Loading...
1990-10-23 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET - 10 -23 90 #4 0 0 aw >V x U 14 Q?+NON ve,v4) •A C U C C ,C IO •�I Q) •va.:.xs= >1 • H C.1 .O � :s U Q► 5-4 U X � rl> to T1 a .(.1 � CJ •.1 N 11 U t. U 'C3 0 T1 N CI ♦) �t Vt U Yl U N I Rl III •r( ,C rt1 111't'1 N ►� tip N t C> C": N rJ c: 01 U (ll N -- - I C: CO 4J t t: SL-0 . -1 U 11 .-1 Q) r-•( - • 1 }( ell (-) 11 Q) Ill c' () RI I. ISi u, N fr) 0 a ( '(t .1 6 >' IY E 4j 4ja V %-4 4- �•� X N C: C YI Ill �: ?, 1: :: N .X • 1 y (, C) f. t.l • O 0 a1 N H ). ell t / .v t'. 111 • t (: ,I ..: ti U p L* •( .a /11 -4 X � O O Q) W (1 t1, I •.. Ill lot (1 1I oil oil ..1 I,1 /+ ♦� W �Y .+, 41 ^'r iv s lu c 1 > :: r. v V N A' ill .[l .c: v) N a 4•f1 C1 u► (!/ 41 i. L:l !: .y " -I N . -f '% ►;-0 C 'n •.1 L1 (if N l•I . lr 14 � N U $4 L: t' t) ff fit -r /' I If, U () / r: tl - is .3 1, A U N wit it 41.11 .n .. . C3 q► PI 145 nl t: �, Qf . •1 :1 /J •a 1 11 al S). r: I til � 1 7 l.'U •Il f 1 1 111 5741 1.1 n} �� t: •• Ift oil �S SI .1: In .-1 U i1 �) ti 't7 I f 1 m •. I i.J .,1 111 a) U ( ul t1t C: - •. rrl ! • I t. 111 . • t (, .0 1!1 N 1) Qt : W -� QI ' U1 :. r-1 u 1.1 Al : 1 (u :: • , U, 1 J '• 1 (: •. 1 r n '(S .(.: .0 IJ )1 it •.' }{ 4J 1�1 ti 111 rl • -t ." l: "I llI •'t .I Ill ••i tl tl f~ N `C 21 a) u. W .II I1 tll t 't1 .•� S: 1 1 1 to lL ••1 ;� ap (1 t. '.i 'fl III f: 11. C) II)• `• U O at u V: 0 QI t I a+ i t. Ill C: 0.1 QI Y' V •,.1 (, •, .f.' , 4 i Al 44 4 - 4 'Cl 11 JI 1 1 1 •It i s ra ♦ I IU .n U ••_t t, t.11 -( ( II �. 7r1 U r r •Z ,( I n it V � (11 Ill tJ 111 Il 1 1 IJ 1.1 C t (ll 111 '1 I 40 N l:► (► .11 1 1 I/, I : ttt S: .i : 1 1 I. 4 U 4t t: •�I Up (a CT lJ - fl -4 '• 1 • t • l 1 I17 N 1.. HI I) 0 N d1 •< :,, I t I I (+ 11, t ; -1 ni Al >1 t' s~L:�: tlr r}1 S ill I I C. C1 C:: •rl TI Vi .p 41 If HI I ...1 I!1 -•'(1 '(1 L : U1 C. 'rl 1~ C I i t Ill nt (;1 (I S U) Ij. li+ Q) "4­1 r•I C1 l7 U 0 RS . (( Itl Ir. -1 nt - f ,_ t 1) 01 ,1: Lt ct .,I 11 ' r ; . 1 1 '(t I t -• 1 (J . -1 t) ,t: llt •YJ 4. t►/ • _1 I .7 . 1 1I 111 Ilr 11 ..1. 1 111 n1 l: x. Ill 0, U a 1+t./ C: O •I m f: t•.t. I1V/ 1 11 'I �. tl,Ill 1i if to Ill ' �%� tl 01 f 1 •'I ;•r ;. r'1 q7 . I L I 'I ... I I I , IIS : 'rl t : 5,.11 U (J. Q lL + +, ,i I I 1 (to t.: 1.1 (/, 1: t: - 1 + (' - .( . - 1 11• ( !1 111 1 f.I •il _. f 1 .. 111, -1 •C/ W lV Q, rl 1,1 111 i'1 r•t . - -i ,t I •f n'1 LI Itl . t) N 'C3 1 rt IJI .t i V: 11 i, :•1 II : f 1t.(t l + - r l I) .' tll 111 •'S t)I rll 1 : f - : t-1 1! rll l.: .4l 111 '�7 5). tl -•"( N O •t j, .Ij ,.t i at 1 C) 1 UI Ill L) !: U. •' - rl S71 @) 1(1 'LS C: y 1. t: Tt v7 ..: -: t: r't•11 rrl C 1 i. "I to �_, {I �, t. .II .• t. •• { ,! I 'r1 1 f 1 a l 1 , f : IU (1 y1 0) /].•- 1 , r 1I 4S t: _ ..': IV (j. 1 11) I',I - rt t .C.1 •11 it 1. l) ( --4 (11 (4 . t �1 ..1 ':1 ,' 1, r. • :. 't 1 ql <r r ! ', Ili •. Iii ul •-1 (J QI 11 ,1 .'r 'll :I 1 . -1 t i.: l r 'n . 1 ..t :1 t.l ' 1 :.; r ♦ It 111 - 1 It) LI f•1 SU Ilr ,1 ' l 1 Ir I 1 1� ... II; .r .i , 11•, i/.. L.l •!• 1 -1 UI /-( • lLJ Lt 0 0 aw >V x U 14 Q?+NON ve,v4) •A C U C C ,C IO •�I Q) •va.:.xs= >1 • H C.1 .O � :s U Q► 5-4 U X � rl> to T1 a .(.1 � CJ •.1 N 11 U t. U 'C3 0 T1 N CI ♦) �t Vt U Yl U N I Rl III •r( ,C rt1 111't'1 N ►� tip N t C> C": N rJ c: 01 U (ll N -- - I C: CO 4J t t: SL-0 . -1 U 11 .-1 Q) r-•( - • 1 }( ell (-) 11 Q) Ill c' () RI I. ISi u, N fr) 0 a ( '(t .1 6 v .0 • 'Cf U r6 a1 N C, ( Q. W w r•1 �► Q1 L I f.l •r1 t: U - N U �► i v u, QI Os in t: C3 q► (U r, 12 N C. U "0 r IL rt :' (C] t]. ' U1 :. r-1 ( I L. •,I (V ti 111 f~ N `C 21 a) u. W •.1 at u V: 0 . -t •( f: 44 111 ill .� Q) r0 U :• U ••_t t, y C: w •Z .-I •.1 f~ C_ W t. 1 is }-( • -1 cL lJ 0 N d1 ll Ql •.1 04-4 U 1 I (U (n to () • GJ C_I Up 1`4 111 to o IA Y M-( x (11 11 CP M ill .-1 .;.1 (G S) CS _0 : :1 M t+ •lS . t) • y <V v .0 • t�. 0 In x > $4 +l3 pa!u t ul $t Of ;3 V 410 'M T5 fJ JG t: kt n tU —I rl r, v ►+ f;4t I} of n 1": (? u t u, c: A9 .tl i t pt (1 a• '0 0 JI i. -1 't.9 •- t tit •tt it 'v' i .1 a9 to r i (1 111 QI �: (,+ •I m f: •. I ♦ 1 C.1 -t j1 II tT -.1 n n, I1 Au .t 11 •.1 : W L 1 C^ •CJ t!1 LrIC j '�,,,��� r , h tf Q• N U N N A► al � ra r+ a n a,._. W V C Y, �+ •Q �" . 0 :3 !� r vN n,.., ut vO - In9 .0w a r •-+ O w •• 1 N O CS f.: a� N •.•1 O f"+ >, r,► t t .v f' Ur - I . I IV • - r ?C 4 w ..: •.. r, I , 1„ nl •• l UI t t N Q, y r- .-+ Lt tai a•/ - n1 41 .L t i ,: ., '.1 •--+ v0 •• 1 UI .,I a It La i s .y ^ -t 4,D •. -I '1 i s • u LJ TJ • -1 41 • ([) U) >e >1 E. 11-41 ff oil -r to u (, _ . •t1 r ., r , t, t+ t� Tf L• '•, AI • -, (t 44 •-.[ � .i —4 tU m t: H• t[J .•1 :t tJ •t, 1: nl L a VI + .11 ,t I Its Us r (a 111 u, f : -t 3 .t 1 UI • --1 ' '(1 31 0 t': v (r it . ••t r1 m ••I a ., y 7 al a) U ttl nl �� 1+, IU . .., (/ ;• :. 11 .Ip UI N 11 Q1 ► a1 "I }I t: Ur••I .I lie •.1 'r1 31 fl I' -+ It m ,� Ilr I : 'r1 .'� L: IN t, t ly - I (k) 1 1 N 'f t /'t 1': t 1 , 1 t d/ . 1 • ,l, 4J 44 ' f I l •If i s rt7 � / . t r +l 1 IU 1-1 rrr n[ U r= in , t 1 (U ,1, :7 ♦J W V 3.1•.1 + rjr IJ 71 (t rll t: • -1 UI In IT •• 1 • 1 • i 1 r1J N l.. HJ t �• •1t •.• • : • -1 t ZS U T1 01 t : yr t. ) 1 I , t i1, 1 Al )1 t: fit (jl t. - Q, 1 [ : c, [' . -I ?t [) lil ire t0 •(� ;.' ltl (I ." l -11 111 I . 1 1 / "r -'p TI (. UI f -: '(9 C: 1!, r,l t its nt (:) t, t' u7 li! ,p Ql %, ••'1 a rr (> TJ U U t(S 1 r . 1 ,;, -., • . i i,1 4; �. ; Ul i r •., AJ C: -1 +1 r-1 L {11 r ;• ,n .f: ,,J lr, 1 f 1 'I t 1 1 '! S 1 1 •• I IJ • -t t I .t ". 1(f W, J.1 C ►, C its nt t: a) . - •, t U l tl i) �!, i. 1 01 t-t t: V •'t sit i. dl X11 o Q1 ', ..• 1 NS 111 ,It :: t: Llltl O 1J. U{ Q1 !J ;, • r'1 111. I L 1 I I , E: 0.1 . 1 11• QI IU 1', t , a.l - . ! , ! ,,, - t 'C) U7 l[S U) 1:71 . '9 n1 N +h s: fl. a1 [:c ,�; 1[ II It .•I 11 rt 4 �: • 11 r - n.t< S, t, .' QI H 1•) Ill n1 l; f: 1.1 '•/ t,1C: i. ,+ III { rIl l.: .{ 7 /Il •i 7 L.1. tl rl f(, (, .11 i•{ 1 1 ^1 it .1 „1 ., t Rl r:,i O •• 1 01 •r7 .. r', Ir, •' Yf t1 Q) /: 71 .'.' .; t: 111 •' .l.! (l. . 'r 'll :. i t 111 + l l r .. 1;) tot 1 . -. --{ tjl ,',r -•tJ 111 34 : `1 -1 t i.t ',I „1 ,.r '., r r 1 '.1 11 1 � 11 -.. lli ••) art r 1 lr. [7. t.l • !1 /_1 tIl 1 - i LrIC F� oy.-A t]?,1 . O ye3vd •.•1 C ut=G • lA f.l. � : -K f: �•.•1 eU CS tQ 41 :S U 1-4 U .SC a rt to IV Tl S�. ( 4p t•1 .Ll 3 Ili 0 t. - I V •.1 N 11t C1 U � t : t;: • - e C: t: WOO O a :J rc C: 1; r i Q► :J U, (7 clJr.: - - 11.U'U LI t� 0 its �t vi C) ul U N to m tp • t .0 a3 It1 Tt N 1r n1 ru t� 'U t1) N -t C: (0 a-) 1- L: fL .C) N p m Ill :. at •-! CI 4 �1 )t rn U f: <, N • i: 111 U, Rl a QS 21 7 O i]. Ill V1 In r1: Ill nt pl M t1 •t, ti Ill tR G N t, .j L i� u U .. C O 1.1 1J cl m Ise t-1 to G • 'f, 4-+ r� C .a •a C: rt 1115 -4 .Q a a 11 1;1 U 1: a) u► in t: (u (: f : •-1 ft, m u. C) - 0 ��•r1 �1 C N tL RI •r} 1I1 - t. • -1 (1J C rU - <ZS a� in N L: r-t N rJ ct3 Cl, U f' U {: 4 4 al at Q, ,o U r. U) t/1 Ti i_ 34 -1 N N 34 t_ 11 CL I �.,i U •. -t to N a 1 U U 1p u, to C > r•, i-f :7 (Al fG SS CI Tf U4 O C U aN to Q, w LI •rt u v In u QI OS 12 tot t) N � of (I )� Iq U. W t� t� •• t is ( l_I d/ �,i • ni >1 - •t tJ rn 11; 41 (V 0 0 0 0 C) x A E? a r •-+ O w F� oy.-A t]?,1 . O ye3vd •.•1 C ut=G • lA f.l. � : -K f: �•.•1 eU CS tQ 41 :S U 1-4 U .SC a rt to IV Tl S�. ( 4p t•1 .Ll 3 Ili 0 t. - I V •.1 N 11t C1 U � t : t;: • - e C: t: WOO O a :J rc C: 1; r i Q► :J U, (7 clJr.: - - 11.U'U LI t� 0 its �t vi C) ul U N to m tp • t .0 a3 It1 Tt N 1r n1 ru t� 'U t1) N -t C: (0 a-) 1- L: fL .C) N p m Ill :. at •-! CI 4 �1 )t rn U f: <, N • i: 111 U, Rl a QS 21 7 O i]. Ill V1 In r1: Ill nt pl M t1 •t, ti Ill tR G N t, .j L i� u U .. C O 1.1 1J cl m Ise t-1 to G • 'f, 4-+ r� C .a •a C: rt 1115 -4 .Q a a 11 1;1 U 1: a) u► in t: (u (: f : •-1 ft, m u. C) - 0 ��•r1 �1 C N tL RI •r} 1I1 - t. • -1 (1J C rU - <ZS a� in N L: r-t N rJ ct3 Cl, U f' U {: 4 4 al at Q, ,o U r. U) t/1 Ti i_ 34 -1 N N 34 t_ 11 CL I �.,i U •. -t to N a 1 U U 1p u, to C > r•, i-f :7 (Al fG SS CI Tf U4 O C U aN to Q, w LI •rt u v In u QI OS 12 tot t) N � of (I )� Iq U. W t� t� •• t is ( l_I d/ �,i • ni >1 - •t tJ rn 11; 41 (V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IE h> r, : - si) r+ 1. !, 1 1.1 ,, t I l i u• },' �" ,- 111 n• I t,.'n , nl •rt 10 f1• 1, rU :) ' S 41' 1 • / I i -t. 1✓ �. 1 n• () to rn (tl n n tN 'jt lt. :. ,• 1„ l/.l.l :! .. I -• • n }- -. . , t ' I 'r7 r-t }� IL c, 6, ul }-•tiI m • •_ 1 r r t : 1 U /Z •• itl I(1 ID N rt rt C) ([1 f 1 m ► - . tt ., r•, O ft tj 7 LL (A) 1. t � M •� � }•.. Ir. 10 I Ill oil to (1 (U RI IS )', ID'r1 Y11. S). 1/ 7 rr }-� } • • to I'D lift :3 rt, IN :7' I+ ) —•rt 0 :3 n v I' 3 (U �. .. ,) . fll :3" 10 : 1 ) 111 11 , {:• t•. :) N W Lj, [ L x N :3 ul }< rt} 1�• �t li) C) CL I.. In fi. to .: Iv rn rt tL I.. .; tt• 1 -. ; r :, 1? In :i t.. :: r+ Ib ••1 rl t. , 1( , 7 , l•. �(b �n� • [). I :) :' 1 0 IV fit • . r • , tP : 1• � I • t I., 1 rt Ill .. +t ti. „� M ID In rt 7 rl N : O A 0 A ti tt ,.. I1 f - t rl to n In 111 11• I) l) i •. t 111 'r t 1 'r N rt Qi A Ll. � r }•• t'tt /) 1... to 1) r J , •.) r •. ' • 1 l ]. r 1 ) rt r 'S ,� I< tY !!1 lD a r, �1 � w Mr O (n n in :s [U p rt t( O .. n C) is f"t N• 1D 'C3 I; O LZ (D ri :r to HI tt il• W II) lu (,1 ID ,IJ u, rn rtl b• M u A S r • a w r .T 0 t t `. (n n 0 Ul W (D IS t") Ur rt rr •r s �, ; -s r t a I -• tv m n. (D rt N n, tt n '-1 n ID t r t N w. to Cu �" } • IP w ry rn n In O In 1 nr13 • N 17 3 fU Iirn r IDu.