percent of
the area.
7. Reduce the spread of noxious aquatic weeds, including Eurasian
watermilfoil., and to mrinaye effectively the water quality problems their
presence in Iake Mfnnetc,nka creates.
The 1:1:;D shall contliiue to wore cooperatively with other resource
man.,t ement al. en ies to control the spread of Eurasian warermi l foil
other nox _ous aquat w -eds .
8. Minimize the ',dv(-rse water quality impacts of dredging activities on
the qual of public waters:.
The 1,4(:D sh ; :l l cn: � rest, Rule F, of the Watershed D�.: trict. The IMCD shall
then enac,. its; :n wt ordinance in order to assure minimal disruption
of tl,r';e ial rc winces.
The `"1CI), nil i with t',; 1 "NR Iii isior, of Waters and the Minnehaha Creek
Watersht. 1 U ;�. it t, 'il drafting; an interagr policy rcsolut.i(jn to
et ;t : +hli.,ii un .:a t;.tvi ior.al ,.' access criteria for L :it.e
58
Minnetonka. A draft policy has been developed and will be discussed
further with the agencies. Opportunities for public input are also being
is planned.
9. Imr -ove protection of wetlands lying within the 929.4 contour of Lake
Minnc nka through regulation.
The LMCD shall undertake a detailed inventory of wetlands below 929.4 .,n
Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD shall. then enact a wetlands ordinance which
restricts the amount of dredging that may be conducted. included sho be
a no- net -16ss policy. A further purpose of the ordinance is to preserve
wetland values. To ensure inspection and enforcement of dredging and
filling regulations governing activities within the lake, the LMCD shall
encourage funding of adequate staff for inspection of permits issued by the
DNic or the Watershed District. Should outside funding not be available,
the LMCD shall fund such inspection and enforcement activities.
Vie LMCD shall amend its regulatory programs to recognize that docks
constructed across wetlands may have vi, adverse impact on the functional
and aesthetic values of wetlands.
In addition to its own ordinance, the LMCD shall encourage other managing
entities to adopt a no- net -loss wetland policy that makes provision for
variances for public purposes.
10. Encourage improvement and uniformity rf protection of wetlands above
the 929.4 contour through regulation.
The LMCD shall encourage all lakeshore and upper basin communities to
formulate or amend their wetland ordinances as needed to include minimum
performance standards, a comprehensive wetland definition and map, and
provisions for mitigation of wetland degraded. The DNR Area Hydrologist
should be consulted in development of the wetland ordinances.
The Watersh -d District shall be encouraged to amend its rules to include
the protection of Type 2, 6, 7, and 8 wetlands. In addition, the Watershed
District shall be encouraged to map these wetlands and other wetland
protected by the District nr to adopt the Nation:.l Wetland Inventory Maps.
11. Encourage protection of wetlands above the 929.4 contour through
acquisition.
The LMCD shall encourage the riparian cities of the lake to use grant
programs or other means to ensure the perpetual protection of wetlands
through acquisition. Further, once regional funding is forthcoming, the
LMCD shall consider establishing; a fund s by tax base revenues for
wetland acquistion and in addition to other existing funding sources.
•
NJ
12. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality improvement, flood
control, wildlife habitat and aesthetics.
The MCD shall encourage the Lakeshore communities and the Watershed
District to install and maintain improvements to protect wetlands from
in- filling by sediment and to promote nutrient removal. In addition, the
MCD shall encourage the lakeshore communities and the Watershed District
to adopt or amend ordinances that promote wildlife habitat values of
wetlands by minimizing removal of vegetation and establishment of buffer
areas.
The UMCD shall encourage the control and reduction of purple loosestrife
and other noxious weeds in wetlands.
13. Identify and protect fish habitat for the purpose of maintaining
sustainable populations of native fish in the lake.
The first step need is to identify critical habitat areas for designated
targe'. fish species (e.g., largemouth bass, northern pike and bluegill).
The study should use accepted standard techniques for such detailed
studies. This informiation should be compiled on a map delineating critical
habitat at a scale of at lea-- ::2400. Ordinances shall be adopted by the
MCL) that protect the critic habitat from disruption.
14. Improve monitoring .ish populations and fish harvest rates.
Montoring fish populations allows diagnoses of imbalances in fish
populations and determinaLion of whether fish are being over - harvested.
Accepted standard techniques shall be used for the study.
Organizers of bass, walleye and muskellunge tournaments in the lake shall
report the lengths and weight of individual fish caught during at least one
tournament per year with greater than 100 participants.
15. Improve local regulation of fishing tournaments for the purpose of
reducing mortality of fish caught and to minimize the impact of increasing
fishing pressure on the resource and other users.
All tournaments for bass, walleye, and muskellunge shall be catch and
release, with the exception of hooking mortalities and a limited number of
"trophy" fish per tournament. Participants in bass, walleye and
muskellunge tournament shall be subject to rules governing transportation
of fish, weigh -in procedures, and evaluation procedures prior to release.
At the time the permit is issued, regulators sha]' consider individual and
cumulative effects on the resource, ot.ier users and landowners.
60 0
16. Obtain additional information on the impacts of exotic plant species
on fish populations and the impact of aquatic vegetation harvesting on fish
populations.
The LMCD shall encourage involved agencies and organizations to determine
the effect of an extensive weed harvesting program on fish population, as
well as determining the effect of the vegetation infestation on the
fisheries. If necessary, an educational program should be implemented that
would instruct anglers on effective fishing t , chniques in and around dense
mats of aquatic vegetation.
• 61
i
VI. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Perspect've
The management program forges a new working partnership between the
municipalities, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin
Regional Park L - strict, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, and the
DNR. An important role of the LMCD ;gill be to keep that partnership
functioning and to maintain consenLu- with respect to management priorities
and programs.
This management structure builds on strengths and does not create a new
layer of government with the concomitant bureaucracy. An essential
function of the LMCD, beyond its regulatory programs, is to assist other
agencies to achieve the resources to implement their programs. The LMCD
does this by being the foremost advocate for the lake, not by direct
funding. In this way, traditional authorities and programs are maintained
and enhanced when warranted.
In the late 1970s, regional and state agencies shifted their priorities to
place more emphasis on public access to the lake. That change in
priorities, without concomitant modification of intergovernmental
relations, institutional arrangements and funding contributed to a decline
in communication, cooperation and understanding between managing entities.
Locally - oriented organizations also contributed to the decline in
relationships by failing to perceive the significance of the regional and
state policy changes.
the Metropolitan Council Task Force on Lake Minnetonka stressed the
importance of changes in funding for the LMCD. Specifically, it called for
making the LMCD funding completely independent of the municipal budgets.
Management Areas
The Long -Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka calls for the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other managing entities to
alter their management postures. In the past, managing entities,
particularly the LMCD, have been active in regulation and reactive in
enforcement. This Management Program requires active regulation, active
management and calls for the LMCD to be a strong advocate for Lake
Minnetonka programs. That requires additional funding, with a modest
increase in staff. The future role for the LMCD is as much to advocate,
support, and coordinate the programs of other active agencies as it is to
initiate new management programs.
Funding is to fall on the user to the fullest extent allowable.
Legislative action will be sought to shift even more of these costs.
Existing means of funding LMCD activities are to continue, but the taxes
levied are to be independent of local levy limits and approvals. Added to
that, the area of the tax district shall be increased to encompass all of
Hennepin County. In that way, all households benefiting from lake use and
lake programs will bear their fair share of the costs. The regional
• 63
nature of the lake resource and its regional use requires a more equitable
tax base.
In the process of developing the future management structure for Lake
Minnetonka, the original decision that established regional lake management
was reviewed. It was agreed that the LMCD should continue to exist in
order to achieve coordinated management. Division of powers, communication
networks, mechanisms for coordination and cooperation were then reviewed
and delineated where necessary.
An analysis of exist g statutes leads to the conclusion that the
legislature does not intend for lake management to be conducted by one
single implementing agency. The statutes grant various units of government
powers to impl ^ment lake management programs. The laws also provide for a
variety of coordination and consistency mechanisms. Consequently, neither
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Metropolitan Council, nor
individual municipalities have exclusive control over lake and lakeshore
development. Proper management of Lake Minnetonka depends on a working
partnership between:
LMCD,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Metropolitan Council,
Hennepin County,
Hennepin Conservation. District
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District,
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and
Individual municipalities.
And these organizations offer much to the lake. The DNR and N.etropolitan
council have regulatory programs, review authority, funding mechanisms, and
technical expertise of direct benefit. The Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
District is well suited to manage and develop regional recreational
facilities. Hennepin County Department of Transportation has long been
maintaining navigational aids on the lake. The Hennepin County Sheriff has
developed a V ne Water Patrol. The municipalities and the Watershed
District have authorities and control programs of great benefit to the
lake. But, individually, these programs are not enough.
AUT40RITY
A detailed discussion of authority is contained in Appendix A. The
discussion that follows focuses on funding -- the most important aspect for
this part of the Management Program.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
The LMCD was established under the Laws of 1967, Chapter 907 as a:rended by
Laws of 1969, Chapter 272. Section 4 of that act states:
"...the expenses of the district shall be borne by the municipalities.
the portion of the expenses of the district borne by each municipality
shall be in proportion to its assessed valuation; provided, no
municipality shall bear more than 20 percent of the total expense, and •
such portion sha:l not be less than $200 per year."
64
Section 5 provides for the budgeting process. Included in that section is
the following provision:
The municipalities may each levy a tax not to exceed one mill on the
taxable property located therein, to provide said funds. Said levy
shall be within all other limitations provided by law."
Lake Improvement Districts
The Minnesota Lake Improvement Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 378.405
ff.) provides for the formation of lake improvement districts wit)-.In one or
more counties of the state. Established by the County Board(s) or the
Co. :loner of the DNR, the district has powers nearly identical to the
LM( 1cwever, financing the district's activities is quite different from
tha the LMCD.
Chapter 378.52 provides that financing may use any of the following
methods. singly or in combination:
"(1.- assess the costs of the projects upon benefited property within
the district in the manner provided under chapter 429•
(2, impose a service charge on the users of lake improvement district
services within the district;
(3) issue obligations as provided in section 429.091;
(4) levy an ad valorem tax solely on property within the lake
improvement district, to be appropriated and expended solely on
projects of special benefit to the district; or
(5) may impose or issue any combination of service charges, special
assessments, obligations, and taxes."
Subd. 2 excludes these taxes "...from statutory limitations on the amount
of taxes levied and does not affect the amount or rate of taxes that may be
levied for other county purposes." The budgeting process is controlled by
the County Board, which controls the membership of the board of directors
(Subd. 3).
Comparison
The LMCD legislation (1967 as amended) predates that of a county lake
improvement district (1973 as amended). Examination of the two sets of
authorities leads one to the conclusion that the IMCD legislation was used
as the model for the later county district. The legislature used a very
different mewls of funding lake improvement districts from that used for
the LMCL 1.. development of the Comprehensive Management Plan for Lake
Minneton, an opportune time to update LMCD funding. Without altering
the fundii , available to the District, the Long -Term Management Program for
Lake Minnetonka cannot be implemented.
MANAGEMENT STRUC -URE PROGRAM
PERSPECTIVE
A primary objective of the Management Program is to determine the framework
for implementation. But without a change in the way the IMCD is funded,
this program cannot be implemented. When funding changes, so shall the
membership of the U4CD Board. Change in the working relationships between
65
organizations is imperative. Whether accurate or not, local organizations
often feel regional and state authorities act unilaterally, are sometimes
arbitrary, and too often leave local interests out of the decision - making
process. Agencies with regional and ;tate -wide legislative mandates Is
sometimes feel that decisions too often reflect local interests at the
expense of the greater regional good. This program provides the framework
that establishes and maintains meaningful dialogue and communication. To
the extent that this component of the program succeeds, the development of
the Management Program will be a turning point in relationships between the
managing entities.
But t`.e close relationship between the LMCD, the cities and the Watershed
District must remain and be enhanced. This Management Program relies on
the individual cities and the Watershed District to adopt, enforce and
otherwise implement major components of the environmental and shoreland
management programs on the lake. The water quality, wetland, and aesthetic
protections needed for Lake Minnetonka fall under the joint jurisdiction of
the individual cities and the Watershed District. The LMCD has little
authority in this area and seeks no new regulatory authority. This Program
calls for an improved working relationship between the cities, the
Watershed District and the LMCD.
Changes in priorities by state and regional agencies in the late 1970s,
coupled with the failure of local managing organizations to adjust to the
demands for greater regional access to the lake created a period of decline
in intergovernmental relations among managing entities on the lake.
Managing entities on Lake Minnetonka face increasing demands for access to
the lake in the next 25 years. The demands imposed by providing greater
public access, development of the remaining open spaces around the lake,
and redevelopment pressures on the remainder of the shoreline, require
greater expenditure of public funds for management programs.
Management of Lake Minnetonka as a regional recreation resource requires
additional regional funding. Unless both the level and source of funding
is changed, then access, public safety, environmental protection, shoreland
management, and use management objectives presented in this program cannot
be met. Growth of boating cannot be permitted without a higher level of
ordinance enforcement. Existing funding of the Hennepin County Sheriff's
Water Patrol may be sufficient to meet today's use levels, but expanded
patrols will be needed if this Management Program is to succeed.