� �r :3 > — c: rt t) fL 0 J Y• C+ Y• n rt Il 13.u! N 1 n 't O no Ir+ a rlrs � tT t r• K n s, rt m i a :3• tDCL19A In 0 .+ K a r+ :r. O 7. a tr a 0 A A K M tp 1 ul f "t r r 1 (1 • I fn I:) t-- 'U 111 � ib ro W J I,• tin () N Y too 'rJ � mm 1b =_� • 1 rt m fD n /'t r t t-• 1•'- Ill C) :J :$ till K s 't It r- n (A M I'N L: 0 �•f t'1 IL tt rt ID :3 (D lb �. CL to :3 ID t '•• t•+ N l7 H � rt w W rt 0 Mf. ,,. rt 'r) '•1 1 • U 1. :rl • i t r', I I i , , . � Ir. 11• , ,,. •' (ll 1. t1, ll' 1. !, 1 1.1 ,, t I l i u• },' �" ,- 111 n• I t,.'n , nl •rt 10 f1• 1, rU :) ' S 41' 1 • / I i -t. 1✓ �. 1 •t 1< 11 rt Sa 's 't to .. {. 11, .t .. 't :. Lt. tL :t tN 'jt lt. :. ,• 1„ l/.l.l :! t rt r t :) nl In rn ri UI 10 L•. l) ii W } U. 1 4� 1:: ; 1 tit IT) rJ I {1 10 /+ �1. 1( ,)•11_j 111 I +', ;)•il Y•; 11 : 1 U /Z •• itl I(1 ID :,• 111 IJ 1 1 ': 11 11 qtr I {V 1.' fll 1 Y '11 tL I I l —• I.% /.• tL In ►J. } -• It ; I ,) _ li• 1 i 1,. IU /✓ •U s . rn :Y Il IU ;I 1-• i, . r1' �1) i II 'TS O Irrrl : 1 (t. Su r • 1 1 '.. •. i f 1 In t,• •.. I'' 10 I Ill oil a f Il) (1 (U RI IS )', ID'r1 Y11. S). 1/ 7 rr I •. I_• rt ; t to 111 . , .. 1 1 lit ul c 1 , if• 1 •. 1 ,,, • , rt, IN :7' I+ ) —•rt 1•'11 It. r' 1 • t,. I( I' 3 (U �. .. ,) . fll :3" 10 : 1 ) 111 11 , {:• I ' l (i Lj, 1 111 to 11) (') 411 III !1 IU ..) 1(Z : - 3 1). G. •• to 1 ... , 1II 1 t. I • ,'.' u. IT' . , a. li) C) CL I.. ID to 1• :I Ili rt 1 t r: •U tL I.. .; tt• 1 -. ; r :, 1? In :i t.. :: r+ Ib ••1 rl t. , 1( , 7 , l•. U) (A Imo• :I it) I) IU 1 ; :t II : :.f 111 :f rn 1) rt: • [). I :) :' l t Itl r ill fU 0 IV fit • . r • , tP : 1• � I • t I., 1 rt Ill .. +t ti. „� fIf / t 1) p.. rt : t Ill IL :S ) m I • r[1 } •. , 1 1) I � r i 111 : S /.' [ 1. t it •,t tt ,.. I1 f - t rl It /t 1). 1•• In t' I••,r, .,. n In 111 11• I) l) i •. t 111 'r t 1 'r Ill it 1•' III I) I) iil I r I -, In r t ti. [�.•T l 111 1► 1 1 o IL : V I ti, tit }•• t'tt /) 1... to 1) r J , •.) r •. ' • 1 l ]. r 1 ) rt r 'S ,� I< tY !!1 lD 1 S :3 .. p, , .. r) n rn J.. I)1 [, U, It rt N l' f7 Il1 to iD rt rt .1 rt iu in I U •. of, I .. In s••• t”, , •. : .: tr Qt 1-1 t--• +'• QI QI rt to Ili 1 ..w U, 1 ) I) (b Y ,.. (y t 1 -• ' +' In I1 ;.' 1,. • } 1 t 4, 1 ) 't F.. ri rt •:I O O I'• Its •t J'.• 11 IJ N W r+C A'r3 •r) lfI s; �• to W r)• n1 it) E.. -F+OM th O► Ilr r • U rt <n ... ru r+ R` if% L) i i t 1)• I I to V ,r is �� Ill III tom' 1 •r.t 1 "t :j w Ie t -• :rlD u] W T� It �. Ib n• IT,i r -• 61. M (? tZ It 11 ID ( n' r tip 0 [� if) J t:J :J U t0 I i to .3 It r Ij r- tr v r.to it In 1 M to d t r rt t X m O 3 i 10 • -atterr-S �..__�` Y•,' "• - f a t f land use __,- = =° nS 3 ' : d areas net f local - &0 discuss - - - - - - - - - - . ::n C 4C ;Ss�Gs. 2. T cc-su rant f-=Uiati: of regional s'..C----!&nd Tnaragement policies. 3. L--cal ccrzunit f c rm-j I a t e local lake r c te. c t i : n and shcreland development policies. :,: of LiCD c a ^3 UNR to discuss -And c=pare policy state7z 5. Policy ra-Z Ccns-iltant develops lakewide C-,-. t Fra ^ efLr k based on existing ment catte.rns and ccm.crehensive plans CI -,-aricus cominunIties, meeting for resentatjon to cc-,:nunities. 3. 4. and clan adcption. 2 n i t -; 6 s ,: p a te local h ::eflect% agreed upon ;-'anagement. ?Zen. i 10 . . 49 V ?7 T} f/ U wt 41 17 v a 01 0) •-t (A X: w a :" u 1: c, t: ., •11 U A:: C c •= $4,0 Io - C .� cl a: a C 4V tO $6. 4_ b 4 " . 4 (» >GU N t: v, .41 C, ." on a w Cr tL •�I . t >4 01 ••-+ t. us 114 ♦, (11 ..1 III 1•, U 0) ri E' 4J U t' X •'-'+ U •I I fit (U I ,.. 1 a t ...1 0 �1 .- f' u a •11 ►,. 1 ••. I 1 ut..1 ,[1 ,j N s: :I+ Kt 0 'i +: .t ,n. -t U 414 i I C Oki s 1 t o O! u X u T] • t 0 C: ! ti, til u) t) r ty , �/ L in in a do G1 ✓ 41t 'fl .11.1 •. � t l • 11 to 'N �� U T3 • .•1 .t, .0 •.a LL f: ►� o il (: 1 : .-i t , v •.t t t•, 4- 4j !•, il. N .14 . , ), ,,, (: 1' .tt (+ I►: r•, -1 4tr S:.0 J[ to :3 •-1 U . • • .--, . 4 v, . • l ( 1.:: as to •mot tU ,.1 4j r♦ ;r 11+ , [ , . , 't 1 ul 1 1 .C: :I (I In t: S IU 1.1 •.1 •. . (: - 1 , 11 fir t / t U in C= •.-+ •rt (U 0 N U) c: .t 1: 4U vi 4!, I �.) 1 IL - (L tlt • C i > t: JU N 'tt U s 1 rtl Lot : 1 . 1 I 'r 4 ,tl y , .1 d: Q) U, IJ+ C. a N t, C Its 11 21 t.. u, •. I t 04,1: , > t1 u) u) N r: lu > 1 .-t ., to -, :+ :- ,. 4 . (. 1 (: t: it :.t LI.4 .%1 f: 411 • Q (14 t, '411 t1 ,, ., •!I III I I .-1 is All -,I III •. .L: , tt $4 t, 11 4 411 .() 1, 1 t I •r ' S tll fit (1t OF IL( (: ,! N u U 0 U �-1 { 1 tl Qi ,U to •ls U 4 0 I [ . ;,� 111 : I I 1, U n tut)) :• 4) , -+ '1 ul in U .) (0 r, t . 1'1 I • 1 I ,1 1 , •, I . I 41t Its 1.: .V U N (" CI .t: t.: 44 q4 (11 t, .., Ul :1 1 •..I (: 44 Al W V OI Ito (J (n 1./ cf4 •U (: I r .1i I I nl ! t t11 fit .-, �1 :3 .• 1 :: I: C, V 0 iIt ..-. 114.1X14 ,4 fi , 1 41 A ,L, • t: 4 1 Q) S: NI•-I t 1 1 t: Qt r u, Lt :1 .(1 11 I I : • ill IL , I 'f) I I P1 s l 0 ml in .t.: • - I N (1) (.J • -1 P O S.: Is . -1 r. A; I I • 1 •.1 . I IIr IU : I Ill ' -1 ,C: Us U, 0 rl '• . rl .-1 c: ' ;_ , 1 ai )1 I I fi 1 , . -I n) (1) C]. •.1 0 in r, 4)) in .1 :: N ,: u, r,l 1U tL ,r t t! rl.(: UI ♦) • (t (1) LI 0 LI IU • 1 0 4- (1) "0 I I 4 • ..,t 1 f 1 •I I -• i '! t ul C J ) (11 • -1 .t C. 11) M ui fit rJ 111 •- 4 ul. I 'll r1 (I 4 , rtl( t'. •I rd :. C: 41) s (( 1i is s _I i11L (jt • ( .I "1 'if -I 4.1 .- 1 1 '1 (: (1) :1 11 Y4 • (S ( , U (1 r1 •Il .1: �-- ti n 114 1 ,1 . 11 I rl I r'.1 ..1 11 ( Q) 1!Q :. (1,(1) 1.1 t1,(1, 4) ♦) tJ - (� .4 111 ; st', I: ,. rr (: N; V 1 :) (11 :: C)U 1: 1: V.r 41 M ti (1) •) [: r-1 ( I ,t : 4 QI L. tU 41) :- C) C, (11 t' (11 f!) 11 1. <p RL r . it) 11 LJ .1 sI . i u cI s.1 t 4 L' sf (.) 1) t), ( Wi .1 r it r) I 1 rtl (J • -� 11 r•, I 11 �.� ..p Vol ' t •, i 1U :n Vin, 'Ll t: IL' 11 u l 1 • .• o s October 18, 1990 - -,-- -- A TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL S FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER' . *ANV Z Z'D ROAD '.V %E50TA 55364 RE: PROPOSAL TO HIRE A FACILITATOR TO COORDINATE DOWNTOWN STUDY As you know, we talked at the Committee of the Whole meeting with regard to hiring, through Community Development Block Grant funds, a facilitator from a Twin Cities planning firm that could coordinate and "spearhead" the recommendations of the Downtown Study that was performed by Mark Koegler of VanDoren Hazard and Stallings; Rusty Fifield and Becky Yanisch of Public Financial Systems. As discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting, this facilitator would be an employee of a planning firm. The planning firm would contract services of this individual to the City of Mound to essentially serve as a community development or economic development staff person. The person would work for a six month to a year period for approximately 20 hours per week working out of city hall and building upon the recommendations that were made in the Downtown Study. This person would "ride herd" if you will, in br.nging the city council and various commissions along with the business community together to accomplish the implementation plan as recommended by our consultants. A specific contract of services would be drafted which essentially would serve as a job description for the staff person. The program may go as long as one year. Current Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies have been programmed for economic development and would pay for the services of t:e staff person. Future block grant years could provide additional monies if necessary to continue this contract. f?ennepin County requires that if the city does not utilize the economic development programming monii;s, we have two options: 1) Send the money back to the county, or 2) Transfer the money to • another non- social service type of activity, i.e. rehabilitation of private housing, etc. 1 31 �-`1 However, if there was no interest in pursuing the pl would have to hold a public hearing for the pourppoo� O 'l the monies to housing rehabilitation. That wouldx+tx! at the November 13, 1990 meeting. If we wanted to rind back to Hennepin County we could do that prior to eeas- 1990. There is a total of $15,000 available in ecoaon ti programming which qualifies for the above proposal. I reviewed this proposal on October 18, 1990 with:` Development Commission and they have recomended is I'p these lines (see minutes of October 18th r}ee Information /Miscellaneous) . I believe that this approach will get the projeeat it hopefully tangible results can be seen in the not future. I have attached a proposed reaolutfoe consideration. If you have any questions, please a ®etas • 3ia$ 2 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITION ELECTION RECOIOIENDED FOR TEE GENERAL EL # NOVEMBER i, 1990 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of 'the Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the following j' additional election judges for the General Election 1990: S Burns , Gayle 3 Fisher, Judy James, Peggy Leisinger, Duane 5 Norman, John RY A Schwalbe, Dee r; Strong, Ernest Thal, Bill The foregoing resolution was moved by and seconded by Councilmember "`• The following Councilmembers voted in e a ept The following Councilmembers voted in then k w i t . Mayor hM Attest: City Clerk >x 1 RESOLUTION 90 — RESOLUTION APPROVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM k. THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGAIVIRG HIRING OF A FACILITATOR FOR CARRYING OUT Tom; IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE DOMNTOMN STgD? DATED AUGUST, 1990, PREPARED BY VANDOREN HAZARD` r St Ai AND PUBLIC FINANCIAL SYSTEMS .3. WHEREAS, the City utilized Community DevAd Grant (CDBG) monies to hav a downtown study prepartouz Hazard Stallings and Public Financial Systems, aAd WHEREAS, that study made s veral recommeadat �. City on making improvements to the downtown area, •nd,._ , WHEREAS, the study has been reviewed a N the City Council and reviewed by the Eeonotic Dead Commission., Planning Commission and Parks Sad Commission, and "50 WHEREAS, in order to proceed, it is necessi� facilitator to coordinate and lead the City in aee activities as recommended in the irplementation p18n,� WHEREAS, there is currently $15,000 in C� Grant Funds for the purposes of economic develop it and �.,. purposes p p of Mound r recommends Economic D D facilitato } } r • Attest: moved by Councileeobar and seconded by The following Ccuncilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor ~ Clerk 31 �9 BILLS-- - - -.00TOBER 23, 1990 BATCH 0101 BATCH 0102 [o te| Telephone Bryan Rc-ck Rock TOTAL BILLS 0 ��� � \ . ^ w � .. \q » +2 0 ��� - K'`- 1 F n. PURCHASE JOURNAL W'-001 -01 CITY W MXW, 4_fMOR INVOICE DUE HOLD M n -noo -m 40. I4VDICE MW DATE DATE STATUS ATiOW DESMIPTION O W4 9 PRE -PAID 10 /I5/a0 10/15 1°0 835.72 835.22 LID JOC-CD n - naD -9510 PRE -PAID 707.19 1 .I9 73 -73W-= 10115! 10 /1'+/ 78"P. 19 ,A3&. -CO Ot- 4140 -33� F'RE-PAID 4 8:.74 LID 10/151 1011 1 , 19 0 9K.74 ,IRK -CD PR'.BOT CMkQNATini VE'M TOTAL 2605.15 C??3° PRE -PAID 18.95 SEAT CELLULAR ONE 8.75 SEPT CELL1R.gT ONE 39.99 SEPT CELLMR ONE 20/15/90 10/i5/90 77.69 $X-CD CELLULAR ONE YEW. TOTAL 77.69 CIVI88 PRE -PAID 3,782.00 CR UNION 9/29 PR 10115190 10115/90 3, JML-CD CITT COUNTY ME011 UNION VEN!)at TOTAL 3'82.00 CIF PRE -PAID 35.00 MMICIPNL.S WIMET 19.00 WiIC1PILS SAMMET 38.00 MICIPILS Nov 38.00 NMICIPALS MW ET 9.50 MUNICIPALS pA1au 14.25 11NICIPAL. WMQJ ET • 14.25 MUMICiPALS IAMW 10/15M 10,'15/90 171.00 JRNL_M CFT OF IWAR GROVE ,EIGHT VETW TOTAL 171.00 T'OQ20 PRE -FAID 22.83 REPLEN P/C -LIQ 10/15/90 10/15/9 21.83 At .ITT QF y!LND VEW. TOTAL '.83 cloAl PRE -PAID 2,519.80 SIT 9/29 PR 1011`1 10 /l` 2,519.80 JRK-CD FW - PAID 100.35 SEPT SALES TAI 6,416.46 SEPT SALES TAI! 10/15/ 10/15/ 6,516.81 JRNL-w -op "!SSIOES OF G ±V4NUG 'F_$M TOTAL 9 0`.6.61 =? PPE-p -iD 13. CAVE-DELL-PAW COW , n:15ro0 10!25/ 13." Jul -CD :WPT U'EEN 'ANTIOR TOTAL E3.'+5 "A1C 1 ^4.:9 I1 iJ?1!?RACT HOin IN... JF'L -CD • F n. 1010 970'1, � AMWR NM M n -noo -m �'�'� i ;r 1010 t Lii i n- noo -�sto � �, u 1010 T87.0 n - naD -9510 -� �� i 1010 9112.74 �S 73 -73W-= kf � k � T 2P-4170.= 14 Ot- 4140 -33� ` 1Ql0 � 71 -7100 -2100 � �' • �� � �} q� 1010 970'1, � M 01-1190.4121 �'�'� i ;r 01- 111Pi17� � �, u 01- 4101 -bpi -� �� i 73- T;1l1 -l11� }� T8- TA01.41� kf � k � T 1010 14 71 -7100 -2100 � �' 1010 21A • 01- 2040 -0000 � 1010 2529.80 3090 73 3592 1010 M.8t 3101410/12/! 01-4190-4100 1010 M.95 31015 10/11/90 81 - 4350-3100 1010 104.28 3" IOM/90 31 31 ' - PURCHASE JOURNAL # AP-0O2 -01 CITY OF HM %kW INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS MOUNT DESCRIPTION A[xq�iT N11�11 N `s =: PRE -PAID 113.76 12 CWrPACT MDURS - +00 } 10/15/40 10/15/90 113.76 JPIL-CD 1010 WIRER! RUMIPH Vt TOTAL 218.04 D12r. PRE -PAID 1,343.00 OCT DWAL 9/24 PR 01- 2040 -M 16.20 OCT DENTAL - RETIRE 01-4190-1SFO 41.60 OCT DENTAL -R TI E0t 01.4280 -1510 41.60 OCT DENTAL- RETIREER 57.80 OCT DENTAL- RETIREIR 71- 7100 -1510 { x 10!151 10!15/°0 I,SC0.20 -CD 1010 l500.bx_ x DELTA DENTAL VENDOR TOTAL 1500.20 _ �? D1?20 PRE -PAID 650.00 Of MW-MLUWD DRYCE 22-41704110 mom:• 10/15/40 10/15/90 650.00 J %_CD � DONALD IWYCE VEND(Tt TOTAL 650.00 • • E1429 PRE -PAID 63.55 LI0 Ti-n00 -1510 f aV n 1.27- DISC 71- 7100-4S60 . 10/15/90 10/15/90 62.28 JUl-0 1010 01.10 .. a PRE -PAID 1,707.56 LTC 71-7100 - 0 r 357.55 MINE n - noo - 1520x 34.14- DISC n•71ao-9seo r >�� 10/15/90 10/15/90 2,030.97 JRNL-CD 1410 205319 PRE -PAID 1 14'..12 LIC n- 2240-9510 �� 70.80 MINE n- 7100l 22.89- DISC 10/15/90 10/15/90 1,193.03 J NL-CD i0l0 ilfES.fO 3; ED PHILLIPS 4 SONS VENDOR TOTAL 3286.28 61870 PRE -PAID 176.92 REFUND - M1R OVERBILLED 73. 3710.0000 , 314.11 RERWSW OVERBILLED 7s- 3710.0000 r , . 10/15(90 10/15/90 491.03 JNL -CD lotO 191 os 310 i ;RQID ?�8F VENDOP TOTAL 491.03' ul'M PRE -PAID ?0.00 GTS COOE SEMINAR - 01.4190 - 4110 10/15/ 10115/ 20.00 JRNL -CD 1010 20.40 31011 v H r,NT TPA ?q ?-C SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 211.00 ;> s >, X55 PRE PAID 1,165.00 DU CDC 4/;9 PR 01-2040 -0000 10 1 ?5 ;Qv) 10! 15!00 1,155.0 )FPt -CD 1010 1165.00 30989 10/01/10 C.WAT fP . L ' AswRANCE �14DnP TOTAL 11 5.00 C,1 ,71 PGE-DA,D 21.81' 5PP ►0TH Q!^9 PR 01- 204 -0+. ?o :5; =n 111/1, 10f) , I .'3 Jv!C - CD 1010 21.80 3099410/01/90 ?')JP Hfk PLAN VEWOP Tolk 3132 FAM 3 PURCHASE JOURNAL 4P-0O2.01 CITY OF ROAD YOM INVOICE DUE HOLD 171. !MALICE NO WE DATE STARS AMOINI DESCRIPTION 61972 PRE -PAID 598.24 LIQ 153.60 VINE 14.59- DISC 6.33 FRT 104.82 MIY 10/15/90 10/IS/40 8_`4.40 JRNL-CD FRE - PAID 16.04 Nil 70:.73 VINE 7 _1- DISC 6..2 FRY 10/151" 10115M 719.71 AL-M PRE -PAID 152.67 LIQ 681.05 MINE 9.86- DISC 14.21 FRT 10/15/ 10/15/90 8`'18.07 JRNL-CO GRIGGS COOPER i COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 2413.20 M:145 PRE -PAID .14.46 BED 9/29 PR 10/15/90 1ui15/90 288.46 AL-CD FEIN CO SUPPIFT 6 COLLECT+ VOW TOTAL 258.46 M2"60 PRE -PAID 20,:160.46 210 1/2 RE4LESTATE TAX 2 2ND 1/2 REALESTATE TAX-M 15 649. 30 112 REALESTATE TAX-RR 10/15/90 10/15/90 is 23,4'».48 JRNL -CD !£ CO TREASURER VENDOR TOTAL 23422.41 66- 3032-0000 I2301 PRE -PAID 512.90 ICNA 457 9/29 PR 10/15/9010/15/90 512.40 JK-CD '00 WTIREMENT TRUST -457 VENDOR TOTAL 512.40 1010 1_394 PRE -PAID 41.98 ICNA 401 0 /2? PR !0115/90 10/15. 91.98 JRNL -CD ICNA RETIRETENT TRUST -401 VENDOR TOTAL 9 1.98 J_ 71 PRf -PAID 4,5. 06 64 CONTRACT HOLIRS 10 /:5 /90 10115110 465.06 ,fat -CD PR: -PAID 518. 77 CONTRACT HOURS !0/15/40 10/15/40 518.9, JRTt -CD .0-0 rIF;!E %X-kl I? TOTAL QR4.n4 PPE-PAID 1,208.a L'9 W !nr!g /ac? L_-] 01-4.340-3100 1010 465.06 01- 4340 -3100 1010 518.98 31030' p�4 3, . 1695.72 30071 °+ 3� 3 71- 7100-9510 7 1 - 7100 -9520 71 -7100 -9560 1010 ACC0IMT M18Bf g n- 7100.1Sti . 71-7100 -M 71-7100 -9600 n- Iloo-9s4o << 1010 833�M' 71-7100 -9'540 n - nao-9s2o 71-7100 -9560 1010 70.13 n -noa -951 4H.t ��. 7I- 71flQ-9520 <,� x 71 -7100 -9560 n- 7100.9aoo 1010 838.83 01- 2010 -0000 01-4320-5310 66-3831-0000 66- 3032-0000 1010 2XM41 3 01- 2040.0000 1010 512A 01- 2040-0000 1010 92.9$ 30*' 01-4.340-3100 1010 465.06 01- 4340 -3100 1010 518.98 31030' p�4 3, . 1695.72 30071 °+ 3� 3 71- 7100-9510 7 1 - 7100 -9520 71 -7100 -9560 1010 ° kE 4 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP- CO2-01 CITT OF MUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE IUD NO. INVOICE NW DATE DATE STATUS MOUNT DESCRIPTIOII PRE -PAID 839.36 LIC 450.84 NINE 21.30- DISC 10115/°0 !0115/90 1,268.92 ,DAL -CD PRE -PAID 4x.99 LIQ 600.56 NINE 16.39- DISC 10/1`1 !0/15/00 1,137.16 JRNL -CD .0 PROS WHOLESALE L I • vVW TOTAL 4101.00 :790 PRE PAID 173.94 BAITS 10/15/ 10/15/90 173.94 JlK-CD J3NSDN PAPER 0)MPANY VENDOR TOTAL 173.94 L75' PRE -PAID 126.44 SEPT GASOLINE 10/15/00 10/15/90 126.44 At-0 LVATT'S SPRING PARK SPUR VENDOR TOTAL 126.44 L760 PRE -PAID 100.00 LAIC CMAPT SEMINAR -JS 10/15/90 10/15/90 100.00 JR)L -CD LW 0.4MR1 DIAPTER ICBO VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 L PRE -PAID 44.00 UNION 9/29 PR 1O /15/x+0 10/15/90 44.00 JRNL -CD LAID ENFORCEMENT LABOR SER+ VENDOR TOTAL 44.00 � t 1:W PRE -PAID 785,00 ADVANCE -IACP COIF -LN 10/15/90 10/15/90 785.00 JRNL-CD LEONARD WWOELL VENDOR TOTAL 785,00 L_IM PREPAID 36.00 TLOST11ASTER DUES '8.00 TOASTMASTER DUES 10/15/90 10/15/00 54,00 ,oL -CD L'?W'SITLE 4" 414S VE4DOR TOTAL 54.00 t PRE -PAID 10,9 ,.74 FIT 9/29 PR t0ll5� !0/15/90 10,986.74 JAL -CD OWMI TE Saw - MOLK VENDOR TOTAL 10986.74 min fRE - oTl� ' MED:ITR 9/29 PR 10!1" (0/15/90 97.84 ,F►L -CD PL ,,N VEM.1(F TOTAL 01. 84 M -PAID 75.0? `ROOD TREATMENT 1(/15` 75.'