Further, changes in state and regional priorities for access to Lake
Minnetonka have strained intergovernmental relations between managing
entities. That stress cannot be relieved without fundamental changes in
both the level and source of funding for management activities. Those
changes will have to be made by the State Legislature with the active
support of the regional and state agencies.
A much broader tax base is appropriate for Lake Minnetonka. The lake is
truly a regional recreation resource that serves a regional population in
the context used by the Metropolitan Council, the seven counties, and
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District for their regional park and open
space prcgrams.
66
Lake Minnetonka attracts boaters from the seven county metropolitan area.
Just like the regional parks in the seven county metropolitan area, most
users come from the immediately adjacent cities and counties. Table 9
provides data on visitor origin to Lake Minnetonka.
These data indicate that more than ninet percent of the users come
from Hennepin County, based on the best available data on visitor origin.
At the same time, approximately 61 percent of the users during the summer
come from the 14 lakeshore communities.
Thus, approximately 40 percent of the summer users of Lake Minnetonka
reside outside of the municipal funding source of the LMCD. Since most
programs of the LMCD are geared to protect the recreational resource and to
keep it available to "all citizens of the state" more of the funding for
the lake needs to be allocated over a greater geographic area. It is most
equitable that all property in Hennepin and Carver Counties :)e subject to
an extremely small tax to pay for the cost of operations on this lake.
TABLE 9
Computation
of Visitor Origin
by Type
of Access
Lake
Minnetonka
Marinas and
Yacht
Clubs
Access
Ramps
Resident
Total
Boats
Point of Origin
Boats
Percent
Boats
Percent
Boats
Boats
Percent
Lakeshore Cities*
160
34.30
84
24.39
643
887
61.05
Second Tier Cities
169
36.10
66
19.20
0
234
16.10
Other Hennepin Co.
120
25.70
120
36.16
0
244
16.79
Total Hennepin Co.
423
90.53
262
76.47
643
1324
91.40
Other Seven County
17
3.60
54
15.74
0
71
4.89
Other Minnesota
1
.30
14
3.98
0
15
1.03
Adjacent States
0
-
2
.52
0
2
.14
Total
Boats Allocated 467 100.0 343 100.0 643 1453 100.0
* Includes boats from the City of Victoria in Carver County,
Source: Surveys conducted on Lake Minnetonka between 1984 and 1989.
FUTURE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING
Implementation of this Management Program is particularly dependent upon a close
relationship between the IMCD, the 14 lakeshore cities, and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. Without a close, working partnership the environmental ar.o
shoreland protection goals cannot be achieved. The cities and the Watershed
District more than all other managing entities control day -to -day enforcement
67
and implementation of regulatory controls over development and shoreland
redevelopment.
Proposals to alter the 114CD Board and the method by which it is iunded need to
assure continuation of those essential relationships. The LMCD has little
authority in the area of shoreland and wetland protection above the 929.4
contour. It is only through understanding, cooperation and communication that
Lake Minnetonka will be protected from the adverse effects of development.
For these re—ns, as well as the information presented earlier in this chapter,
future funding of the LMCD shall be as follows:
1. User fees shall be used to maximum possible extent. This means
continuing present programs assessing fees on users. The user fee system should
be expanded to include a Lake Minnetonka boat sticker (license) for each boat
operated on the lake. If that is not possible, then authority for a regional
license should be sought. But the Lake Minnetonka sticker is the preferred
alternative.
2. The LMCD shall aggressively seek grants from regional, state and
Federal agencies to fund their programs.
3. The existing tax levy should be continued, but it should be outside of
the cities' tax limitations. Presently, the legislation authorizes a 1 mill
levy, of which the LMCD has been utilizing only about .5 or .6 mill.
4, The tax district should be based on visitor origin, so that all
households that benefit from lace programs contribute to their operation costs.
This means that the area of the levy should be expanded so that revenues are
split according to a formula based on visitor origin. Present visitor origin
data indicated that approximately 60 percent of the revenues should be generated
in the 14 lakeshore communities. Hennepin County households, exclusive of these
14 communities, should contribute the other 40 percent.
The exact split could be determined by an interagency committee composed of
the LMCD, Metropolitan Council and the Department of Natural Resources, using
visitor origin data derived from a jointly conducted survey of boaters. The
split in revenues shall be reviewed from time to tine by these agencies, with
the levy adjusted (after public hearing) to reflect changes in user patterns.
Carver County, because it abuts a portion of the southwestern bays of the
lake, should be included in the area covered by the tax levy. However, the
political battles that are likely to result from such a proposal do not seem to
justify its inclusion. The additional revenues are too low; the political costs
are too high.
Given this funding mechanism, which requires approval by the State Legislature,
the LMCD Board membership should be adjusted. Board membership should follow
funding decisions:
1. As long as the 14 cities remain the sole source of tax revenues, the
LMCD Board should remain as presently constituted.
2. When regional funds are provided, either by a Lake Minnetonka user fee,
a regional boat license, or expansion of the area covered by the tax levy, then
the State Legislature should add four new members. These members should be
68
appointee: by the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County., Suburban Hennepin
Regional Park District, and Minnelhaha Creek Watershed District. The new LMCD
Directors from these four bodies shall be:
a. appointed, and
b. citizen volunteers comparable to those now serving on the present
LMCD Board,
In addition, they shall not be:
a. elected public officials, or
b. paid staff.
It is prudent to continue to trust lake management to the same type of
interestec: citizens that have served for more Char, twenty years. While there
has been controversy and dispute over access to the lake, those problems are not
related to the type of Director that has served on the LMCD Board. It is
advantageous to continue this tradition on the LMCD Board.
Participants in developing the Management Program rejected direct election of
the LMCD Board for two basic reasons. First, when the LMCD was formed the State
Legislature did not create a body that reported to their constituents, but
created a board that would look after regional interests and approach problems
from a regional perspectiv For more than 20 years voting records of
individual board members have not traditionally been subjected to review by
voters in the 14 communities. Changes in board membership most often reflected
changes in administrations or in director willingness to serve. Appointment of
directors to the I.MCD Board continues a process that hae worked well throughout
its history.
In addition, appointment assures the LMCD Board remains close to the 14 cities
Ig that control so much of the shoreland and environmental protection programs for
the lake. Without consistent and extensive cooperation by the 14 cities, the
watershed district and the LMCD, the environmental goals will not be realized.
This dependence on outside bodies for implementation of essential protections
outweighs arguments for a broader distribution of coun'_y and regional seats on
the Board.
FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OBJECTIVES
1. The LMCD shall maintain its existing authority, augmented as specified in
other parts of the plan.
The LMCD is the agency capable of devoting the greatest focus and attention
to problems and issues arising from use of the lake and its shoreline.
Other organizations either have larger or smaller geographic areas of
concern that dilute their focus on the entire lake. The future role of the
LMCD shall be to serve as an advocate for lake programs in addition to its
regulatory functions.
2. The I14CD shall be funded by a combination of user fees, new user fees,
the existing tax levy, and an expanded levy district.
When funding is inadequate, attention focuses on the highest priorities. For
lakes and for state agencies, that means individual lakes may not receive the
level of attention the agency would like. Instead, programs are established to
69
protect lakes generally; protection of individuals requites other regional or
local agency action.
That is the situation on Lake Minnetonka. The DNR, PCA and Watershed M
District have various programs, but lack the funds or s aff to alwirys give
special consideration to this lake. For dredging that means spot checks of
permitted operations, responding to specific complaints and targeting
problem areas or contractors. Not ali dredging operations are monitored.
For water quality it means that there is not an adequate sampling program.
Water quality sampling is left to the Wa�ershed District or another local
agency since the PCA does not receive sufficient funds for such programs
and monitoring lakes is not a high priority for the available funds.
The local agencies have been no better funded. The Watershed District does
not conduc- a waver quality monitoring program that provides the requisite
data for modeling or for determining the long term trend in quality. The
District does not maintain a staff, instead it relies on outside
consultants.
Funding for District regulatory activities shall be by:
1. continue user fees to maximum extent allowed by law,
2. obtain legislative approval for a Lake Minnetonka boat sticker
(license) for each boat operated on the lake ar. alternatively, another
innovative funding source,
3. aggressively seek ,rants from regional, state and Federal agencies,
4. the existing tax l but it shall be outside of the cities' tax
limitations, and
S. expand the area covered by the levy to include all of Hennepin
County outside of the 14 lakeshore communities.
User fees have long been an important source of revenue for lake programs. Such
fees shall continue and new fees imposed that are consistent with state law.
But these usei fees are not enough. Imposition of a new license, in the form of
a boat sticker, to use Lake Minnetonka enjoys widespread local support. The DNR
objects to such a license which is now barred by statute. New methods are
needed to fund more of the programs called for in this management plan. If a
boat sticker is not acceptable, then alternative in.tovative, reliable,
consistent funding programs shall be identified. The DNR and the LMCD will need
to work closely to develop the best legislative proposal.
Certain programs for the lake (usually related to research) may be funded by
regional, state or federal grants. Accordingly, the LMCD shall establish
procedures 'o locate, apply for and obtain as many grants as possible.
Both the previous Task Forces on Lake Minnetonka . that the existing
tax levy be made independent of local levy limits. Accordingly, when the
legislative package is prepared to implement components of this Managerngnt
Program, one part will be to place the existing levy outside of local
limitations.
The expanded tax district shall be based on visitor origin, using a formula
developed and approved by the LMCD, Metropolitan Council and the DNR. Jointly
funded studies can be designed to provide accurate data for the split. The
70
split in revenues shall be reviewrd from time to time by these agencies, with
the levy adjusted (after public hearing) to reflect changes in user patterns.
Present visitor origin data indicated that approximately 60 percent of the
revenues should be gene.rat, in the 14 lakeshore communities. Hennepin County
households, exclusive of chase 14 cor.:nnunities, should contribute the other 40
percent.
3. The LMCD tax levy shall be excluded from statutory limitations on the
amount of taxes levied by other taxation authorities.
There are three reasons for making this change:
1) it is in agreement with previous Task Force Reports calling for
this change, and
2) it is consistent with Chapter 378.52, Subd. 2.
3) it provides a more stable funding source that is not affected by
other priorities in Hennepin County or the Cities.
4. A system of service fees shall continue to be imposed on the lake that
distribute the cost of regulatory programs directly to the users.
This is actually contained in Objective 2, but is included separately to
assure proper weight is given this important source of revenue. The LXCD
presently uses a series of service fees to fund a portion of their
programs. This simply continues that practice while calling for review of
the present system to assure it reflects existing cost to government.
These service fees shall include, but not be limited to:
1) inspection of permits to construct in a waterway,
2) operation of shore -based facilities, including swimming beaches,
3) residential docks /moorings,
4) parking fees at ramps and parks, and
5) temporary dock inspections.
5. The Regional Park and Open Space Capital Tmprovement Program funds
should be made available for implementing capital programs called for in
the Long -Term Management Program and that are consistent with the
Metropolitan Council's Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement
Program.
New regional recreation facilities shall be fundr-d regionally. This makes
available, subject to established priority setting, processes, regional
capital improvement funds administered by the Metropolitan Council. The
funds should be provided through one of the existing implementing sgencies
for improvements owned and operated by that i6on( :y.
6. Managing agencies active on Lake Minnetonka shall cooperate to obtain
legislative approval for a metropolitan boat lict'W;c; revenues from such a
program shall be divided between part ic1patint; 1;4.0 rr, inaf;c -meat agencies.
This is the first preference for additional f!.nds for 1.:4 Minnetonka
programs. The emphasis shall be on innovative t chniques. The
11
CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 9 -12 -94 #4
DNR is presently opposed to special boat licenses. Perhaps that could be
used to obtain another innovative method for financing local lake
management activities. Such innovative methods would be test if not
dependent upon State Legislature appropriations. is
Current thinking around the lake favors a Lake Minnetonka boat sticker.
This would allow a greater share of the management of regional recreational
resources to be borne by the users. For a boat to be operated on the lake
a license, in the form a of sticker, would be required.
The LMCD shall work with the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Suburban Hennepin
Regional Park District, other lake improvement organizations in the
metropolitan area, and user groups to address the implications of a
metropolitan boat license or other innovative funding mechanism on
state -wide management of water resources and the impact on the existing
licensing system.
7. Modify the existing membership of the LMCD Board.
Legislative action shall be sought to alter the membership of the LMCD
board. The future LMCD Board shall be composed of:
14 Lakeshore community seats
1 Metropolitan Council
1 Hennepin County
1 Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District
1 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
The reasons for adding four new member organizations to the LMCD Board
after regional funding is obtained, include improved cooperation and
coordination, recognition of the role of the lake in regional recreational
use, and the county -wide funding sought under Management Objective 2
(above).
As pointed out earlier in this chapter, the 14 cities, the Metropolitan
Council, Hennepin County, the Suburban Hennepin Regional 'ark District and
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district all have regulator; programs that
directly affect the environmental quality of the lake and it recreational
use. The new board provides a forum for the 18 organizations with the
greatest interest in the lake to establish and implement regulatory
programs, and to better assure consistent enforcement. while these
organizations have essential. regulatory programs, no formal coordination
mechanism now exists. It is appropriate to use the lake management agency
for such coordination.
Further, Management Objective 2 (above) calls for a county -wide property
tax for funding lake programs. Adding four new organizations provides for
regional representation while expanding the tax base. The expanded tax
base is linked with expanded regional represent -tion on the I.MCD Board.