!8 _pL-CD 313 y4 f AS t s _ � t � <t FAGE 5 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP- 1;02 -01 ctn OF MMOlK } VENDOR INVOICE DUE ►QD PIE�1110 1 NO. INVOICE NMM DATE DATE STATUS NXW DESCRIPTION ACCOIXT NJMIIER Alm m 0_ MENARD'S l s�Bo VENDOR TOTAL 75.98 Y PRE -PAID 203,085.00 FIRE TRUCK 22-4170 -5000 10/15/90 10/15/ 203,085.00 JOL -CD 1010 203065.00 31027 14m)" MI CONWAY F!RE 6 SAFETY VENOM TOTAL 20308;5.00 1 ` "ol PRE -PAID ?85.00 DEF COP V29 PR 01- 2040-0000 ^ x 10/15/90 10/15!90 :88.00 A4_-CD 1010 288.00 3049'0 IOJIO ; , Y Y } 4N RETIREMENT SYS" VENDOR TOTAL 288.00 � 1 0 4 `5 PtiE -PAIO 645.65 UNION 9/29 PR 01-2040-0000 ` i) /15/90 10/1`/90 645.65 AIL-CD 1014 645. a' { "N TEAMSTERS LOA 320 VENOM TOTAL 645.65 83520 PRE -PAID 486.62 POSTG FOR NIFI LETTER 01- 4020 -3210 ` 10/15/90 10/15/90 486.62 JAML-M 1010 4IL42 PRE -PAID 17.85 FULEN POSTG METER 01- 4070-3210 T �•x. � 90.75 MiEPLETI POSTG METER 01- 4020 - 3210' M 23.45 REPLEN POSTG METER 01- 4040-3210 -� 42.65 REPLEN POSTG METER 01-4060.3210 85.90 REPLEN PM METER 01- 4090-3210 5.15 REP! -EMI POSTG IETEF 22- 4170 - 3210 ` 10.25 REPLEN PDSTG METER 71- 7100-3210 { +' 46.75 WiD POSTG METER 01- 4340-3210 �x 11.30 REJUN P05TG METER 81- 4350-3210 109.50 KEPI EN POSTG METER 01- 4190-3210 68.70 REPLEN POSTG METER 73- 7300-3210 68.70 REPLEN POSTG PETER 18-1800.3210: 63.70 REP M POSTG METER 01- 4140 -3210 r .75 REPLEN POSTG METER 01- 42 1.00 12.60 REPI.EN POSTG METER REPLEN P05TG METER SECT 8 01- 4270 -3210 01- 4090.3210 ) p 6.50 REPLEN POSTG METER COD 01-4020-3210 65.50- REPLEN POSTG METER 01- 4320-3210 t 10/15/90 10/15/94 600.00 At-Co 1010 600.00 3100Ci 101114/0 �lR1D SUS '��STER VENDOR TOTAL 1036.62 P3N50 PRE -PAID 6,533.34 PERA 9/29 PR 01-2040-0000 10 t 5!90 10/1-,/90 6, 533.34 JRNL-CD 1010 6533.34 30961 10104/90 " F E R A VENTM TOTAL 6533.34 c u ?n cll pA I D 539.04 PHP 9/29 9 R 01- 2040 -0000 1 C , 1 o i 1', /00 539 JRNL -CD 1010 539 .04 30993 10/04/90 cw'SiCT -N: ix MN JEN(± TOTAL ;J > FEE F. :a 7 0 WINE 71- 7100- ?3.:�• DISC 7:- 7100-QW i %.25 M!1 71-7100- • 3135 313 �a PURCHASE JOURNAL eAYf 10/13190 AP- 02 -01 CITY OF HOUND TM 15.33121 VENM INVOICE DUE HOLD FIE-FAM pEL NO. INVOICE lMM DATE DATE STATUS NNIOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 00 KW f:,> DWI DATE 10/15/90 10/15/90 1,748.96 AL-Cp 1010 1748.96 30913 10/02/!0 ti PRE -PAID 1,205.84 L 1 71 -71OD -9510 170.20 NINE 71-7100 -9520' 46.02- DISC 71-7100-9560 t "' 17.25 MIX 71-7100-9540 10'15!% 10/15,190 2,347.27 AL-CD 1010 2347.27 310013 10/09/90 PRE-PAID 2,024.98 L1Q 7I- 7100-9510 143.15 BINS 71-7100-9520 42.44- DISC 71- 7100 -9560 , , 10115/ 10/15/90 2,175.E9 JRTL 1010 2173.69 f 31424 10113199 QUaLiTr MINE S SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 6271.92 �4 37 PRE -PAID 100.00 OED 9/29 PR 01 -2040-0000 10 /15/90 10/15/90 100.00 JRNL-CD 1010 100.00 30986 10/84199 WS 1 PLM,LrD VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 �t;54 PRE -PAID 688.64 64 CONTRACT MM 01- 4340 -3100 10/15/ 10/15140 688.64 JRNL-CD 1010 688.64 3041$ 10/kft PRE -PAID 688.64 64 CONTRACT HOURS 01- 4340-3100 10/15/90 10 /15/90 688.64 JlK -CD 1010 688.64 31411[ 10/I',1}* ROBERT E JOHNSON VERN TOTAL 1377.28 °j .0 PRE -PAID 650.00 D F CONE- OULUTH-R MARSM 22 -4170 -4110 10/15/40 10/15/90 650.00 JRNL -CD 1010 650.00 31026 141L'�1f�; =? x RONALD MARS'CWE VENDOR TOTAL 650.00 5+381 PRE -PAID 81,813.10 PYMr $6-C HALL ADDTN 30- 6000 - 5000 ¢' 1 10/15/ 81,813.10 JK-CD 1010 81813.10 310081011; a• . 94:4G09EE BUILDERS VENDOR TOTAL 81813.10 5 THE PAID 508.92 CR UNION 9 /29 PR 01-2040-0000` 10/15%90 10/15/90 508.92 JRNL 1020 508.91 ` 30992 101il41l0':, k S - «TE CAPITA BIT UNION VENDOR TOTAL 508.92 S�S50 PREPAID 562.94 3RDS QTR 910IAROE 01 - 0000 9.12 3RDS QTR SURDIARGE -CITY P IT 30-6000-5000 , 10.15/ '0 /15 /Q0 572.06 JRNL -CD 1010 572.06 3101410/11/90'' _ ro; "S c4 VENDOR lOfAL 572.06 '� .� ^ ;'S0' PRE-PAID 356.17 A IR-TX -JENSEN, JOR6M 01 -4020 - 4110 ` 10�;5l+0 !0/1`/+0 VA. 17 SOL -CD 1010 386.17 31019 10/12/90 AT, •� h' jOEf METP'j TuAVF" IWr '*lgDOP TOTAL ?✓3b.17 45.21 SEPT rXRS 01-4290- ?50 SEPT RUGS 01-42SO-2 00 313 �a -4GE l PURCHASE JOURNAL W -CO? - Ol CITY OF MDUND VFw INVOICE ME HOLD W. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS MOUNT DESMlp7, ACCDUIT Mrs s 128.49 SEPT INIFORMS 01- 42962210 25.80 SEPT UNIFORMS 01-4290-2240 65.93 SEPT UNIFORMS 73-7300-2740 65.93 SEAT UNIFORMS 78-7900-2240 10/15/90 10115190 42 JLNL-CD 1010 427.51 UNITOG RENTAL SYSTEM VENDOR TOTAL 427.51 -5110 NE — P A ID 39. 00 EQUI rY i1DRkSHOP -ES 01-4040-4120 t0i15PO 10!15/ 39.00 jRNL_CD 1010 39.00 ;lil[IX—,4$1rY OF ?N VENDOR TOTAL 39.00 . _ `P4AL'^�SL .*•.5064 PRE -PAID 149,(10 SEV ERANCE -RWIN-RESMS 01- 2300-0220" 10!15/90 1 0115/90 149.00 JLYL-CD 1010 1N.00 JA ROMAIN VENDOR TOTAL 149.00 26131 KE -PAIP 35.00 EYE GLASSES REIMS- KWISSEN 01-4140 -3140 ~_ 10/15/90 10/15/90 3`.00 JX_CD 1010 Rte MELMISSEN VEN -00f 'OTAL 35.00 `3 TOTAL. ALL VENDORS 371,847.99 a , k _ 40i f a. rhM e rs y -+s s +�3 tl �`3 x 4 Y 'k 3f r i 9Xi� Y 313` 313 F F 1 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 10 /11/0 AP CO2 Ol CITY OF PKIM TOE 11.29.34 S VENDDiU INVOICE OUIE HOLD PRE-PAID 0®r NO. INVOICF NMBR GATT: PATE STATUS AUJNT 1EMPTION ACCLIINT Klw Amm C1fR"JI 0 111E W 940.00 S00 RESTORATION 81-4350-5300 500.00 SOD RESTORATION 73-7300 -4200 10/19/ Irt ?13/0 1,340.00 .AK. -CO 1010 ACER !AM LANDS'CAPiNG VETU[IP TOTAL 1340.00 3 ' 2`.04 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040 -2100 14.49 OFFICE SLFPLIEb 01-4090-2100 `'8.64 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2190 10.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190 -2100 10.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01- 4340-2100 5.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-22100 5.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100 -2100 7.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300 -2100 5.46 OFFICE SUPPLIES 78- 7800-2100 57.48 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4070 -2100 62.70 OFFICE SUPPLIES 01- 4095 -2100 13.46 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22- 4170-2100 10 ?18NO 10113/90 247.19 JK, - 1010 ALW K;S NL55 i vENLv)R TOTAL 2 A0240 65.00 PPO DUES -AWWA 73-1285-0000 10/1800101!8" 615.00 JRIL -CD 1010 A1£RICAN WITEPULTKS ASSN VENTiOR TOTAL 65.00 A0340 374.5x' TER01 PAPER 01-4320-2100 10/19/90 i0/18 / 374.50 ML -CD 1010 ANCM'P PC,FER VENrQP TOTAL 374,50 PrY5'1 3u.00 NOV PAWN LEASE 01- 4280-4200 30.00 NOV PARKING LEASE 73 -7300 -4200 30.00 NOV PARKING LEASE 78- 7800 -4200 1018/90 10/18! 90.00 JRUL-CD 1010 LBOA MN COMFANT- 4Y -N VENDOR TOTAL 90.00 7 6,560.00 SEPT F£CTCLE SEW 01-4170-4200 !0 /1P'aJ 1Q %18!'+0 6, SAO. 00 M. - CD 1010 Ecr wrTC.1% STS�FmS OF M VE "�:tLiq TOTAL 65�.0.(ro r n6,n 32.71 BULBS,FILTER HALL 01 - 2200 44.25 EQUIP - PROPERTY TOO+ 01- 4140-2300 7.99 TRASH CAN 01- 480-2200 17. ALUM R%L-ST SW -?PPS 01- 4280 -2300 5.10 CONDUIT 01-4290-2250 ? '+M SUPPLIES 01-4r:o-2''00 : ^.8 H SUPPLIES 01-4340 -2100 12. ?6 Nor* SIFLIES 73-7300- ?790 7 1. 90 NPME SUPPLIES :2.4170-.'200 ar, 24' , 7) .F•1_ - " D 1010 �� %. T,., 79ACT '.t TOTAL 1 4',70 313 ' E - FURCHASE JOURNAL dl$ 10/1riJ�0 x .a AP C0 -Q1 CITY OF MOIAp TIME 11.31.$ V4i1OR INVOICE D1JE HOLD 4 PRE-KID i>!®( NO. I6VOICE N+BR DATE DATE STATUS W"JNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT WW AOW DER # !!Rif b 907.00 COMPUTER LEASE 01-4095-5000 468.00 D3 PUTER MAIN' 01- 4095-3800 10/181°0 1,375.00 JRNL-CD 1010 CLWJ'rOSFRVICE 1 11E `ENA'F TOTAL 1315.00 14.05 COPIER MAINT-SEPT 7$-7800-39$0 !prlg;on ,n;1;;p) 14.05 JRNL-CD 1010 7_Py DJPtICATING C'R;IUCTS VENDOR TOTAL 14.05 "1:31 50.00 CARPET CLEAN 71-7100-4210 !0 +!�i?0 10!1$;0 50.09 1R1rE CD 1010 (IsIC4h ',NrERrOR CARE WUNDOR TOTAL 50.00 01170 1,3.32 FR LEASE TO 11!30 40-6000 -3910 666.68 RR LEASE TO 11/3(1 01-4320 -3910 10'18' ° 2 ,000.00 ,IRK -CD 1010 "4')rA PAIL INC VEN(OR TOTAL 2000.00 105.00 SOD-CITY SIGN 01-4320-2200 1Cl18 / 105.00 JRN. -CD 1010 DUN S SOD 5"FVICE VENDOR TOTAL 105.00 ! 1"! ?59.25 SEPT FRT 71 • 10/18/90 19'18! 289. ,JRNL -C7 1010 LV"15 1FUWNG VENDOR TOTAL 289,25 51Kt: 116.58 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 01-4280-3950 56.28 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 01-4340.3950 12.06 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 01-4190-3950 12.06 OCT 'ADIO SERV CONTRACT 01-4290 -3550 76.38 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 01-4140-3950 1:.06 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 01- 4040-3950 60.30 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 73- 7300 -3950 8.14 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 78- 7800 -3950 28.14 OCT RADIO SERV CONTRACT 22- 4170 -3950 117.30 TEMP MAG MOUNT 01-4140-3810 51 89 JRNL-CO 1010 X - Hl. �I }�5 'rI:��i in. �i `1 • a,:�� 1,4',50 SEPT ONE CALL SERV 73- 7,)M-42N10 14:.50 ,Jk"JL CD 1010 �.: r o,gq ctJ'�'A: ' r '10 1010 3/3� g 5 1 �],-j PURCHASE JOURNAL DATEIO/11T/!0. AP -CO2 -01 CITY OF 1QM TILE `I.20-M VENDOR IWOICE WE HOLD FTE -PAID am NO. INVOICE N18R LATE DATE STARE 44W DESCRIPTION ACCOINT NU4BER NUM CH Ot i NYE r- 111.9` HOSE 01-4290-2300 10.'18 ! 