•
72
8. Provide for Staggered Terms of Directors.
Presently, the three year terms provided by Section 2 of the LMCD enabling
legislation all expire at the same time. In the future, the terms shall be
staggered so that one -third of the terms expire each year. Assuming the
18- member board:
Year 1 - 6 terms
Year 2 - 6 terms
Year 3 - 6 terms
Should the Board be otherwise changed in size by legislation, the terms of
office shall still be staggered. Specific positions shall be determined by
lot. The four county and regional seats shall be similarly staggered, with
no more than two turning over in any one year. This objective shall be
implemented by changing the by -laws of the LMCD.
9. Bylaws for the IMCD shall be reviewed.
The review shall include, at a minimum:
1. Determining the month in which election of officers should occur.
2. Formalizing procedures for nomination and election of officers.
3. Determining when newly - elected officers should be sworn in.
4. An Executive Committee, with specified powers should be formed.
10. The LHCD should enter into an interagency agreement with the DNR and
the Hennepin County Attorney to provide prosecution services for citations
• issued by DNR Conservation Officers.
Working with the DNR, the LMCD shall seek an Attorney General's opinion as
to the conditions under which the LMCD may provide prosecuting services to
the DNR or the Hennepin County Attorney. If legal barriers exist, the
LMCD, County Attorney and the DNR shall work to have them removed by the
State Legislature.
The purpose of this interagency agreement is to provide for more uniform
and centralized prosecution of violations occurring on the lake.
Presently, the DNR relies on the services of the County Attorney; the LMCD
utilizes its own attorney for prosecution.
The advantage of this would be more consistent enforcement and prosecution
of offenses. Fines could be split between the LMCD and the DNR. An
increase in total revenue is likely under this proposal.
11. The LMCD Shall Act as a Technical Clearinghouse for Data Concerning
the Lake, Lake Use, Access and Shoreline Development.
Presently, the LMCD is a repository for data concerning the lake and its
use. However, since its inception, the LMCD has lacked a technical staff
that could maintain an aggressive and utilitarian program. When research
on lake issues has been required, it primarily relied on other government
0 agencies, private consultants or other organizations to conduct the
73
studies. It has participated in or wholly funded studies.
The authority to implement this is presently adequate. However, the LMCD
needs to hire professional staff, qualified in certain, high priority
areas, particularly in regulation and enforcement, and in either
water- oriented recreation or in limnology.
12. The LMCD Shall Continue and Shall Expand its Coordination and Review
Functions.
The purpose of this to unify lake programs to achieve both local and
regional goals. This includes, but is not limited to, the review of state,
regional, and local plans, policies and programs that affect the lake.
Nominally, this has been one of the LMCD's major areas of concentration.
But coordination often has been informal, lacking in definitive agreements,
objectives and goals. Review of plans or proposals has beer limited by
staff time.
Authority need not be expanded, but the IMCD role needs to be enhanced and
clarified in specific areas through interagency agreements. Again,
professional staff capable of handling the work load and technical demands
need to be provided. Funds to accomplish this need to be located.
13. The LMCD Shall Continue its Communication, Lobby and Public
Information Activities.
This simply continues the existing LMCD roles in these areas while placing
increased emphasis by:
a. Fostering and channelling discussions on issues affecting the
lake.
b. Presenting lake management issues to legislative, regional and
county delegations and committees.
C. Serving as a focus for public information and public involvement.
d. Providing a unified approach to resource management.
Several important contributions have been made over the years in providing
information to t;,e public, as well as establishing and maintaining
communicati -:i. Lobbying activities have been limited by staff, reliance on
volunteers and budget. These roles have been filled by the LMCD, but need
to be enhanced.
r1
74
V11. IMPLEMENTATION
10 PERSPECTIVE
The Long -Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka provides a 25 -year guide
for maintaining, and enhancing where possible, the environmental quality,
recreational experience and aesthetic quality of the lake. But the Program
cannot be implemented unless users benefiting from the lake provide substantial
new funds. Presently the management entities maintain active regulatory and
reactive enforcement postures. The overall objective of this program is to be
active in both regulation and enforcement, and to develop the LMCD into a strong
and consistent advocate for Lake Minnetonka programs in all involved
organizations.
Implementation of this Management Program requires a new level of courage.
If the environmental quality and user experience on the lake is to be
protected, difficult decisions will have to be made by all managing
entities. Decisions that limit certain types of access and to impose
necessary environmental controls on intensive development will not be
popular. In the first years following adoption of this Management Program,
the LMCD will need to provide the lead in these difficult decisions.
Without that, other managing entities are more likely to avoid their
difficult decisions.
Development of The Implementation Program assumes that significant new
funds will not be available until at least the third year after adoption.
Therefore, activities by the LMCD are planned to increase through time,
reaching a peak after the first three years following adoption.
Implementation is limited by the available finances, staff and resources of
the LMCD as presently configured. When the legislative program is
achieved, significant new funds will be available. At that point, the LMCD
Board needs to change the fundamental way that it operates.
Presently, Directors, when meeting in committees, perform functions
normally reserved for professional staff. With the limited available
funds, the LMCD has no other option. But when funds are available, then
the LMCD Board may decrease its staff function and rely on hired
professional staff. At that point, the LMCD Board will set policy and act
on professional staff recommendations.
The ensuing Implementation Program classifies management objectives into
four areas:
Legislative Program
Research Program
Regulatory Program
Intergovernmental Coordination Program
Further, the timing of the action by the managing entities is divided into
six categories:
General Objectives
Year One Activities
Year Two Activities
Year Three Activities
Periodic Activities
. Density•73sed Activities
75
General activities refer to management objectives that influence the way
the LMCD and other agencies conduct their business. Sometimes, only the
emphasis of existing programs need change rather than introduction of new
programs. The programs for Years One through Three reflect the staff and
funding limitations of the present LMCD. Periodic objectives are recurring
research studies. Density -based activities are triggered by the number of
acres per boat during peak periods.
GENERAL ACTIVITIES
The following general objectives either re- confirm or re- orient existing
programs of managing entities. At times the LMCD is to take action
exclusively. At other times the LMCD is to work with agencies to assure that
their programs reflect the best interest of the lake. In the latter case, the
LMCD will not administer the program, but will advocate adoption and monitor
performance.
Regulatory Program
1. Maintain the existing LMCD authority.
2. Develop and manage access to, and use of, the lake through ordinance
and regulation.
3. Continue to impose service fees.
4. Manage recreational boating access on Lake Minnetonka based on acres
per boat.
5. Establish a policy that recognizes the need for 700 car /trailer spaces
at formal parking lots in the vicinity of major access points which: •
1) utilize remote parking;
2) facilitate handicapped access;
3) minimize on- street parking, lake frontage, water quality
effects, and aesthetic intrusions; and
4) minimize local and neighborhood traffic disruptions.
6. Provide remote parking and shuttles as appropriate at access points.
7. Use existing LMCD authority to regulate parking, hard cover and
sanitary facilities during implementation of the multiple dock
licensing program.
These seven action items shall be implemented within three months of
adoption of the Long -Term Management Program.
Intergovernmental Coordination Program
1. Enhance communication, lobby and public information activities.
2. Enhance coordination and review functions.
3. Act as a technical clearinghouse for data concerning the lake, lake
use, access and shoreline development.
4. Develop anchorabe opportunities, particularly through public
acquisition of riparian property.
5. Encourage coordinated development, management, policing and regional
funding of all public lands of regional attraction.
76 i
6. Encourage development of scenic lookouts around the lake.
7. Take an active role in the development of plans for any public
shoreline recreational facility that is potentially of regional
significance.
8. Maintain the LMCD policy of not owning or operating shoreline
recreational facilities.
9. Continue to fL cooperation and facilitate coordination for better
located and developed on -shore recreational opportunities.
10. Encourage regional funding of water- oriented shoreline recreational
facilities serving a regional population.
11. Support enhancement of shoreline recreational opportunities serving
the regional population.
12. Encourage transportation agencies to continue to provide ring routes
to divert commuter and commercial traffic from shorelands.
13. Work to incorporate recreational access to Lake Minnetonka in future
public transit alternatives.
14. Encourage use of regional park and open space Capital Improvement
Program funds for implementing capital programs on the lake.
15. Increase Water Patrol hours spent on Lake Minnetonka.
16. Improve noise enforcement on the lake.
17. Encourage owning municipalities to continue to operate, maintain and
police shoreline neighborhood parks.
18. Enhance communication between all law enforcement agencies on and near
the lake.
19. Work with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol for a consistent
and stable state and county funding procedure.
20. Ensure that a comprehensive water quality monitoring program is
conducted for Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries.
21. Protect water quality to allow continued use of the lake for primary
contact recreation and bass -pan sportfishing.
22. Protect the water quality of lake Minnetonka by controlling:
a) non -point pollution,
b) fertilizers and pesticides,
c) septic tank leachate and residues from past treatment practices,
d) erosion, either during or alter construction of residential and
commercial developments, and
e) runoff from the developed sites.
23. Reduce the spread of noxious aquatic weeds, including Eurasian
watermilfoil, and to manage effectively the water quality problems
their presence in Lake Minnetonka treat.;.
24. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality improvement, flood
control, wildlife habitat and aesthetics.
25. Encourage improvement and uniformity of protection of wetlands above
the 929.4 contour through regulation and acquisition.
For the first three years, the LMCD Directors will need to set priorities
and concentrate on the most important. But at the end of three years all
of these should be incorporated into the LMCD Code or into its lobbying and
coordination programs.
•
77
YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES
Legislative Program 10
Implementation of the Long -Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka begins
with the formulation of a program for changing the LMCD enabling legislation.
The Long -Term Management Program cannot be implemented unless the Minnesota
State Legislature changes the way the District is funded and organized.
Therefore, immediately upon adoption of the Long -Term Program, the I14CD shall
embark on a program to obtain the following changes in its enabling legislation:
1. Expand the tax base of the LMCD.
2. Exclude the LMCD tax levy from statutory limitations placed on
other taxation authorities.
3. Obtain authority for a boat sticker or other innovative funding.
4. Modify the membership of the LMCD Board when regional funding is
forthcoming.
5. Stagger the terms of Directors.
The LMCD shall initiate implementation of this legislative program within
two months of adoption. The legislative changes should be completed within
the first biennium following adoption. In obtaining the changes, the LMCD
shall first meet with their legislative delegation, then obtain the support
of other managing entities, particularly the DNR, Metropolitan Council,
Hennepin County and the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District.
Follow -up coordination and lobbying shall receive high priority until the
legislative package is passed.
Research Program 0
During the first year following adoption, the LMCD shall undertake four
studies. It is anticipated that the District can complete the following using
existirg Board and staff resources:
1. Develop a plan for managing excursion boat docking and parking.
2. Refine the established program of imposing limits on the use of
bays with the greatest use density.
The District will need outside assistance to complete these studies:
3. Develop an action program using comprehensive ordinances,
including zoning, to implement access controls.
4. Inventory and improve protection of wetlands lying within the
929.4 contour of Lake Minnetonka through regulation.
Each of these involve either obtaining or setting aside funds for the study,
developing the Scope of Work, making staff assignments or hiring consultants,
and monitoring progress of the study.
In order to undertake research projects for subsequent years, the LMCD
shall explore funding options and seek regional, state or Federal funds for
undertaking.
1. Fishing access plan.
2. Launched boat access plan.
78
Regulatory Program
In addition to implementing management objectives affecting managing entities
regulatory policies, the LMCD needs to act on ten specific management objectives
in the first year.
1. Initiate a program that recognizes there ultimately will be 350
additional (to 7C0) car /trailer parking spaces for public and private
access ramps.
2. Further restrict conversion of marina docks to condominium docks by
eliminating grandfathering at such facilities.
3. Establish and enforce to the greatest extent allowed under law a
policy of no further use of outlots for non - riparian landowner access
on lands previously developed.
4. Assure licensed marinas remain available to all citizens of the state.
5. Additional special density permits at municipal or homeowner
association licensed docks shall be banned.
6. Review the rules governing individual riparian storage of boats.
7. Restrict use of and /or license operators of personal watercraft
sailboards, and hovercraft.
8. Designate anchorages on the lake with appropriate restrictions.
9. Limit the use of personal watercraft by ordinance.
10. Improve local regulation of fishing tournaments for the purpose of
reducing mortality of fish caught and to minimize the impact of
increasing fishing pressure on the resource and other users.
Intergovernmental Coordination Program
• Intergovernmental coordination and cooperation activities focus in six areas
during the first year following adoption. Coordination activities need to be
with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, appropriate State review agencies,
Water Patrol and law enforcement agencies, and local communities.
1. Encourage and enhance local government efforts to adopt shoreland
management rules and regulations that meet the standards and criteria
that are contained in Appendix C.
2. Coordinate development and implementation of an aggressive boater
education program in Hennepin County.
3. Work with the Watershed District and appropriate state boards to assure
that the Watershed District 509 Plan conforms to the goals and
objectives contained in this management program.
a. Assure the 509 Plan is consistent with the Shoreland Management
Minimum Standards and Criteria.
b. Ensure that a comprehensive water quality monitoring program
capable of diagnosing problems is conducted for Lake Minnetonka
and its tributaries.
c. Minimize the impacts of non -point pollution on the quality of
Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries, by controlling urban and
agricultural stormwater runoff and erosian, and other
appropriate management practices.
d. Minimize the impacts of Fertilizers and pestici(!os contained in
watershed runoff on the quality of Lake Minnetonka.
e. Minimize the pollutants reaching Lake Minnetonka and its
tributaries v!a septic tank leachate and residues from past
treatment practices.
79
f. Protect the lake from the detrimental effects of construction.
g. Maintain or restore the water quality of Lake Hirnetonka to
allow continued use of the lake for primary cont•ict recreation •
and bass -pan sportfishing.
h. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality improvement,
flood control, wildlife habitat and aesthetics.
i. Encourage improvement and uniformity of protection of wetlands
above the 929.4 contour through regulation.
J. Encourage protection of wetlands above the 929.4 contour through
acquisition.
k. Reduce the spread of noxious aquatic weeds, including Eurasian
watermilfofi, and to manage effectively the water quality
problems their presence in Lake Minnetonka creates.
4. Improve coordination of special events on the lake with other
responsible organizations and law enforcement agencies.
5. The LMCD, the Sheriff's Water Patrol and other involved Public Safety
Departments shall hold semi- annual meetings to discuss priorities for
enforcement of summer and winter rules on the lake
6. To reduce the aesthetic impact of high -rise develeiment, the LHCD shall
encourage governing councils of nearby communities to exhibit restraint
in approving variances and conditional use permits for buildings that
will be visible from the lake's surface and shoreline.
YEAR TWO ACTIVITIES
Research Program
Six studies shall be conducted and completed during the second year after •
implementation. Three of the studies can be completed by available resources of
the LMCD; three require the assistance of recreation professionals. Studies
implemented by the LMCD available resources include:
1. Develop a program for implementing Density 7.0 restrictions.
2. Study means of limiting boat wakes.
3. Review the Bylaws 3f the LMCD.
Outside agency or consultant assistance is required to complete these
studies:
1. Develop a launched boat access p',an, including siting and funding,
in cooperation with the mimbers of the Metropolitan Access
Committee.
2. Develop a plan for providing further beaching/rafting areas.
3. A plan for fishing access shall be developed for the lake using
fishing piers and provision for formal parking areas.
Intergovernmental Coordination Program
1. Subject to legal review, the 121CD should enter into an agreement with
the DNR and Hennepin County to provide prosecution services for
citations issued by DNR Conservation Officers.
2. Improve regulation of ice houses.
3. The LMCD shall coordinate placement and servicing of adequate trash
containers at all summer and winter access points on the lake thin are
used by vehicles. •
80
YEAR THREE ACTIVITIES
• Legislative Program
1. Coordinate a legislative program to obtain state boat operator
licensing.
2. Managing agencies active on Lake Minnetonka shall cooperate to obtain
legislative approval for a lake or metropolitan boat license, or obtain
alternative innovative funding sources.
Research Program
In the third year after implementation, the LiCD shall conduct five additional
studies.
1. Develop regulations for multiple docks under high, normal and low
water conditions.
2. Assure that fish habitat is identified, mapped and protected.
3. Obtain funding for research the impacts -A exotic plant species on
fish populations and the impact of aqua' =ic vegetation harvesting
on fish populations.
4. Identify, map and optimize winter access to the lake.
S. Work with the Gray Freshwater Institute to determine the status of
exotic species in the lake and in its wetlands.
Regulatory Program
1. Develop a county -wide boating education program.
2. The LMCD shall work with the Hennepin County court system to require
persons convicted of major infractions and repeat offenders to complete
a boating safety course.
4. The LMCD shall develop the staff and procedures to review and comment
on the following variance applications in all fourteen communities:
a) building height variances anywhere in lakeshore communities, and
b) all variances for riparian parcels on Lake Minnetonka.
Intergovernmental Coordination Program
1. Minimize the adverse water quality impacts of dredging activities,
either in -lake or within wetlands, on the quality of public Waters.
2. Managing entities shall encourage further public development and
appropriate acquisition on Big Island.
PERIODIC ACTIVITIES
Research Program
Two on -going research projects shall be conducted by regional and state
agencies. The first should be conducted every two years. The second every five
years.
• 1. Conduct routine recreational use monitoring.
2. Monitoring of fish populations and fish harvest rates.
81
The Merropolit:an Council Task Force recommended that routine recreational
monitoring should be regionally funded. The DNR, Metropolitan Council,
Suburban liennepin Parks, and the IMCD shall be the primary participants. .
As part of the first recreation monitoring study, the DNR's offer for
assist:nR in a study of crowding shall he accepted.
Fish population studies shall be conductel by the DNR in accordance with
their existing policy. Funding shall be by :.he State as part of their
on -going fisheries research study. The LMCD shall conduct such studies
only if the state consistently is unable to provide adequate monitoring.
Regulatory Program
1. Review buffer zones and use regulations at least every two years.
2. Review speed limits and quiet water areas on the lake, summer and
winter, at least every two years.
DENSITY -BASED ACTIVITIES
Research Program
When density reaches 7.0, 6.0 and 5.0 boats per (usable) acre, the following
study will be incorporated into the routine recreational monitoring study:
1. Study conflicts on the lake.
Regulatory Program
Density 7.0
1. Fir municipal access at existing levels.
2. Link furtht- access growth in any form with increased law enforcement
presence on the lake.
3. Determine the source of the growth in density, then impose restrictions
to slow growth of the forms of access responsible for the growth.
4. r•2termine if more restrictive frontage -foot rules (1:50 and 1:10) are
needed.
5. Review the need for lowering the speed limit, day and night.
6. Review use and storage densities of individual bays for further
regulation.
7. To the fullest extent of the law, require a certificate from an
approved boater education course to operate a boat on the lake.
8. Restrict ultralight take -off and landings from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on
weekends and holidays.
9. Review the maximum boat 'Length For private watercraft and excursion
boats.
Density 6.0
1. Link further access growth to development of anchorage opportunities at
a ratio of one additional access unit to two anchorage units.
2. Initiate a program to reduce and ultimately eliminate grandfatherir.g at
municipal and homeowner associations dicks.
3. Review the frontage -foot rules to determine if a more restrictive one •
is needed.
82
4. Review the rules governing riparian storage of boats.
5. Impose use restrictions between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekends and
• holidays.
Density 5.0
1. Continue to develop anchorage opportunities. particularly through
public acquisition of riparian property.
2. Further restrict resident riparian storage.
3. Review the frontage -foot rules.
4. Impose a policy of no growth on all forms of access.
5. Eliminate grandfathering at all forms of wet storage on the lake.
LONG -TERM MONITORING PROGRAM
The Long -Term Monitoring Program associated with this Management Program is
published as a separate document. The progress for each management activity
shall be monitored by the LMCD staff. Annual reports on progress shall be
prepared for distribution to managing entities.
•
• 83
•
•
r�
U
VIII. PARTIAL LIST OF REFERENCES REVIEWED
is Absher, James D., and Robert G. Lee, 1981: Density as an Incomplete Cause
of Crowding. Leisure Sciences vol. 4 :3, pp. 231 -248.
Anderson, Dorothy H., Earl C. Leatherberry, and David W. Lime, 1978: An
annotated Bibliography on River Recreation. North Central Experiment
Station. U.S. Forest Service. 62 pp.
Arndorfer, David J., 1988: Winter Use of Lake Minnetonka, Interim Report.
Unpublished. ,
1986: Scnpe of Work: Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District.
Baldwin, Sara B.. and Gary E. Machlis, 1986: Visitor Mapping: Human
Ecological Information and Park Management.
Borawa, J.C., J.H. Kerby, M.T. Huish, and A.W. Mullis, 1978. Currituck
Sound fish populations before and after infestation by Eurasian
water - milfoil. Proc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc. Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
32 :520 -528.
Bultena, Gordon, Donald Field, Peter Womble and Don Albrecht, 1981:
Closing the Gates: A Stsidy of Backcountry Use - Limitation at Mount
McKinley National Park. Leisure Sciences vol. 4:3, pp. 249 =268.
' and Donald R. Field, 1980: Structural Effects of National
Parkgoing. Leisure Sciences vol. 3:3, pp. 221 -240.
1978: Visitors to National Parks: A Test of the Elitism
Argument. Leisure Sciences vol. 1:4, pp. 395 -409.
Burch Jr., William R.. 1981: The Ecology of Metaphor -- Spacing
Regularities for Humans and Other Primates in Urban and Wildland
Habitats. Leisure Sciences vol. 4:3, pp. 213 -230.
Burke D.G., E.J. Meyers, R.W. Tiner, and H. Groman. 1988: Protecting
nontidal wetlands. American Planning Association. Report No.
412/413. 76 pp.
Citizens League, 1989: Losing Lakes: Enjoyment of a Unique Metropolitan
Resource is Threatened. 30 pp..
City of Madison, 1986: Inventory of Existing Recreational Facilities on
the Yahara River Chain of Lakes. Department of Public Works, Parks
Division. Madison, Wisconsin.
City of St. Paul, Undated: Saint Paul Riverfront Iniiative. Department of
Planning and Economic Development.
Cochran, William G. and Cox, Gertrude M., 1958: Experimental Designs
Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons.
Cordell, Harold K., 1976: The State -of- the -Art in Developing and Operating
Intensive -Use Natural Resource Recreation Sites. Council of Planning
Librarians.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979:
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United
States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS /OBS- 79/31. 103 pp.
Dawson, Chad P., Daniel J. Decker, David W. Lime, and Richard C. Knopf,
1981: Characterisitics and Management Preferences of 1979 Summer
River Recreationists on the Upper Delaware River. Cornell University
Agricultural Experiment Station. Ithaca, New York. 31 pp.
85
•
1972 - The LMCD Code Is adopted.
Dillman, Don A., 1978: Mail and Telephone Surveys John Wiley and Sons.
Driscoll, E.D., D. DiToro, D. Gaboury, and P. Shelley. 1986. Methodology
for analysis of detention basins for control of urban runoff quality.
EPA 440/5/87 -001.
Driver, B.L. and R. C. Knopf, 1976: Temporary Escape: One Product of
Sport Fisheries Management. Fisheri 1(2):21, pp. 24 -29.
, and John R. Bassett, 1975: Defining Conflicts Among River Users:
A Case Study of Michigan's Au Sable River. Naturalist 26:1, pp.
19 -23.
Ebbers, M.A., 1987: Vital statistics of a largemouth bass population in
Minnesota from electrofishing and angler - supplied data. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:252 -259.
Echelberger, Herbert E., Donna Gilroy, and George Moeller, 1983:
Recreation Research Publications Bibliography 1961 -1982. U.S. Forest
Service.
Field, Donald R. and Joseph T. O'Leary, 1973: Sn ^ial Groups as a Basis for
Assessing Participation in Selected Water Ac Avities. Journal of
Leisure Research 5 (Spring), pp 16 -25.
, and Darryll R. Johnson, 1983: The Interactive Process of Applied
Research: A Partnership Between Scientists and Park Resource
Managers. Journal of the Park and Recreation Administration vol.
1:4, pp. 18 -27.
, Martha E. Lee, and Kristen Martinson, 1985: Human Behavior and
Recreation Habitats: Conceptual Issues. In First North American
Ripairan Conference. 16 pp.
, and Neil H. Cheek, Jr., 1974: A Basis foi Assessing Differential
Participation in Water -Based Recreation. Water R esources Bulletin
vol. 10:6, pp. 1218 -1227.
resta, Ronald A., 1984: America's National Parks and Their Keepers
Resources for the Future.
Freshwater Foundation, 1985: A Citizen's Guide to Lake Protection.
, 1986: Water Values and Markets: Emerging Management Tools.
Geneva Lake Environmental Agency 1985: A Water Quality Management Plan
for Geneva Lake. Wisconsin.
GREAT I, 198C: A Study of the Upper Mississippi River. Nine volumes.
Heberlein, Thomas A., 1977: Density, Crowding, and Satisfaction:
Sociological Studies for Determining Carrying Capacities. In
Proceedings: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium.
U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report NC -28, pp. 67 -76.
Hickok, E.A. and Associates. 1987: Water Resources Management Plan.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. DRAFT. Septemt,er 1987.
Johnson, Darryll and Donald R. Field, 1981: Applied and Basic Social
Research: A Difference in Social Context. I_,eisure Sc vol.
4:3, pp. 269 -280.
Keast, A., 1984: The introduced aquatic macrophyte, Myriophylium spicatum,
as habitat for fish and their invertebrate prey. Canadian Journal of
ZooloZy. 62:1289 -1303.
Kusler, J.A 1983: Our national wetland heritage: A protection
guidebook. The Environmental Law Institute. Washington, D.C.
167 pp.
Knopf, Richard C., and David W. Lime, 1984: A Recreation Manager's Guide
to Understanding River Use and Users. U.S. Forest Service.
8(>
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, 1972: Recreation Policy.
1972: Storm Water Run -Off and Shoreland Guidelines Policy
. Statement.
1973: Boat Density Policy Statement.
1974: Report of the "1999" Conference.
1979: A Comprehensive Lake Management Plan- Program for Lake
Minnetonka.
1980: Lake Dredging Policy.
1982: Lake Management Program Priorities.
1985: Summary of Planning Conference, November 15 -16, 1985.
1986: Boating on Lake Minnetonka in 1986. Biocentric, Inc.