0 010;18 : 00 117.95 JP -W -CD 1010 HOSE, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 117.95 -;-! 500.00 OCT JANITOR SERV 01-4320 -4210 `o).66 OCT JANITOR SERV 01-4280-4200 50.61 OCT JANITOR SERV 73-7300-4200 50.67 OCT JANITOR SERV 7$- 7800 -4'W I0 !8 % 10!'.Rl 742.00 JRNL -CD 1010 J L S CLEANING CO. VENDOP TOTAL 742.00 48j) 120.1? BAL. CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 01-4340 -2240 10 19/00 10 11-5/90 120.12 JRNL 1010 VE.ljl% TOTAL I:.).12 ?00.87 OCT GASOLINE 22- 4170 -2210 10 16 00 10 118/?0 200.87 JRAL -CD 1010 '-. S SP;'ING PAW SPUR VENDOR TOTAL 200.87 ! 1 130.00 4TH QTR W/C INS1RA110E 01-4020 -3600 70.00 4TH QTR M/C INSLRA`4'E 01-4040-3600 70.00 4TH QTR W/C INSURANCE 01-4090-33600 4,762.50 4TH QTR WIC INSUANCE 01-4140 -3600 275.00 4TH QTR Wir INSUANCE 01-4190-3600 3,075.00 4TH 9TR W,'C INSIRiNLE 01-4280-9600 257.50 4TH QTR W/C INSURANCE 01-4:90-3600 742.51? 4TH QTR W/C INSURANCE 01-4340 -3t00 3,000.00 4IH 9TR W/C INSUANCE 22. 4170-3600 461.00 4TH QTR W/C INSURANCE 71-7100-3600 887.50 4TH QTR W/C INSURANCE 73- 7300 - 3600 1,250.00 1.50.00 78- 7800-3600 10113f20 10 /1 -5100 14,981.00 M -CD 1010 L=klJE OF Mh .ITIES INS T+ VENDOP TOTAL. 14WI.00 ' ^ 6(Y).00 EVALUJATI OW_ - LOT N,IralT 01-4140 -3100 10:10;90 600.00 JPrL-I'D 1010 ".:+'T'�j ' +'' I4 'CC k %DC9 r0 `AL 600.710 31.(1ri SEPT MR-WALL 01-4280 -3100 SEPT ENGR- rWSINLfT RD 01-4190 -3100 7.71) SEPT ENOP.. -INSP 01-4190-31(1) 81R.(K' SEPT E11GR -WTR DISTPIB 73-73!10- ?100 0 4 9 .00 SEPT ENDR-LIFT STA 78-7800-3100 1,o.6.T SEFT 1: -CBD LOTS 40- 6000-3100 SEFT ENGR-DENBIGH -ASSESS 26- 11 SE P r - CAS TAWS 30 017, )f) SFPT ENGR -I( OT REHAB 6(X10 - 5(�Q cNGR -IP GAoAGE FEF4!R 30 6M0 5(`00 4,754.X SsPT EN�,W C HAIL ADDTN 30 5 1 �],-j 4 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 10 /iE/* W-(.02-01 CITY OF HIM T11E 11.10.35 VF)m IMVCE M HOL D PRE -PAID C►E3,1C NO. INVOICE N119R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCFIPTION ACUM NUIM KM DEM f BATE emamRS 10118x 10!18/90 9,175.28 J K -CD 1010 FRAM' RODS 4SSOC:+ VENDCF- 'D'aL 0 1 , 1 1 S.28 '��'•w 30.00 PADIATOR REPA!A 78- 7800-4200 !0 /Is -0 10'18 0 30.00 JRNL -CD :010 PC Ytq S %,uNr. S;F'v!LE VFW TOTAL 30.(C Y T 33.65 TROUMF L I WT 01- 4290-2250 33.65 •JNL - 1010 MIMST BOLT 3 SLPPL' VEWDM TOTAL 33,65 K-' -%o 25.8` SEP( GAS 01- 4320 -3720 . -*.81 SEPT GAS 01-4340-3720 2.59 SEPT GAS 01-4280 -3124 3.04 SEPT GAS 73- 7300 -3720 1.98 SEPT 5AS 78-7800-3720 4.20 SEPT 3AS 71-7100-3720 10,'18/ 76.47 JRNL-CD 1010 nINf1EG: ( VENEM TOTAL 76.47 Z1n 40.00 90 -91 DUES-MQfA 01- 4040-4130 10'19'GJ 10/18! 40.00 JRNL -CD 1010 PIN C!T Itor aSSN VENDOR TOTAL 40.00 187.'Z, FACEP:ECE 22- 4170 -2270 :'• %i3f 10!!8190 187,55 Jk -i0 1010 rN CONWAY c :cf y 34c VENCIOR TOTAL 181.55 "t 470 44.00 WATER ANALY 73 -7300 -3100 44.00 Y.NL-CD 1010 It' VALLEY TrS'!% •, �o�S _ ., VN[fp TCTAL 44.(Nt fi!0 40,x W /C- ':NEVEY 73- 7300 -3140 c in, ,p of Q0,„, ,f 1 -CD 1010 'rURU MEDi'. bsN(lTt '.OTNL 4Q.:` 13.2'? EAW 01-4280 -2300 << ?4 REPAIR, ,IT 01-4:90 -2300 1.66 HOOVS 01- 4340 -2 1 JPN - -CD 1010 IY: u;,G !rw�w'C . �;.�•.' �jT�l,. 19.�4 %C -C 13 ?o pt s 194 01 -4:?,) _ ?60 1 b.00 LEI EF{ 01- 4- 'x:0-2W CV 1010 Sty/ -Iq2, PURCHA5E JOURNAL DATE 10/18/90 AP- CO2 -01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 91.20.E VET.DOR INVOICE DUE HOLD FIX-PAID pM�pl NO. I�VLICE `Rtf DA t DATE STATUS AM ml [ESCRIPTION ACCOtW WW ANOW C1E17T i DAME K 5 SEPT ELECTRICITY 01-4280-3710 60.94 SEPT ELECTRICITY 01-4340 -3710 526.44 SEPT ELECTRICITY 01-4320 -3710 522.53 SEPT ELECTRICTTY 71-7100 -3710 253.18 SEPT ELECTRICITY 22- 4170-3710 2,426.01 SEPT ELECTRICITY 73- 7300-3710 1, 272.43 SEPT ELECTRICITY 78-7800 -3710 91.15 SEPT ELECTRICITY 01- 4310-3710 5,737.00 5tL -CD 1010 NLFTLf1 SW-E -S P:OR CD Vv-WM, TOTAL 5 73 7 .00 SA-5 15.50 4EALS- SCOTTIE 8 01-4020 -4120 10/12/9010/18,'x'0 15.50 J4L -CD 1010 Sim T F S VENDOR TOTAL 15.50 1,659.00 CLEAN IP �pu_ 01- 4060-3100 10'14!90 10118; 1,659.00 M -CD 1010 'sFViCErwSTtR OF MLfM VENDOP TOTAL 16:9.00 54390 2,305.42 NOV RENT 71-7100 -3920 101 :, /v0 10 2, JR1L -CD 1010 94R! INE P AjA VEM TOTAL '2305.42 `441Q 2,665.00 ;NSTALL MAY,EIP AIR UNIT 01-4280 -5000 :,665.00 INSTALL MAXEUP AIR UNIT 73-7300-5000 2,665.00 INSTALL MAKEUP AIR UNIT 72 -7800 -5000 101 :4190 10/13! 7, ,411E -CD 1010 SMfrH HEATING b 4IR VENDOR TOTAL 7995.00 S 10.50 SEPT CAR W&ES 01 - 3810 3.50 SEPT CAR NA9ES 73 7300 - 3810 1-_.50 SEPT CAR MASKS 01- 4140-3810 10/:P! t0'1' ? % 135.50 JRNL -CD 1010 SFRING PAP1 CAT: MASH VENINIP TOTAL 136.50 149.60 ALIGN & BAL FRONT END -15 014280-3810 1.0 1? x 14 JRNL CD 1010 o[: SPx i tic :O 7 N:+ o TD Ai 1 S 31.12 SYLVANIA KIPS 91-4290 2200 4 - ..76 SYLVANIA 1011 01- 4280 -::90 43.77 SYLVANIA BULBS 7 3 - 7300 - -".% 4,,77 4 JP4_-CD 1010 S•`�„ 1'.64 N:v9il 73-7$90 -2300 i s -Iq2, ^' FURCFHASE JOURNAL AF C0: 01 CITY OF POUND " -w MTOr CE DUE HOLD NC. !MJOICE WBR DATE DATE STATUS AW T DESCRIPTION 14/13/°0 10/18/90 17.64 JOC -CD WELL ^JMPY VEN(IDF TOTAL 17.61 FLASHLIGHT 0 1013!n :5.45 W-CD 5 VENDOR TOTAL ?5.45 0.09 2 E TREES 1F• n Sn l o -0 Ist!L -CD VENDOR VEND1OR TOTAL 450.00 ''.16 SEPT GASOLINE 3. G SEPT GASOLINE 1.1 wills R SO 1.92 SEPT GASOLINE , Q? SEPT GASOLINE u4.5 2 SEPT CASOL1NE 27`.10 SEPT GASOLINE 186.67 SEPT GASOLINE 5.70 BATTERIES 1,158.5? SEPT GASOLI iCJ15'?0 10/18/+0 2, JRNL -CD xFr:irr -iCU VENDOR TOTAL 2 29.75 TEMP HELP 10 %1390 10;18 /90 29.75 JRNL -CD VENDOR TOTAL 2 13.20 CABLE. AMY In. +g!o0 10?13/9p 13.20 JRNL-CD "I `c-'! n{'• LET VP4jrLR TOTAL 13.20 ACETYLENE. GLOVES :9i1S "�i 10;181 IO.N JNNL -CD ' ENDOR TOTAL !Q. p •`- ^" 3`7.54 SEPT K-* CONSULT _a'FC•.. c .GT:i, ;N;rS VENDOR TOTAL 522 }. 33 HE BOX a r NT4 TOTAL ?F. 7'' a4 "S -CD • 78- '800-_'00 1010 30-6000-4100 1010 01-4040 -2210 01-4190-2210 01-4140 -MM 01-4280-2210 01-4240-2210 01- 4340 -MIO 73- 7300-2210 78-7800-2210 78- 7800- 01-4140-2210 1010 73-7300-1300 1010 78 -7800- ';100 1010 73-7300 -:300 1010 01 -4100 -3100 1010 '2-4170--* X 1010 7?• 73D+4 - 23t1J 1410 3I 3 ;74H F FU C H A S E JOURNA DATE MAW" TITS 11. PRE-PAID om AMW WW MW DW I BATE 01 - 43;p -:' 014W-410C 1010 73-73W-VOO 73-7AO-3W 79-790*-3900 78 1010 60 73-73DO-nO 73-73DO-2W 01-4 10!0 01 4 33800 01-4320-WM 1010 • • 3 ( q q ,® McCombs �Frank Frank �Associates, Inc. outh, %finnesoM 55-147 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612, FAX Surveyors October 23, 1990 Mr. Edward Shukle Citv of Mound " Maywood Road Minnesota 55364 SUBJElUT City of Mc,.ad, Minnesota City Hn'! Addition and Remodeling MFP.% -8378 Ed: I- i i (,- 1� - I I � osed, are three copies of Change Order No. 30, 33 and 35• "I -hring- Ord-- No. 30 concerns the addition of vertical reinforcing in the 8" walls of the addition to provide better continuity. ,•d,-- No. 'I3 is for installin new plants along the south rather the existing plants. This was done since the existing plants are I' rend of' t,heir useful. life. Order No. 3� is for th, addition of plants next to the building on ,f,t north :;ide. )f the addition. Wo rtnvi(� Wed these Change Orders and recommend that they be accepted. if' Yt)u 'IllY or need additional information, please contact Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven W. Jantzen, P.E', A.1.,A. CEaAt409: OnbtC z Pllr)JrcTi Mcxmd Cl t y ll ., ►I TO: City of Mound CHANl)E 01101CsR NU. 30 t)ATF t October 30, 1990 PRr),IECT NOt — BOG&_ Is wvefdewv with tho lords of this Evetreat. the fellowlaq eks" o oWgwsdt Extra to contract Engineer added masonry reinforcing Material $240.00 #5 at 48" level #3, #5 Shingobee 1O% 24.00 TOTAL ADD THIS CHANCE :264.00 PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS Orlglnsl rrnjort cello !__ _ 7 hrrloes f.Mngr OrAtrs fi lhro TWENTY NINE ADD 54:563_ _ 00_ "_ Th1s CLongp (hdsr 1_ THIRTY — ADD - - -- 264_00 Ilv• rralfct torts — - - -- -- lR tITRESS VNERM tht 131d osrtltl h3•e csnsed this sgree§enl to be ttecotrd ss of the dart sod fair 91"W hies. S BUILDERS INC. Cont ractor - -- 2_7 N. Med Street A,Mr,ss - - - -- City of Mound Owner 5341 Maywood Road Address Mwrfn'd' MN, 55364 , Loretto MN 55157 BY = G DATE: Z I;AIF.: 10/3/90 ARCHI TECT APPROVAL: - — - - -- ---- BY : s1 ht. DATE : McCorrbs Frank Roos Assoc. Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth MN 55447 C11ANUM Ui' DM" 1 t Mo lad City [tall CIIANI3E onDER No. 33 n AT F t October 8, 1990 Tl)r City of Mound PROJECT NOt_40M Is soeordsnce with the terra of this Controot. the following chongos are gfroasdt Replace existirTg Anthony water spires with fifteen (15) new 18" — 24" Anthony water spires. 