1988: Boating on Lake Minnetonka in 1987. Biocentric, Inc.
1988: Draft Standard Slip Size Policy.
1989: Code of Ordinances.
Lake Minnetonka Task Force, 1983: Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task
Force.
Leatherman, Stephen P., Paul J. Godfrey, and P.A. Buckley, 1978:
Management Strategies for National Seashores. In Proceedings of the
Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory
Aspects of Coastal Zone Planning and Mangement. San Francisco, pp.
322 -337.
Lime, David, 1976: Principles of Recreation Carrying Capacity. I
Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research Applications
Workshop. Asheville, North Carolina.
and George H. Stankey: Carrying Capacity: Maintaining Outdoor
Recreation Quality. RWU -1903 Pub. #06, pp. 174 -184.
Machlis, Gary E., Field,.Donald R., and Campbell, Fred, 1981: The Human
Ecology of Parks. Leisure Sciences vol. 4:3, pp. 195 -212.
. Manfredo, Michael J., B.L. Driver, and Perry J. Brown, 1983: A Test of
Concepts Inherent in Experience Based Setting Management for Outdoor
Recreation Areas. Journal of Leisure Research 15:3, pp. 263 -183.
Manning, Robert E., 1986: Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Oregon State
University Press.
Martinson, K.S., and D.R. Field, 1985: People, Human Behavior and
Water -Based Recreation: A Working Bibliography. Oregon State
University, 46 pp.
Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979. A Cooperative Program for Providing
Public Access Sites on Metropolitan Area Lakes.
Metropolitan Council, 1975: Recommendations for Critical Area Designation
of the Mississippi River Corridor. St. Paul, Minnesota. 84 pp.
1984: Community Profiles: Housing, Population and Households.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
, 1985: Per Capita Income, 1979 and 1985, Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. St. Pail, Minnesota.
, 1986: Report to the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Council's
Task Force on Lake Minnetonka.
1988: Employment Trends in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
1980 -1987. Publication No. 620 -89 -044. St. Paul, Minnesota.
_ 1988: Population and Housing Estimates. St. Paul,
Minnesota.
87
1981 - The last waste treatment plant discharge is
diverted from the Lake Minnetonka basin.
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 1977: Baseline Environmental
Inventory: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1977. 201 Facility Study.
St. Paul, Minnesota. .
Mikol, G.F., 1985: Effects of harvesting on aquatic vegetation and
juvenile fish populations at Saratoga Lake, New York. Journal of
uat c Plant Management 23:59 -63.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1987: Draft Water Resources Management
Plan. Eugene A. Hickok and Associates. 1987. Wayzata, Minnesota.
1969: Overall Plan for Water Management.
1986: Rules.
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 1988: Nonregulatory wetland
protectin- options. St. Paul, MN, 17 pp.
Minnesota Depi.•-ment of Natural Resources, 1970. Fisheries lake survey.
Unpublished.
1977. Fisheries lake survey. Unpublished.
1978. A creel census of Lake Minnetonka from May 17 to October
19, 1975. Metro Fisheries Regional Report No. 2 (Fish Management
Report No. 2). �9 pages.
, 1979: A Management Plan for Afton State Park. St. Paul,
Minnesota.
, 1981: A Management Plan for William 0'E ien State F K. St.
Paul, Minnesota.
1982: Draft Minnesota Water Surface Use Restriction Summary.
1982. Fisheries lake survey. Unpublished.
1983: Minnesota Water Surface Use Statutes and Rules.
1984: An Evaluation of Water Surface Use of Lakes in the
Metropolitan Area.
1984. Lake management plan. Unpublished.
1985: An Evaluation of Water Surface Use of Lakes in Central
Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota.
, 1987: A Selective Look at Boating Patterns and Boater Attitudes
in Three Minnesota Lake Regions.
1987: Boating Patterns on the Lower St. Croix River.
1987. Fisheries lake survey. Unpublished.
1987: Lake Development.
Undated: Metro Area Rivers Guide.
Minnesota Pollution Cor. rol Agency, 1971: A Program for Preserving the
Quality of Lake Minnetonka.
, 1988: Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Report. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Program Development Section, Division of
Water Quality.
Minnesota Rules, 1987. Volumes 4 and 6.
Minnesota Rules, 1988 Supplements.
Minnesota State Planning Agency, 1984: Land use data base from 1984 aerial
photographs. Land Management Information Center,
Minnesota Statutes, 1988. 10 volumes.
Minnesota Statutes, 1989 Supplements.
National Park Service, 1976: Final Master Plan, St. uroix National Scenic
Riverway. Minnesota and Wi-consin.
1981: General Management Plan, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.
Michigan.
National Recreation and Park Association, 1975: Park Planning Guidelines.
88 0
Nordstrom, Karl F. and Norbert P. Psuty, 1980: Dune District Management:
A Framework for Shorefront Protection and Land Use Control. Coastal
• Zore Management Journal, vol. 7:1. pp. 1 -23.
Ohmann, Lewis F., 1974: Ecological Carrying Capacity. _i Outdoor
Recreation Research: Applying the Results. pp. 24 -28.
Peterson, George L. and David W. Lime, 1979: People and Their Behavior: A
Challenge for Recreation Management. Journal of Forestry, vol. 77:6,
pp. 343 -346.
Philley, M. Peter, and Stephen F. McCool, 1981: Law Enforcement i.l the
National Park System: Perceptions and Practices. Leisure Sciences
vol. 4 :3, pp. 355 -372.
Runte, Alfred, 1979: National Parks: The American Experience University
of Nebraska Press.
Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984: An overview of major wetland
functions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS /OBS- 84/18. 68 pp.
Seltzer, E.H. and R.E. Steinberg. 1987: Wetlands and private development.
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 12, No. 2, pages 159 -201.
Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1971: Wetlands of the United States: Their
extent and their value to waterfowl and other wildlife. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Circular 39. 67 pp.
Shelby. Bo, 1981: Research, Politics, and Resource Management Decisions:
A Case Study of River Research in the Grand Canyon. Leisure Sciences
vol. 4:3, pp. 281 -296.
Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G., 1967: Statistical Methods
Sixth Edition. Iowa State University Press.
SPSS, Inc., 1987: SPSS /PC+ User Manual. Chicago, Illinois.
Stankey, George H. and Stephen F. McCool, 1984: Proceedings - Symposium on
• Recreation Choice Behavior. U.S. Forest Service.
Task Force for the Future of the Lake George Park, 1985: The Plan for the
Future of the Lake George Park.
Tiner, R.W. 1984: Wetlands of the United States: Current status and
recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Gov't. Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978: Water - Oriented Recreational Demand and
Projections: Calculations for Western Lake Superior. St. Paul
District.
1982: Wisconsin River at Portage, Wisconsin
Institutional Analysis. St. Paul District.
1987: Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department
of the Army. Technical Report Y -87 -1. 100 pp.
U.S. Coast Guard, 1981: Results of the Effectiveness Assessment of Boat
Traffic Management Techniques for Recreational Waters. Boston
Operations, Randolph, Massachusetts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures.
Washington, D.C.
1984: Comprehensive Plan Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area and State Trail. With the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
89
1988 - The "Long -Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka" is
undertaken by local, regional and state organizations.
U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983: Economic and Environmental Principles
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies. Department of the Interior. •
Van Wagtendonk, Jan W., 1981: The Effect of Use Limits on Backcountry
Visitation Trends in Yosemite National Park. Leisure Sciences, vol.
4:3, pp. 311 -324.
Walker, W.W. 1989. PONDNET.WK1 - Flow and Phosphorus Routing in Pond
Networks. Program Documentation. Version 2.1 - March 1989. William
W. Walker, Environmental Engineer.
Wentz, A.W. Undated: Wetlands values and management. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Weston, Roy F., Inc., 1981: Recreational Boating Use Patterns During 1981,
Lower Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway.
•
90 0
•
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR LAKE MINNETONKA
•
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. AUTHORITY
APPENDIX B. DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX C. LAKE MINNETONKA SHORELAND
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
40
A. AUTHORITY
0 PERSPECTIVE
Review of Minnesota statutes indicates that the legislature intends for lake management in Minnesota, and
specifically for Lake Minnetonka, to be a partnership between various institutions with individual
legaslative mandates. Individual state and regional agencies as well as municipalities have overlapping
and soeetimes distinct authority over the lake and its shoreline. Lake Management Districts, whether
under the LMCD statutes or under the powers of counties, are obvious mechanisms provided to establish
that partnership.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) was formed by the Laws of 1967, Chapter 907 as amended.
The district has extensive authority that includes zoning of the lake to control activities and types of
watercraft, water surface use of the lake (comparable to land use zoning on land), own real estate and
property, as well as to develop a plan for the lake.
With respect to lake use and lake access. Section 3 of that legislation gives the LMCD rather broad
powers to:
1, regulate the types of boats permitted to use the lake (3.a.1)
2. set service fees (3.a.2)
3. regulate, maintain and police public beaches, public docks and other public facilities for
access to the lake within the municipalities (3.b.1) 2) provided that any municipality by
ordinance duly adopted within one year thereafter and specifically referring to such action
may supersede the same within such municipality (3.b.2). (NOTE: We have not yet found evidence
that any community took action on this provision within one year).
•. limit the use of the lake at various times (3.c.1), and various parts of the lake (3.c.2).
S. regulate the speed of boats or. the lake (3.d.1), and the conduct of other activities on the lake
(3.d.2).
6. regulate construction, installation and maintenance of permanent and temporary docks and
moorings consistent with federal and state law (3.f).
7. reguldte de -icing systems (3.g.1)
S. regulate commercial marinas and their related facilities, including parking and sanitation (3.h)
9. to undertake research to determine the condition and development of the lake and the water
entering it (3.j).
Section 3, V re, empowers the LMCD to limit activities and types of watercraft that may enter end
use the lake. hese limits may include
a. restricting the use of certain types of boats, or banning their use,
b. impose temporal zoning, e.g., limiting use and certain activities to specific times of day or
times of year,
c. set speed limits
d. ^ ;ontrol special events
Similarly, the UICD legislation includes the power over public beache, and other puhlic facilities for
access to the lake within municipalities. This power, however, has never been exercises.
Further, the tiltV has the authority to regulate ducks on the lake including cocrrr :ercial, m
homeow, :er associations and private ripari. docks. Whon this is cn•,;pled with the generaL auth ^rity over
use of the lake, it means that the ildCD can ..one the s.;rfaca of the lake in the sac.q way LY,aC a
munlcipalit) may conduct land use Zoning,
A-1
Section 3.j. establishes the authority of the LMCD to prepare the Management Plan for the lake.
Other sections of the underlying legislation permits the district to hold real and personal property for
its purposes and the power to enter into contracts (Section 6). Section 13, subd. 1 establistes the
power to adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of its establishment and the Dowers
granted to the district.
Consequently, there are few restrictions on the LNCD's authority to impose restrictions on the use of, or
access to, the lake. However. there are other parallel authorities; the LMCD is not the only other
agency empowered to be active on the lake in these areas.
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
Watershed Districts are established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 112. Lake Minnetonka comprises a
part of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, and therefore, is subject to the statutory powers of the Watershed
District.
She implications for access to, and use of, Lake Minnetonka are that, the Watershed Board has the power
to:
a. regulate the water level in the lake, subject to certain conditions,
b, acquire, operate, construct and maintain flood control and water supply works,
c, acquire by gift, purchase, or right of eminent domain necessary real estate and personal
property,
d, control the use and development of land in the flood plain, greenbelt and open space areas of
the district, subject to the limitation of section 4/3.877. (NOTE: That section limits the
watershed district authority over cities that have their own watershed management plan). •
The statute gives the watershed district authority to regulate placement of fill, modification of flood
plain loner and dredging of the lake and adjacent flood plain lands. Thus, creation of new access points
to the lake require a permit from the watershed district.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Under Minnesota law, counties are have extremely broad powers; powers that parallel or usurp those of
other governmental units wholly or partially within the county. The discussion oelow is offered as
background since the county, with acres. to significantly greater funding alternatives, represents an
important implementing agency for lake access and lake use decisions.
It should also be remembered that in Hennepin County, many �r most of these powers reside with the
Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Board.
378.31 Water and related lend res r.,rces management.
Provides that it is in the public interest to establish a statewide lake improvement program to (Suod.
1):
1) preserve the natural character of the lakes and their sh reline environment as feasible and
practical;
2) improve the giality of water of the lakes;
3) provide reasonable assurance of water quantity in lakes, where feasible nd practical; and
4) to assure protection fre.m h,w,an ACti*,itie3 and certain natural rocesses.
A-2
Subd. 2 `rants powers to counties o••er lakes that are not wholly within a lake conservation district
established by !sw (UICD). All programs moat be consistent with statewide and regional water and related
land resources plans.
This chapter generally parallels the authorities granted under the LMCD enabling legisLation. The
following compares the powers granted to the county and the power granted to the 121CD.
Power
acquire lands for control works
construct and operate control works
change the course, current or cross section of waters
improve navigation
acquire land, equipment or other facilities for navigation
contract with any watershed district or county conservation district
for improvements under chapters 40 and 112
undertake research to
1) determine the condition and development of the body of water
and water entering it;
2) develop a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution;
3) conduct a program of water improvement and conservation
4) implement the comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution
consistent with other statutes.
receive financial assistance and join in projects or enter into
contracts with other federal or state agencies
maintain public beaches, public docks and other public facilities for
access
Applicable Chapter Subd
County
11CD
Subd. 3
None
Subd. 4
None
Subd. 5
None
Subd. Sa
Sect. 3
Subd. Sa
Sect. 6
Subd. 6 Sect. 6
Subd. 7 Sect. 3
3(j)
3(j)
Petition
Partial
Subd. 6 3(k)
Subd. 9 3(b)
. make cooperative agreements with federal state, county orlocal
entities for the purpose of effecting the provisions of this
section Subd. 10
require that any projects to change the course, current or cross
section be approved by the county before submitting the
application to the commissioner of the DNR
3(e, i) S6
Subd, 11 None
The powers of the LLD diverge from those granted to the county in some areas. The L14CD does not have
the authority to acquire lands for control works; to construct and operate control works; to change the
course, current or cross section of waters. It may, however, petition the watershed district or the
county conservation district for these projects. Similarly, the LMCD does not have the authority to
conduct a program of water improvement and conservation except by petition to the watershed district and
the county conservation district. Its authority to implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate water
pollution consistent with ot`ier statutes 13 only indirect; the powers relate to water surface access;
use; dock construction, placement and uce; and de- icing. The 121CD does not have review authority over
dredging and filling as does the county.
The statutory changes in the LMCD enabling legislation necessary to make the county and I11CD powers
parallel, under this chapter, need to c- nsider the existence of the watershed district and its
authority. If the authority oJer water level control remains with the watershed district, then the
additional powers for the LWD include:
1) implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate crater pollution, and
2) review authority over dredge and fill applications.
In these two areas, the watershed district has authority, but it seems rearonahle to giestion w1,ethpr the
Ll-X;D can truly accomplish its objectives without some change in a�thority in 6hese areas.
• A -3
378.32 Water Surface Use Regulations.
The county board may adopt ordinances that regulate the surface use of waters situated wholly or in part
within their jurisdictions, but not wholly within a single city or lake conservation district. However,
if the lake Has within two counties, the ordinance must be adopted by both county boards prior to
enforcement. Adoption by the DNR gives the county the authority to enforce such rules. Proposed surface
use zoning ordinances shall be submitted to the commissioner of the DNA for review and approval prior to
adoption. The commissioner has 120 days to approve or disapprove (Subd. 1).
The authority of the county under this chapter and the LMCD are parallel, with some minor exceptions.
The contrast is shown below:
The LMCD does not seem to have the restriction that its ordinances be submitted to the commissioner of
the DNR for approval prior to implementation. There is no specific citation to control of horsepower in
the LM:D enabling legislation, but such controls would seem to be allowed under 3(c) and 3(d).
378.321 Public access restrictions
The county board must allow the same types and sizes of watercraft and horsepower of motors to access and
enter the lake as generally 41lowed to be operated on the lake. Special use exceptions that are not
dependent on lakeshore or property ownership may be granted by permit.
378.401 to 3 Lake improvement district act.
The lake improvement act defined under these sections post-date the 1,WD enabling legislation. It
appears that these sections are modeled after the LMCD act as &Tended. The or.e restriction placed on a
county d.st.rict is that its plans and certain actions must be reviewed by tt;a corr,.issionar of the D'iR
prior to implementation.
A -4 0
Applicable Chapter Subd.
Authority
County
LMM
proposed surface use zoning ordinances submitted to the
DNR for review and approval prior to adoption
Subd.
1 Not cited
regulate and police public beaches, public docks and other public
facilities for access
Subd.
2 3(b)
municipalities can preempt the county policing
Subd.
2 3(b) 1 yr
regulate construction, configuration, size, location and maintenance
of commercial marinas and their related facilities including
parking areas and sanitary facilities
Subd.
3 3(h)
to regulate docks and moorings
Subd.
4 3(f)
to regulate de-icing and vegetation removal
Subd.
S 3(g)
to regulate the type end size of watercraft
Subd.
6 3(a)
to sat access fees
Subd.
6 3(a)
to limit the types and horsepower of motors
Subd.
7 Not cited
to limit the time of use and the use of various parts of the body of
water
Subd.
8 3(c)
•
to regulate the speed of watercraft and the conduct of other
activities to secure the safety of the public and the most
general public use
Subd.
9 3(d)
to contract with other law enforcement agencies
Subd.
10 3(e)
The LMCD does not seem to have the restriction that its ordinances be submitted to the commissioner of
the DNR for approval prior to implementation. There is no specific citation to control of horsepower in
the LM:D enabling legislation, but such controls would seem to be allowed under 3(c) and 3(d).
378.321 Public access restrictions
The county board must allow the same types and sizes of watercraft and horsepower of motors to access and
enter the lake as generally 41lowed to be operated on the lake. Special use exceptions that are not
dependent on lakeshore or property ownership may be granted by permit.
378.401 to 3 Lake improvement district act.
The lake improvement act defined under these sections post-date the 1,WD enabling legislation. It
appears that these sections are modeled after the LMCD act as &Tended. The or.e restriction placed on a
county d.st.rict is that its plans and certain actions must be reviewed by tt;a corr,.issionar of the D'iR
prior to implementation.
A -4 0
LAKESHORE MUNICIPALITIES
The 14 lakeshore communities have broad ;o- -rs to manage the upland areas of the lake. They have the
fundamental authority to control development and land use changes through planning, zoning and formation
Of special use districts.
The authority of cities over public waters is limited by H.S. 459.20 which grants the same powers to
cities as is = •served for counties in Chapter 378, except that a lake Improvement district has precedence
over one formed by cities.
For Lake Minnetonka, this means that the cities may develop parks on the lakeshore, but may not have
active regulatory programs below elevation 929.4 without the consent of the LMCD. At the same time, the
LMCD has authority over parks and public lands used for access to the lake that has never been
implemented.
REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT (HENNEPIN COUNTY)
The Hennepin county park reserve district may xercise the powers of a municipality under chapter 118,
whereas the LMCD does not have those powers. As a municipality, the park district has broad authority
over al♦ types of shore -based recreation. Its powers over the water surface are more restricted. For
example, it does not have the authority to police the lake surface. That power resides with the County
Sheriff.
• METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The Metropolitan Council's underlying legislation is contained in M.S. chapter 473. The council is
established to coordinate the planning and development in the seven county area. Of particular interest
to this subcommittee is the agency's powers for funding and review relative to recreation.
The interest of the Metropolitan Council relative to regional recreation open space means lands and
waters or int•- therein that are determined to be of regional importance. On Lake Minnetonka, the
lake itself has not been so designated. However, the public properties on Big Island and the proposed
access redesign at the Highway, 101 causeway are so :osignated. The regional park proposed by Suburban
Hennepin Regional Park District also has been designated as regionally significant.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Tho Department of Natural Resources has the most extensive authority over recreational use of, and access
to, Lake Minnetonka. Not all of the powers of the DNR are applicable to the LMCD since it is a state
agency esl- iblished by separate statute. However, review of the M's authority and regulatory programs
over other local units of government help establish the limits to lake access and use controls.
For lake access,
two references exist in the Minnesota Statutes.
The first is in chapter 9)A.14i. That
section providos
that the c,.,,issior.er of the DNR shell e,,Ti,o
A -5
end maintain access sites, as well as
easements and rights necessary to connect to public highways. An access site cannot exceed seven
acres and may only be acquired where access is inadequate. The second reference to public access is in
105.391 which gives the DNR the authority to limit access to wetlands if preservation or protection is e
warranted.
Chapter 105 Division of Waters. Soils and Minerals
This chapter of the statutes grant the DNR similar, or even more extensive powers than those granted to
the watershed district for dredging, filling, diversion or use of waters of the state. Included in the
authority are:
1. the use, allocation and control of public waters and wetlands,
2, establishment, maintenance, and control of lake levels, and
3. the determination of the ordinary high water (08W) level of public
waters and wetlands.
Section 105.42 establishes the authority and procedures for permits to work in public waters. Included
is the authority to require that illegal actions be restored to the original condition (105.161).
Chapter 361 Waters and Watercraft Safety
The regulation of watercraft is contained in this chapter of the statutes. The definition of a
watercraft is "any contrivance used or designed for navigation gn water other than (a) duck boat during
the duck hunting season, (b) rice boat during the harvest season, or (c) seaplane.
The chapter provides for license fees and registration (361.03). The provision that requires a
manufacturer's identification number is absent from this chapter. Thus, snowmobiles and all-terrain
vehicles can be traced by the manufacturer's number but watercraft cannot.
Other provisions of the act regulate the age of power boat operators, obstructions to navigation,
swimming and bathing areas, scuba diving, water skiing, craft capacity, use of alcohol and controlled •
substances, safety equipment and lights.
In addition, noise is controlled by statute to the extent that:
1) mufflers are required which adequately suppresses the sound; cutouts
are not permitted,
2) noise limits cannot be exceeded under any condition of load,
acceleration or deceleration,
3) new engines must most the noise standards established in the act,
4) modification or operation of engines modified to amplify or increase
tho noise level is not permitted,
5) sale and installation of parts that increase the noise level is
prohibited, as well as operating a boat equipped with such parts, and
6) the noise limits are:
a) boats manufactured before January 1, 1982 - 84 decibels,
b) boats manufactured on or after January 1, 1982 - 82 decibels.
Exceptions are provided for under permit to cover regattas, races, or trial runs.
Enforcement of these provisions is given to the Sheriffs, cunservatici officers and county boards under
361.24.
Section 361.25 gives the Commissioner of the DtRt broad authority over local agencies that are involved in
lake use. The legislation calls for promulgation of ruler that include the following (as well as
others):
A•6 0
1) placement and regulation of docks, piers and buoys,
2) mooringa or marking devices,
3) other structures in the waters of the state,
♦) equipment used in towing of persons on water-skis, aquaplanes,
surfboards, saucers arl other devices,
5) designation of swimming or bathing areas,
5) standards for operation of watercraft offered for rent, lease, or hire,
7) use of surface waters including but rot limited to:
a) standards and criteria for resolving conflicts in use,
b) procedures for local enforcement, and
c) procedures for such other rules deemed necessary by the
Commissioner.
Section 361.26 provides for local ordinances in effect prior to January 1, 1972 to remain in effect until
repealed or superseded by a rule of the commissioner.
As implemented by Minnesota Rules, 5110.3000 to 6110.3600 (Water Surface Use Management), even more
restrictions are imposed on use management. Under chapter 351.25 the Commissioner is empowered to
regulate:
a. type and sire of watercraft.
b. type ana horsepower of motors,
c. speed of watercraft,
d, time of use,
e, area of use, and
f. conduct of other activities on the water body where necessary to
secure the safety of the public and the most general public use.
These regulations shall be imposed by a local unit of government.
The goals of use management are:
•
a.
where practical and feasible, accommodate all compatible recreational
uses,
b.
minimize adverse impact on natural resources,
c.
minimize conflicts between users in a way that provides for maximum
use, safety and enjoyment; and
d.
conform to the standards set in part 6110.3700.
The management
standards are pror- algated in 6110.3700 that apply to any government unit subject to the
provisions of 361.25. Some of these are of interest to Lake Minnetonka whether or not they directly
apply:
1.
watercraft type and size,
2.
motor type and size,
3.
direction travel (if limited, then counterclockwise),
♦.
speed limits shall use one or more of these cutoffs:
a. slow -no wake, in no cases greater than 5 mph,
b. 15 mph
c. 40 mph
5.
time controls must use one or more of these periods:
A. sunrise to sunset or sunset to sunrise the day following,
b. 9:00 am to 6:00 pm or 6:00 pm to 9:00 am the day following,
c. noon to 6:00 pm or 6:00 pm to noon the following day, or
d. all 24 hours of the day.
6.
controls must be in effect d ring one of the following:
s. all year,
b. Memorial Day weekenA through Labor Day weekend, or
e. on ell weekends an.i legal holidays occ"rrir,g within Me-r)Cial Day
weekend thr:::gh tabor Day weekend.
A-7
7. controls may be placed on watercraft based on specific water
r
elevations
S. area controls may be imposed
9. conduct of other activities may be restricted if they conform to the
purposes of use management (6110.3200)
LMCD has its own statutory standing; these regulations are in addition to, and do not supplant, the
existing Lake Minnetonka regulations. To the extant that it is advantageous to utilise this chapter of
the statutes, the provisions are available provided that the review and approval of the Commissioner of
the DNR is sought and received. But the Ll1CD does not appear to need these authorities.
•
A-8 •
Be DEFINITIONS
0 The following definitions explain how certain key terms are used in this document:
Access: There are different ways of accessing the lake. Managing agencies sometimes define these terms
differently. To assure understanding of how these terms ere used, the following definitions are
presented. Definitions of highlighted terms are listed alphabetically below. The definitions are
primarily derived from the way in which data were collected by the DNR in 1984 and used again in the
1986 use study sponsored by the LMCD. While some may not be the most desirable, some d- represent
the operational definitions derived from the 1984 DNR study.
There are two types of access to the lake: 1) general public access and 2) riparian access.
1. General Public Access: There are two types of general public access: 1) ramped access and
2) marina /yacht club access.
a. Ramped Access: There are two types of ramped access: 1) free ramped access and private
ramped access.