7W..L $270.OD Shingobee 10% 427.00 TOTAL THIS (}WM GM $297. , ROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS Original Project Costs Prnvl000 Qangr Were 11 thrs THIRTY 'Ty This (.hang• order /_ U In THREE Ira Pro)PCl Coot• ADD --27'$�t5_�- - - - - -- ADD - -- �LQQ- - - - - -- I Vill MI. tNINIAF the Raid Fatties hill roused this egress t to It f"e"ted at of the dal tai lost oipw blot. SHINC BUILDERS INC. Contractor 279 N. Medina Stree Address Loretta MN 55357 P - BY: _J i City o f Mound Owner 5341 Maywood Road Address N HN 55364 BY: DATE: DATE: October 9 1990 ARC APPROVAL: -- - -- BY: —ysc DATE: Z WCarbs Frank Roos Assoc. Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth Pt1 55447 CIFIAN OW OnDMR PIM3F -CT t Mc■rnd City Hall CIIAN E ORDER NO. 35 t)ATFt October 15, 1990 TO! City of Mound PRf)JE(;T NOt _Q0Q& i Is erxetdenre pith the total of this Ceelteat. the felletlM eho" set oytrendt Per the site visit by our Subcontractor, L & K Landscaping Inc., and at the request of Jim Fackler, City of Mound, he requested that the following additional plantings be provided. 6 spirea = $108.00 7 hosta = $ 41.00 Shingobee 10% = $ 15.00 TOTAL THIS CHANCE ORDER $164.00 z PROJECT COST ADJUSTMENTS 0091no1 Prnlpct Ceels PreTlOn• 04n9r Orders 11 thrs ThIa fhen9• Ndrr Not Prol►ct Casty 11 IIITAES; 11 NWr the said /srtles hate coused this 19reee"t to It eoecoted as of the day asd /tor tirw brief. SII I NG BEE B UILDERS INC. Contractor 2 N. Medina Street A•t,irFSS - -- - - -- Loretto MN 553 57 City of Mound Owner "' 5341 Maywood Road Address M 55364 —7 BY: DATE: U� 2_2 PArr ARCHITECT APPROV BYI G - -- DATE: McCarbs Frank Roos Assoc. Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North P1 yrmuth MN 55447 9 — •--- - - - - -- 11 IIITAES; 11 NWr the said /srtles hate coused this 19reee"t to It eoecoted as of the day asd /tor tirw brief. SII I NG BEE B UILDERS INC. Contractor 2 N. Medina Street A•t,irFSS - -- - - -- Loretto MN 553 57 City of Mound Owner "' 5341 Maywood Road Address M 55364 —7 BY: DATE: U� 2_2 PArr ARCHITECT APPROV BYI G - -- DATE: McCarbs Frank Roos Assoc. Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North P1 yrmuth MN 55447 • CITY OF MOUND 1990 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT SEPTEMBER 1990 75.00% SEPTEMBER YTD PER CENT BUDGET -- - - - - -- REVENUE -- - - - REVENUE VARIA.ICE RECEIVED GENERAL FUND - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- Taxes 1262190 0 552500 709690 43.77% Intergovernmental 780860 463 443669 337191 56.82% Business Licenses 9950 45 3462 6488 34.79% Non- Business Licenses and Permits 86700 5812 49603 37097 57.21% Charges for Services 34800 684 7151 27649 20.55% Court Fines 95000 7293 50753 44247 53.42% Charges to Other Departments 20000 2356 16746 3254 83.73% Other Revenue 49300 290 9149 40151 18.56% TOTAL REVENUE 2338800 - - 16943 1133033 1205767 48.45% LIQUOR FUND 900000 76046 688025 211975 76.45% WATER FUND 360000 30595 240652 11:348 66.85% SEWER FUND 590000 46987 427514 162486 72.46% DOCKS FUND 62950 21 58828 4122 93.45% CEMETERY FUND 2000 400 4800 -2800 .0.00% • CITY OF MOUND 1990 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES SEPTEMBER 1990 75.00% Area Fire Service Fund 214290 SEPTEMBER YTD 46099 PER CL:NT Liquor Fund BUDGET - - - - -- EXPENSE - - EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND 347930 - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- Council 63890 6527 50508 13382 79.05% Cable TV 10150 0 9024 1126 88.91% City Manager /Clerk 166310 11764 126204 40106 75.88% Elections 11400 4224 6062 5338 53.18% Assessing 43320 42054 42479 841 98.06% Finance 162030 11908 118384 43646 73.06% Computer 22150 1676 19894 2256 89.81% Legal 80900 6409 43536 37364 53.81% Police 717850 53167 555674 162176 77.41% Civil Defense 2750 0 597 2153 21.714 Planning /Inspections 145000 13173 94808 50192 65.38% Recycling 60670 6627 55708 4962 91.82% Streets 382890 24820 275891 106999 72.05% Shop & Stores 61440 5433 49292 12148 80.23% City Property 84200 5692 54025 30175 64.16% Parks 148560 9717 101490 47070 68.32% Summer Recreation 11310 0 8435 2875 74.58% Contingencies 30000 0 10043 19957 33.48% Transfers 122270 - - - - -- 10048 - - - - -- 9.432 - - - - -- 31838 - - - - -- 73.96% - - - - -- GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2327090 213239 1712486 614604 73.59% Area Fire Service Fund 214290 18146 168191 46099 78.49% Liquor Fund 163450 11356 119338 44112 73.01% Water Fund 347930 41456 295795 52135 85.02% Sewer Fund 771560 27752 458984 312576 59.49% Cemetery Fund 3680 227 2006 1674 54.51% Docks Fund 62950 622 61088 1862 97.04% . 51 q ( • y l S, oar_ober 13, 1990 MOUND CITY COUNCIL :MOUND, MINN RE: MOSQUITO SPRAYING LI • I AM WRITING MERELY TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER INPUT ON POSSIBLE POISONING TO PUNT Al® OTHR LIFE FORMS FROK MOSQUITO SPRAYING. I LIVE ON LOST LAKE AND FLANT A SARDEN EVERY YEAR. THIS YEAR IN LATE SPRING • EARLY SU`MER MY TOMATO PLANTS BEGAN TO DIE, THEY SEED TO RECOVER ENOUGH AT THE TOP DURING JULY AND AUGUST, THEN EVEN THE NEW GROWTH DIED SO THE ENTIRE YIANT(S) (I HAD A D=v AND ALL WERE AFFECTED) WERE DEAD BY SEPTEMBER. MY BELIEF IS THAT THE SPRAY FROM LOST LAKE AND THE CHANNEL FROM COORS MY DAIFTtD 11P INTO MY GARDEN AND AFFECTED THE TOMATOES, WHICH WERE ON THE OUTER EDGE OF MY GARDEN TRI3 YEAR. SEVERAL MORNRNGS THERE WAS EVEN A "CHEMICAL" SMELL. ' 1 UNDERSTAND THE VARIABLES AND ALMOST IMPCScvBLE TA:3R OF PINPOINTING THE MOSQUITO $PRAY AS THE CULPRIT, PUT THOUGHT I'D GIVE YOU ONE MORE PIECE OF INFORMATION. RA ND I SA BA 2348 COMMERCE BLVD MOUND, MINN THE GARDEN IS LOCATED AT THE END OF MARION STREET, BEHIND THE OID BIG A BUIIaP+ M AND A BIT BEYOND TOM ROCKVAM'S DOCK SALES AND SERVICE. V -, MINNESOTA Department of • Public Service 1990 Energy Division 900 American Center 16121 296 5120 150 East Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 October 11, 1990 Dear Community Energy Contacti Energy Awareness Week is October 14 -20, 1990, in Minnesota. Governor Perpich has declared Tuesday, October 16, to be Community Energy Day to honor the more than 100 communities that have formed energy councils and provided effective energy services to Minnesotans. In recognition of your cormunity's accomplishments, I am pleased to forward to you a Certificate of Commendation from the Governor. Please pass it on to your community's energy leadership, elected officials and management. As we begin the heating season, I hope you can use the award of this certificate to bring some press and public attention to your program. Congratulations! Sincer ly, ,. Mark Schoenbaum Manager, Energy Programs MS:jw Enclosure AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r;16C:v MAYA Qf NWNft*fA1t11" RUDY PERPICH GOVERNOR Certificate of Commendation L recognition of your outstanding service to the people of Minnesota, consistent with the goals of preserving the environment, strengthening the ec -nomy and conserving precious energy resources; Now therefore 1, Rudy Perpich, commend and congratulate: The City of Mound Community Energy Progrc.►n IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the Office of the Gorernor of the State of Minnesota to bl affixed at the State Capitol this tenth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety, and of the State, the one hundred thirty- second. G VE NOR S- WA 31yj on job well done. 0 MINUTES — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION — OCTOBER 18, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Acting chair Paul Meisel, Marc Brewer, Fred Guttormson, Chic Remien and Mayor Smith. Absent: Ben Marks, Tim Kenealy. Also present City Manager Ed Shukle and Finance Director John Norman. Upon motion by Guttormson, seconded by Brewer and carried unanimously, the minutes of the September 20, 1990 meeting were approved. City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Commission on the soils reports for Lost Lake. He indicated that he reviewed them with the city engineer and the engineer indicated that he felt that no further soil testing needed to be done at this time. Discussion also focused on the issue of the soil contamination at city hall and the material that was moved to the WAFTA site and will be hauled back to Mound and stored at Lost Lake. The County Rcad 15 Beautification plan was briefly discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle reported that the city council-has placed the recommendation from the Economic Development Commission on hold with regard to plantings at Lost Lake and at the parking lot across from the House of Moy. He indicated that with the uncertainties of the future development of Lost Lake and the ownership of the lot across from the House of Moy, the council felt that it would be in the City's best interest to hold off in d,,ng anything. However, the co.Ancil did indicate that the plan was a good idea, but maybe the !.dopt a Green Space program and /or local. organizations could somehow get these items accomplished in the near future. Mark Brewer