1) Free Ramped Access
2) Private Ramped Access
b. Marina/Yacht Club Access
2. Riparian Access
a. Private Riparian Access
b. Bomemmer Association Access
c. Municipal Access
Active Boats: An active boat is on the lake and away from its point of access to the lake. This means
that active boats include rafted or beached boats, those moored at transient docks, moving boats,
boats dead in the water away from shore, or any other boat that is not at its customary storage
location. It ions not include boats occupying service docks or that are occupying a dock that is
otherwise used by a different boat. This definition explains the manner in which boats were counted
in the DNR and LMCD studies of 1984 and 1986.
Apartment: On Lake Minnetonka, a form of restricted riparian access, where the right to store a boat on
the lake arises from rental of an apartment unit and rental of a dock at the property.
Betching/Rafting: An popul - activity on some parts of the lake where boats anchor or moor their boats
near shore or on beaches, islands and sandbars. Frequently, boats are tied together (rafting).
Boat: Any vessel, watercraft, canoe, raft, barge, sailboard, personal watercraft, hovercraft or any
similar device used or usable for carrying and transporting persons on the lake. See Restricted
Watercraft.
Buffer Zone: A 150 foot zone along the Lakeshore that is removed from general use by the cruising
boaters and established as a quiet water area by LMCD regulation. Any minim•un wake activity, such
as fishing, is allowed.
Free Ramped Access: Access through a boat ramp that is publicly owned and where there is no fee for
launching the boat.
General Boating Lake: A lake that is managed to provide for all forms of boating, including, but not
limited to cruising by sail or power boats, racing by sail 'onls, fishing, canoeing, sailboarding,
use of personal watercraft, paddle boating, tubing, use of rafts, as well as such associated
activities as mooring, beaching and rafting.
General Public Access: Acc is to the lake for private recreational boats by persons who do not us4
riparian property ownership as the means of placing their boat on the lake; measured on the 1 of
boat owners',ip. Genera', public access Includes Ramped Access and Marina /Yacht Club Access, s
definition is not entirely consistent with the 1984 DNR study.
Gross Lake Surface (Acres): The gross lake surface is 14043 acres as measured below elevation 929.4 in a
previous study for the LMCD. Gross acres include all acreage of the individual bays and lakes
comprising Lake Minnetonka.
Individual Riparian Access: A synonym for Private Riparian Access.
B-1
Homeowner Association: On Lake Minnetonka, a group of homeowners using deed restrictions (easements,
`
covenants) to gain right of access to the lake for maintaining boat storage. These are normally
outlots in the case of subdivisions and common property at condominiums. This group includes: 1)
condominiums, 2) subdivisions where purchase of a residence give the owner part ownership in a
•
riparian outlot with s multiple dock, 3) groups of riparian home owners who for a reason or
another have a licensed multiple dock, and 4) at least twn multiple docks which :ally function as
restricted access rights for non - Lakeshore residants.
Lakeshore Resident: A member of a household that rents or owns a home with lake frontage.
Managing Entities: Any State, Regional or local governmental or quasi - governmental unit that is active
in managing the lake. These include the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Suburban
Hennepin Parks, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and the
14 municipalities, among others.
Marina: A commercial boat-atorage business enterprise that is operated for
profit.
Marina/Yacht Club Access: Access to the lake from slips or mooring provided to the boat owners
irrespective of the location of their residence at one of the commercial marinas or at yacht clubs
on the lake.
Multiple Dock: A dock licensed by the LMCD, constructed and maintained for the storage of five or more
watercraft, other than commercial docks.
Municipal Access: Access for private recreational boats from riparian lands owned by one of the 14
municipalities on the lake. In practice these docks, slides or lifts are rented to residents of the
owning municipality whether or not there is a formal policy of restricting the use to residents. No
city rents a slip that is nct either to the landowner or to the immediate family of a landowner in
the city.
Normal High Use Period: The most popular boating times, generally between 11:00 am and 4:00 pin in June,
July and August that include only pleasant, fair weather weekend days and exclusive of holidays.
See also Peak Use,
Ordinary High Water: The average level of Lake Minnetonka under normal high water conditions. Defined
by regulation as elevation 929.4.
•
Peak Use: The average number of active boats on summer weekends during the hours of maximum boat use and
exclusive of holiday weekends. These counts have been made in previous studies only on pleasant
weekend days in the months of June, July and August.
Peak Use Hours: Peak use hours are defined in previous studies as being between 11:00 am and 4:00 pm.
These are the hours of maximum use for any day.
Private Ramped Access: Access through a private boat ramp where there is a fee for launching the boat or
for parking the car \trailer.
Private Riparian Access: See Riparian Access.
Public Access: Access to the lake that is independent of property ownership or rental. Public access is
equally available to the general public, without preference or discrimination, who are willing to
pay at fees or is available at no charge. See Ramped Public Access, Marinas, Yacht Clubs.
Ramped Access: Boat access to the lake from a public or private boat ramp. This is consistent with the
1984 DNR data collection.
Ramped Public Access: Access to the lake for trailered boats. Ramped Public Access may or may not
include a launching, parking or shuttle fee.
Restricted Riparian Access: Access rights or boat storage rights for owners of non-riperian property
that are created by a legal instrnunent, membership in a private organization or residence in a
riparian community. See also Apartment, Homeowner Association, Municipal A -ess.
Restricted Watercraft: Any boat or vessel for use on or stored on the public waters on the lake except
for boats or vessels which are 16 feet or less in length, and which are non or which use
motors of 10 horsepower or less.
B-2 0
Riparian Access: 1. Access to the lake for boating by persons who use individually-owned riparian
property to place their boat on the lake. On Lake Minnetonka this includes non - riparian boat owners
• who rent or otherwise use slips, docks or moorings at private riparian property. Thus, the boat may
or may not be owned by the landowner, -he slip may or may not be rented to the user. This is a part
of the 1981 DNR "riparian access". 2. Access to the lake for private recreational boats that is
based on ownership c' riparian ( lakeshore) land. The ownership may be individual, shared (at
condominiums or apartments or homeowner association&) or municipal. This is how the 1981 DNR study
operationally defined and measured riparian access. That is, the 1981 DNR study and the
LMCD 1988 study measured riparian access as the sum of private riparian access, homeowner
association access and municipal access. These studies do not differentiate between these forms of
access.
Riparian Lands: Lakeshore property; lands that abut the lake. Riparian land may be used for
residential, commercial, water-oriented commercial, public or manufacturing purposes on the lake.
Usable Lake Surface (Acres): The usable lake surface is 11,800 acres. Usable acres deletes acres of
water that is unavailable to the general boating public because of regulation or navigation
hazards. While fishing boats often use those acres considered not usable, general, cruising,
boaters do not. Fishing is not a significant activity during the peak use hours.
Yacht Club: A private organization with open membership that also constructs and maintains docks or
moorings for in -water storage for some of their members' boats. On Lake Minnetonka, these berths
are usually offered at below - market prices.
•
•
B-)
APPENDIX C
LA" MINNETONXA SI]CRFIAM STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
A. Land Use Zoning Districts that are implemented within Lake Minnetonka shorelands must fit one of
the following districts:
1) Special Protection District.
Descriltion: wetlands; wet soils; steep slopes; flooc;ing; inadequate drainage; severe erosion
potential; presence of historic sites, biological or natural characteristics; or any other feature
interference with which is likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of
the community.
2) Lake Minnetonka Residential District.
Description: low density, single family seasonal and year -round residential uses in order to
preserve existing living qualities and amenities; to minimize traffic; and to prevent alterations of
structures which would damage the character or desirability of existing residential areas. Prohibit
medium and high density residential as well as establishment of various commercial, industrial and
other uses in these areas that cause conflicts or problems for residential uses.
3) One to Four Unit Residential District.
Description: permit existing low and medium density seasonal and year -round residential uses on
lands suitable for such uses to continue. Prevent establishment of commercial, industrial, and
other uses in these areas that cause conflicts or problems for residential uses. Some
non - residential uses with minimal impacts on residential uses are allowed if properly managed under
0 conditional uses procedures.
4) Five to Twelve Unit Residential District.
Description: Permit existing areas adjacent to commercial centers in which higher density housing
in multiple family structures has already been developed. Other compatible uses such as residential
planned unit development, surface - water oriented commercial, multiple unit single family, parks,
historic sites, and semi- public, are also allowed as conditional uses.
S) Water- Oriented Commercial District.
Description: Provide for existing or future commercial uses adjacent to the lake that are
functionally dependent on such close proximity.
6) General Use District.
Description: for lands already developed or presently zoned for development with concentrated
urban, particularly commercial, land uses. Commercial planned unit developments are allowed in this
district if handled as conditional uses. The intent of the Standards and Criteria is that there
will be no new commercial areas added that do not already exist. Lakeshore conrr.ercial activity
shall be limited to water- oriented acti•rities.
B. Allcwable uses within each Zoning District within Lake Minnetonka shorelands are: (Individual
local governments may prohibit one or more of those listed).
C -1
1) Special Protection Distrirt.
Use
Status
Forest management
Permitted
Sensitive resource management
Permitted
Agric
Permitted
Parks and historic sites
Conditional use
Residential
Conditional use
C -1
2) Lake Minnetonka Residential District.
Use Status
Single family residential Permitted
Public and semi-public Conditional use
Parks and historic sites Conditional use
Single - family residential PUD at same density Conditional use
3) Otis to Four Unit Residential District.
Use
Status
Single-family
Permitted
Duplex
Permitted
Triplex
Permitted
Quad
Permitted
Forest management
Permitted
Public and semi-public
Conditional use
Parks and historic sites
Conditional use
Residential PUD at same density
Conditional use
1) Five to Twelve Unit Residential Dist -ict.
Use
Use
Status
Permitted
Single family
Permitted
Commercial
Duplex
Permitted
Conditional us,
Triplex
Permitted
Parks and historic sites
Quad
Permitted
Six to twelve unit residential
Permitted
Forest management
Permitted
Water - oriented commercial
Permitted
Residential PUD at same density
Permitted
Commercial PUD
Permitted
Public and semi - public
Conditional use
Parks and historic sites
Conditional use
S) Water-Oriented Commercial District.
Use
Status
Water- oriented commercial
Permitted
Forest management
Permitted
Commercial
Conditional use
Commercial PUD
Conditional us,
Public and semi - public
Conditional use
Parks and historic sites
Conditional use
6) General Use District. (Used only to avoid nonconforming lar:i 41c+. No new areas are to be
developed.)
Use Status
Commercial Permitted
Water- oriented ommorcial Permitted
Forest management Permitted
Health care facilities Permitted
Institutional Permitted
Commercial PUD Conditional use
Residential PUD Ccnditional use
Public and semi-public Conuitional use
Parks and historic sites Conditional use
C -2 0
C. Minimum lot size shall not decrease nn the lakeshore. The standards and criteria below are
designed to pressure cities to increase, not decrease lot sizes wherever the present neighborhood
standards falls below 15,000 square feet. Individual local governments may be more restrictive; all
must manage to these values with deviations no lo. : than 60 percent of the values shown for lots of
record when the local ordinance is adopted whcre i would also include single family lots as long as
it does n�c increase the c,n conformity. The single-family minimum lot standard is 15,000 square
feet, except that Excelsior, Mound _nd Spring Park may have 10,C00 square feet. The exception for
those three like.^ xe conmunities is provided in recognition of the extensive de :opment that has
already occurred there. However, those three communities are expected to move toward the 15,000
square foot standard as redevelopment occurs.
1) Limits on lot area, minimum width and setback are:
District
Minimum Area Minimum Width
(sq. ft.) (ft.)
Special Protection District
Residential
Shoreline
15,000
75
Shoreland
10,000
75
Lake Minnetonka Residential District
Single family
Shorelire
15,000
75
Shoreland
10,000
75
One to Four Unit Residential District
(Shoreline and
Shoreland)
Single family
15,000
75
Duplex
18,000
100
Triplex
30,000
150
• Quad
40,000
200
Five to Twelve Unit Residential District (Shoreline
and Shoreland)
Single family
15,000
75
Duplex
18,000
100
Triplex
30,000
150
Quad
40,000
200
Six to twelve units
15,000 /unit
250
General Use District
Residential PUD
15,000 /unit
250
2) Setbacks on all sewered lots 3h&11 be 50 feet. For unsewered lots the setback shall be 75 feet.
D. Guest cottages (M.R. 6120 3300 subp. 2 C) must meet the local community standards based on
restricting use to short tr:c, visits by guests and family as a conditional use subject to the limits
imposed by B and C su ra. (In!Lvidual local governments may be more restrictive).
E. Bluff impact zones (M.R. 6120.3300 subp 3 C). Stra ^.Cures and accessory facilities, except
stairways and landings oust not bo placed wiihin bluff impact zones.
F. All accessory structures (M R. 6120.3300 subp. 3 H) must meet or exceed str- icture sethar-k standards.
G. Water -oriented ecces -ory structures or fa_ilit.iei, ether than docks, are prohibited.
C-3
H. Local government officials must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development
visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems,
roads, driveways, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions mist
be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve xisting vegetation screening of
structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of pubic waters, assuming
summer, leaf-on vegetation.
I. Stairways, lifts and landings (M.R. 6120.3300 subp. 3 I) are preferred to major topographic
alterations and must meet the following design requirements:
1) stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots.
2) required stairway landings must not exceed fout feet in width and 32 squarn feet on residential
lots.
3) canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts or landings.
4) construction must assure control of soil erosion.
S) must be located in the most inconspicuous portion of the lot, as viewed from the water surface,
whenever practical.
J. Decks (M.R. 6120.3300 subp. 3 J) must meet the setback standards of the local government.
K. Building heights are limited as follows:
1) In Residential Districts and Water-Oriented Commercial Districts and for residential structures
in other distr.c -3, building height is limited to three levels visible from the lake or 35 feet,
whichever is lower.
2) Commercial structures in a General Use District shall not exceed 40 feet in height.
3) Building height is to be measured according to the procedures in the Uniform Building Code,
except that the lowest point will be the basis for measurement and that point shall be the
pre - existing elevation at the time that lot is purchased. Topographic changes after purchase
shall not be considered in determining building height.
4) Variances on building height are not permitted. Exceptions that may be considered by
communities are limited to the following and must be handled through a conditional use permit:
Chimneys or flues
Cooling towers
Elevator penthouses
Flag poles
Television and radio antennae
L. Use of fertilizer ar.d pesticides (M.R. 5120.3300 Subp. 4 A(3)) in the shoreland management
district must be done in such a way as to minimize runoff into the shore impact zone or public water
by the use of earth, vegetation, or both.
M. Outlots created during subdivision and for access to Lake Minnetonka are subject to the
following restrictions:
1) The number of watercraft stored on the outlot is subject to the rules and regulations that
may be imposeo by the 12CD or the local community, whichever is the most restrictive.
2) The lot must be suitable for development under the requirements of the applicable zoning
district.
3) Must be ,jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision.
4) Must meet the requirements of the local subdivision ordinance.
N. Ma cturing and industrial uses are prohibited on parcels ripnrian to Lake Minnetonka.
Industrial and manufacturing uses in the shorelands of Lake Minnetnnka are limited to districts
already developed for such p.irposes as of the adoption date of this Manngement Flan,
f
u
C•4
0. Planned Unit Developments
11 Use of the Planned Unit Development process by lekeshore communities shall be limited to
determining the optimum site layout for structures and facilities. It shall not be used as
a method for granting variances to maximum structure height or the minimum setback, lot
area and width requirements.
2) Residential PUDs roust not exceed the maximum height restriction for its zoning district.
3) The design criteria for residential and commercial PUDs shall be established by local
ordinance, except that the following paragraphs, or ones even more restrictive, shall be
included in any local ordinance:
"Evaluation of suitability of the entire site must include consideration of aesthetics, land slope,
water dalth, vegetation, soils depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors."
"Shore recreation facilities, to the extent allowed, and including but not limited to swimming
areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps must be centralized and located in
areas suitable for them. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking
of watercraft must not exceed the number permitted under applicable LMC� or local community rules
and regulations, whichever is more restrictive. Launching ramp facilities. Including a small dock
for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units if
consistent with LMCD and local community r • and regulations."
P. All variances to structure height and all variances to other building, lot area, structure
location and structure use for riparian parcels on Lake Minnetonka shall be submitted to the LMCD
for review and comment.
Q. Vegetation removal shall be governed by the shoreland ordinance. The provisions of 6120.3300
subp. 4 must be included in the ordinance, but modified to reflect the following:
1) Clear cutting of vegetation on riparian parcels is prohibited.
2) Removal of living trees larger than 6 inches in diameter may be by permit only.
3) Selective cutting of other trees and underbrush shall be allowed as long as sufficient
cover is left to screen motor vehicles, dwellings, and other structures when viewed from
the lake.
4) Review of proposed site development plans under this and other applicable ordinances shall
specifically review the plans for preserving as much natural vegetation as practical within
40 feet of the lake.
S) Bare ground areas must be vegetated, and vegetative matter must not be placed on impervious
surfaces or in natural drainageways.
R. Grading ar.d Filling (6120.3300 Subp. 4 B) must be limited by the shoreland ordinance. The
provisions of 6120.3300 subp. 4 B must be included in the ordinance except as modified to reflect
the following:
1) Restrictions placed on grading and filling within wetlands (Types 3, 4,
S, 6, 7, and 8) must be mitigated to prevent decrease in the functional values of wetlands.
2) The wildlife habitat and runoff water quality enhancement functional values of a wetland
should be quantitatively determined by anal;sis conducted according to methods prescribed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1990) and Driscoll at al. (1985), respectively.
(These are discussed in the Water Quality Managemer.4 Working Paper.)
S. In order to protect the general welfare end safet;• of the boating public, lights shall be
controllel by the shoreland ordinance. She following provisions are adled to or rnlify those
• contained in 6120.3300 subp. 3 so as to apply to all portions of riparian prcperty regardless of tl:e
permitted use:
C -5
1) No light source on shoreline property may be visible from the lake.
2) No light source on shoreline property shall exceed 0 5 candles at the ordinary high water
mark.
3) Lights located on dock and other allowed structures will be regulated by the LMCD.
T. The agricultural use standards (6120.3300 Subp 7 A through D) for shoreland areas must be
incorporated into the shoreland ordinance of cities with agricultural lands within their corporate
limits.
U. The stormwater management standards (6120.3300 Subp 11 A through B) must be incorporated into
the shoreland management ordinance except that the following must also be included:
1) U.S. EPA criteria (NURP) are to be required for stormwater detention basins (as discussed
in the Water Quality Management Working Paper).
2) Impervious surface coverage of lots should not exceed 25 percent of the lot area without an
approved stormwater management plan.
3) Permit requirements for each constructed detention pond shall include a Maintenance Plan
and provisions for access to perform maintenance.
V. The sewage treatment provisions (6120.3400 Subp. 3) must be included in the shoreland ordinance.
W. The erosion control and stormwater runoff from PUDs must be included in the shoreland management
ordinances except that these more restrictive provisions must be added:
1) runoff must be managed according to the recommendations contained in item U, above.
2) Maximum impervious coverage of PUDs shall be limited to only 25 percent.
X. The following subparts of Chapter 6120.2500 ff. are not listed in the Shoreland Management
Standards and Criteria for Lake Minnetonka, The first section lists those subparts that are to be
negotiated between the individual communities and the Department of Natural Resources. The second
list includes those parts that are implicit in the Standards and Criteria and are to be included in
each Shoreland Management Ordinance,
Individual Communities:
6120,3300
Subp,
3 E through F.
Proximity to unplatted cemeteries and significant historic
sites; proximity to roads and highways.
6120.3300
Subp.
5.
Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas.
6120.3300
Subp.
8
Forest management standards.
6120,3300
Subp.
9
Extractive use standards.
6120.3300
Suhp,
12.
Mining of metallic minerals and peat.
6110.3400
Subp.
2.
Water supply.
6120.3500
Subdivision provisions.
6120.3800
Planned unit development not addressed in Appendix C.
6120.3900
Administration not addressed in Appemi: C.
Y. Implicit in the Standards and Criteria:
All other subparts and subdivisions not specifically mentioned above are implicit to the standards
and criteria contained in Appendix C. These incluia, but, are not limited to:
6120.3300 Suhp, 2. Residential lot size.
6120 3300 Subp. 28. Lot area and with standards for single, duplex, triplex, and d.Iad
residential de'+elop.ent; lake classes.
•
•
C -6
6120.3300 Subp. 3. Other parts not listed above.
6120.3300 Subp. ♦. Other parts not listed above.
. 6120.3300 Subp. 10, Standards for commercial, industrial, public and semi - public uses.
Z. Flexibility from the DNR and LWD standards and criteria may be granted in establishing local
shoreland regulations when major existing commercial or multiple family zones fall
within the shoreland zone. However, environmental, aesthetic, public health and safety, and
tax base protection must be maintained to the highest possible degree. The Stormwater
Management Program shall be the primary means of controlling adverse effects generated by
development and redevelupment.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of the Standards and Criteria, certain terms or words used shall be interpreted as
follows: the word "shall" is mandatory, not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified,
shall be measured horizontally.
ACCFSSCRY STRUCTURE or FACILITY: any building or improvement subordinate to a principal use which, because of
the nature of its use, can reasonable be located at or greater than normal structure setbacks.
BLUFF: a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having all of the following
characteristics:
a. part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area;
b. the slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the wat
c. the grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the
• ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and
d, the slope must drain toward the waterbody.
An area with an average slope of less han 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not
be considered part of the bluff.
BOATHOUSE: a structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment.
BUILDING LINE: a lire parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required
setback beyond which a structure may not extend.
CCRIE iCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVFWrW.iTS: are typically uses that provide transient, shore -term lodging
spaces, rooms, or parcels and their operations are essentially service-oriented. For example,
hotel /motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily
service oriented activities are commercial planned unit developments.
CCK01CIAL USE: the principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental or trade of
products, goods, and services.
0CtMISSIONER: the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
CONDITIONAL. USE: a use as t! is term is defined in Minnesota Statates, 394.
DFX: a ho:iz..ntal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or
other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site and at any point
extending rw re than three feet above ground.
. DUMIX , TRIFLEX AND WAD: a dwelling structure on a single lot, having two, three, and four units
respectively, being Attached by cerrrK;n walls and each unit e with separe'_e sleeping, cooking, eat.ng,
living, end sanitation fac.ilittes.
C-7
DWELLING SITE: a designated location for residential use by one or more persons using temporary or movable
shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites.
DWELLING UNIT: any structure or portion of a structure, or other shelter designed as shore- or long -term •
living quarters for one or more persons, including rental or timeshare accommodations such as motel, hotel,
and resort rooms and cabins.
EXW'LAIVE USE: use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals,
other nonmetallic minerals, and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51.
FOREST LAND CONVERSION. the clear cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use other than
reestablishment of a subsequent forest stand.
GUEST COTTAGE: a structure used as a dwelling unit that may contain sleeping paces and kitchen and bathroom
facilities in addition to those provided in the primary dwelling unit on a lot.
HARDSHIP: the same as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, 394.
HEIGHT OF BUILDING: the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten
feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height
of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof.
INDUSTRIAL USE: the use of land or buildings for the production, manufacture, warehousing, storage, or
transfer of goods, products, commodities, or other wholesale items.
INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING: the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or
block.
LOT: a parcel of land designated by plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditors plot, or other •
accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by said description for the purpose of sale,
lease, or separation.
LOT WIDTH: the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line
NONCONFORMITY: the same as that term is defined or described in Minnesota Statutes, 394.
ORDINfRY HIGH WATFR LEVEL: the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating
the highest water level which has boen maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the
landscape, c- mnonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the
bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of
the normal summer pool.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOIWIff: a type of development characterized by a unified site design for a number of
dwelling units or dwelling sites on a parcel, whether for sale, rent, or lease, and also usually involving
clustering of these units or sites to provide areas of cormH)n open space, density increases, and a mix of
structure types and land uses. These development may be organized and operated as condominiums, time-share
condominiums, cooperatives, full fee ownership, commercial enterprises, or any combination of these, or
cluster sublivisions of dwelling units, residential condominiums, townhouses, apartment buildings,
campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, resorts, hotels, motels, and conversions of structures and land uses
to these uses.
PUBLIC WATERS: any waters as defined in Hii.nesota Statutes, 105.37, subdivisions 14 end 15. The official
determination of the size and physical limits of dt areas of rivers and strew. -.s sha11 he mafe by the
commissioner.
C 9
e
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVEl.0MM: a use wber• the nature of residency is non-transient and the major or
primary focus of the development is not service-orianted. For example, residential apartments, manufactured
. home parks, time-share condominiums, townhouses, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be
considered as residential planned unit developments.
SEW- PUBLIC USX: the use of land by a private, nonprofit organisation to provide a public service that is
ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organisation.
SENSITIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: the preservation and management of areas unsuitable for develcpment in their
natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or
expansive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special
protection.
SETBACK: the minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and
an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top o" a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other
facility.
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM: a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage
treatment system as described and regulated in chapter 7090.
SEWER SYSTEM. pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other constructions, devices,
appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of
ultimate disposal.
SHCRL IMPACT ZONE: land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel
to it at a setback of SO percent of the structure setback.
• SHORE:EAND: land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake.
SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITESS: any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the
criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of
Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, section 307.08. A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register
or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota Historical
Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be a significant historic site.
STEEP SLOE: land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly
suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county
soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming
practices are used in accordance with the provisions of these regulations. Where specific information is not
available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances
o! SO feet or more, that are not bluffs.
STRUCTURE: any building or appurtenance, including decks, except aerial or underground utility
lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph, gas lines, towers, poles, and other supporting
facilities.
SUBDIVISION: land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including planned unit
development.
SURFACE WAT7]1 ORIYT0 Cr?t W,1AI. USE: the use of the land for commercial purposes, where access to and use
of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business. Marines, resorts, and
restaurants with transient docking facilities are examples of such use.
C-9
TOE OF TEL BLUFF: the low point of a 50 -foot segment with an average slope exceeding lg percent.
VARIANCE: the same as that term is defined or described in Minnesota Statutes, 394.
MATER-OUENTEI) ACCEssm STRUCTURE or FACILITY: a small, above ground building or other improvement, except
stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface
water future, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback.
Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump
bouses, and detached decks.
WETLAND: a surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish and Wildlife Circular No.
79 (1971 edition), which is hereby incorporated by reference, is available through the Minitex interlibrary
loan system, and is not subject to frequent change.
0
•
C -10