agreed to meet with Jim Ventura, chair of the Westonka Chamber's Beautification of 15 committee and the new Executive Director of the Chamber Mark Machart on the status of t'ie 15 plan and to indicate that the City is looking at planting- on these areas. Perhaps the Beautification committee can e local organizations, i.e. Lions, Jaycees, Rotary or orgy, r i 7 a+. ions through the Adopt a Green Space program to come forward : assist in getting the plantings located at these two areas. The CDBG program in relationship to 2% loan money and .facade improvements Was briefly discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle reported that there was a small amount of money available on the revolving loan fund. Mark Brewer indicated that he was interested as a business person in obtaining these funds to make facad(:. improvements to his business. He was asked to Submit a proposal to the r:ity moriager for review and consideration with • regard to his particu';r situation. -3160 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMNISSICX MINJTES OF OCTOBER 1S, 1990 The video tour of the downtown buildings was briefly discussed. It was the consensus to put this on hold for the time being. The Downtown Study was briefly discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the possibility of hiring a facilitator that would contract with the City through a planning firm to "spearhead" the Do-ntown Study and to attempt to coordinate the council and the various aavisory commissions along with the business community in making some of the recommendations from the Downtown Study a reality. Upon motion by Brewer, seconded by Meisel and carried unanimously, the Economic: Development Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Request for Proposals be sought from planning firms to hire a facilitator to undertake the coordination and implementation of the Downtown Study. Monies to accomplish this would be funded under Year XV Community Development Block Grant Funds. A possible retreat with the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Open Space Commission was briefly discussed. It was mentioned that this type of a thing could be incorporated into the facilitator's contract for services. The next meeting of the Economic Development Commission was scheduled for Thursday, November 15, 1990 at 7 AM, in the conference room of C.R. Manufacturing. Upon motion by Meisel, seconded by Brewer and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 AM. Respectfully submitted, Ed Shukle City Manager ES.ls • 2 31s/ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION October 8, 1990 Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Vice Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Ken Smith, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Thal, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, and Michael Mueller, Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Manager Ed Shukle, and Secretary Peggy James. The following citizens were also present: Denis b Shelley Dorion, Mr. & Mrs. Crane J. Bodine, Carl Glister, Roland a Elaine Gavin, Bob Commerford, and Roland Boettcher. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Minu tes MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Thal to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 24, 1990 as written. Motion carried unanimously. Case No. 90 -934: Denis A Shelley Uorion, x033 Bartlett Blvd.. Lots 1, 2 & Part of Lot 3 Block 5, Shirley Hi 1 is Unit B, PID #24- 1 :7 -24 -12 0023. VARIANCE: SIDE YARD SETBACK This case was referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council at their meeting on September 25, 1990. The City Council advised the applicant to return with a revised pian, since the proposed plan did not appear to be a "minimum" variance reque_;t. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the revised request for a 24' x 26' garage with a 14 foot front yard setback, result- ing in a 16 foot variance. Staff recommended denial as the revised proposal still does not represent a minimum variance situation. Smith and Weiland both agreed that the window on the northeast side of the house is important to keep for reasons of light and ventilation, it is the only window on that side of the house. Weiland also believes that the proposed garage will not interfere with vehicular vision. Mueller commented that the proposed garage does not appear that It will be detrimental to the area because of the size of the property. It was confirmed that there is 10 feet between t')e curb and the property line. Thal questioned if a 24' x 26' garage is "minimum." MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Weiland, to approve the revised proposal as shown on the revised survey dated 9/26/90. Motion carried 7 - 2 (those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Meyer, Jensen, Voss, and Smith; those opposed were: Thal and Michael). Planning Commission Minutes October B, 1990 Page 2 • Thal stated that he would have been in favor if the garage was reduced to 24' x 24'. Michael stated that the revised proposal is not a minimum situation. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 9, 1990. The Commission requested staff to present discussion regarding triangle and corner lot setbacks in the near future. Case No. 90 -936: Paul Meisel 3 Koenin & Schwert 2339 3 345 Commerce Blvd., L ots 2, 3, a 4, Auditors Subd #167. PID #14 -117- 24-44 0002 a 0004. MINOR SURDIVISION Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicants request for a minor subdivision to correct the dividing property line. Currently, the building on Lot 4 is encroaching into part of Lot 3. Both parcels will meet the required lot area of 7,500 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivi- sion. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Smith, to approve the minor subdivision as requested. Motion carried un- animously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 23, 1990. Case No. 90 -937: Rola R. Gavin 5000 Enchanted Road Lot 1, B lock 21, Shadvwood Point, PiD#13- 117 -24 -1i 0069 VARIANCE: F RONT b SIDE YARD SETBACK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland reviewed the proposed variance request. Mr. Gavin is seeking a variance of 7 feet to the required 8 foot front yard setback, and a I foot variance to the required 4 foot side yard setback for a detached garage. The Building Official explained that the applicant is limited by a narrow lakeshore lot and also by topography. There is a 9 foot boulevard between the property line and the curb. Tne location of the garage would line -up with the neighbors garage. To allow the owner reasonable use of his F perty, staff recommended ap- proval of the 7 foot front yard setback variance and the 1 foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a 22' x _2' detached accessory building. The commission questioned the applicant why he needed four garage stalls. The applicant stated that he hopes to convert the exist- ing tuckunder garc-ge into living space sometime in the future. He explained that the existing garage takes In water due to the topography. 3163 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Gavin explained that he explored many alternatives for the location of the garage, and due to the topography and existing trees, this appeared to be the most workable plan. Clapsaddle commented that if the variance Is approved, he would like to see some type of natural barrier installed along the south property line to force the applicant to use a straight ap- proach off of heron Lane, rather than a sharp curve off of En- chanted Road. Mueller and Weiland recognized that there will only be 3.3' be- tween the neighbors existing garage and the proposed. They com- mented that this is a fire hazard and makes maintenance dif- ficult. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Voss to deny the variance request due to lack of hardship, and the proposed garage would be too close to the garage behind It which creates and unsafe situation. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 9, 1990. Case No. 90 -938: Roland Boettcher, 1780 Hillside Lane. Lot 5, BIO�K 2 Linden Heights, PID #13- 1'17 - 24 - 12 0028. VARIAN FRONT YARD SETBACK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the variance request. Mr. Boettcher is seeking a variance to add onto an existing non- conforming accessory structure whicn Is setback 24 feet from the front property line, resulting in a 6 foot front yard setback variance. He proposes a 12' x 20' addition onto an existing 14' x 20' detached garage. Staff recommended recognizing the nonconforming detached garage to allow construction of a 12' x 20' addition. The Commission commented on the poor condition of the existing structure. The Commission discussed alternative locations for a new garage site. Mueller commented that there appears to be plenty of room, despite the number of trees and topography, to construct a larger garage with conforming setbacks. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Thal to deny the variance request; there is room for a garage In a con- forming location. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on October 23, 1990. 0 Planning Commission Minutes October S. 1990 Page 4 • Cites Council Representative's Report. Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of September 25th. She reviewed the City Council's actions on zoning cases and reviewed the agenda for the October 9th meeting. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Voss to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:36 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: s F - I L J MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1990 Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Tom Casey, Neil Weber, Shirley Andersen, Brian Asleson, Carolyn Schmidt, and Cathy Bailey, Council Representative Skip Johnson, City Manager Ed Shukle, Perk Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Dell Rudolph and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was: Council Representative Phyllis Jessen. Chair Byrnes called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. M INUTES The Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of September 13, 1990 were preseited for changes and /or additions. Casey requested the following changes to the minutes: Page 2, "2. He is in favor of placing conservation restrictions on such properties, if . -_ r ties are released for public auction " Also On Page 2, "S. If this property . who would pay, City or adjacent taxpayers ?" Page 3. the paragraph following the motion should be amended as follows: "Casey commented that Mound is losing more and more of its up land property to housing development, and -wret- +8F d9 - 45 - 1)0t -;a- just4ft eat 4 a n- f&r-- opeo --sVa er if- have: Upla parcels need protection as green space 14$ _ @S Wet- lands a re now protected. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Casey, to approve the Park b Open Space Commission Minutes of September 13, 1990 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. AP PROVAL OF 1991 DOCK APPLICATION FEES AND FORMS Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolph, presented the proposed changes on the dock application forms and the proposed fee Increases per the five year plan. Casey questioned why the statement at the bottom of the applica- tion pertaining to tires and fertilizer, etc. !s being removed? Aft <,r further discussion, it was determined this statement would be incorporated into the Information sheet which is handed out with the applications. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Schmidt to approve the revised dock application forms and fee increases for 1991 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. These forms and fee Increases will be reviewed by the City Coun- c. f1 for their approval. • • • 31 �° t Park Commission Minutes October 11, 1990 Page 2 • PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DOCK ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 437 Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolph, reviewed the proposed revisions In City Code Section 437. The Commission made some minor changes relating to application deadline dates so the ordinance will coincide with the dock application. When reviewing Section 437:10, Subd. 8, Casey expressed a concern regarding the maintenance of the dock site area relating to the cutting of weeds and grass exceeding 12 Inches In height, espe- claiiy aquatic plants. Casey does not agree with adding the wor- dage suggested in this Section, as it Includes enforcement of the Nuisance Ordinance which controls noxious weeds. Casey referred to his letter dated October 3, 1990 to Ed Shukle. Fackler com- mented that the City cannot enforce the cutting of weeds below the ordinary high water level, this is governed by the DNR. Casey is concerned that when the City requests dock site holders to cut the weeds at their site, they will also cut aquatic plants, especially when the water is low. Johnson commented that the cutting of grass and weeds should be discussed as a separate Issue. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Asleson, to recommend approval of the revisions in City Code Section 437 - Dock Licenses. Motion carried 7 - I (those in favor were: Asleson, Weber, Johnson, Andersen, Byrnes, Bailey, and Schmidt. Casey was opposed). City Code Section 437 wll; be reviewed by the City Council for final approval. NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS The Commissic�i discussed developing a management plan for nature conservation areas in the City. Weber offered to bring an out- line on how to develop a plan to the next meeting for discussion. Johnson added that the plan could be developed to include having areas such as open spaces being the least intense, and then having a variety of areas leading up to nature conservation areas as being the most intense. Definitions for these areas should be developed. ADOP A_ GREEN _SPACE PROGRAM Chair Byrnes updated the Commission on people and groups who have offered to adopt green space areas. The City Manager stated that the Council has not formally approved of the Adopt A Green Space Agreement. The City Attorney and the City's insurance company • have approved the form. The City Manager suggested that Byrnes write a memorandum summarizing the status of the program, and present it with the agreement to the City Council on either Oc- tober 23rd or November 13th. S-7 Ed Shukle referred to the copy of the Downtown Study which was handed out to the Commissioners. He explained that they should review the study for discussion at the next Park Commission meet- ing, particularly the Implementation Plan beginning on page 76. He explained that the Council would like feedback On what the Park Commission feels is Important for development of Lost lake and what the Commission's role should be. PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT Jim Fackler reviewed the ,tatus of recent park Improvements. He Informed the Commission that construction of the deck on the depot started today. The Island Park Garage has also been re- roofed. The Dock Location map will be reviewed at the November meeting, a notice will be published in the paper. D OCK - INSPEC T OR'S REPORT Dell Rudolph had nothing to report, other than to say good -bye, as this is his last meeting. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Andersen to adjourn the Park & Open Space Cortmisslon Meeting at 9:17 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. • 3155 Park Commission Minutes October 11, 1990 Page 3 MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Bailey, to reconmwmd approval of the Adopt A Green Space Program and Green Space Adoption Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. Fackler suggested that orange (or another bright color) bags be Provided for people picking up debris in parks or along ruad sides; they can then leave the bag on the side of the road and when a City worker sees these bags they can pick them up. He has seen this done in other cities. The Commission suggested that Fackler look into bags that would be reusable. COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE REP Johnson commented that he thinks the Adopt A Green Space Program Is a great idea. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Ed Shukle referred to the copy of the Downtown Study which was handed out to the Commissioners. He explained that they should review the study for discussion at the next Park Commission meet- ing, particularly the Implementation Plan beginning on page 76. He explained that the Council would like feedback On what the Park Commission feels is Important for development of Lost lake and what the Commission's role should be. PARK DIRECTOR'S REPORT Jim Fackler reviewed the ,tatus of recent park Improvements. He Informed the Commission that construction of the deck on the depot started today. The Island Park Garage has also been re- roofed. The Dock Location map will be reviewed at the November meeting, a notice will be published in the paper. D OCK - INSPEC T OR'S REPORT Dell Rudolph had nothing to report, other than to say good -bye, as this is his last meeting. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Andersen to adjourn the Park & Open Space Cortmisslon Meeting at 9:17 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. • 3155 1. C::11 to Order ?. Ro I I Ca 11 3. Reading; of Minutes: Q :'6 -90 Fe Meet.itip, 4. 1itstallatiort of Officers pill) lic Corrnnents - ffom peIsnr is in attend „ tic e not on agenda h. Chair Report Cw hr;rn A t ,trrd i n,; crn:uc ! t ee cha i r ,titd vice cha i r appoi ntments : ” W;tf c St ru- t urea: 'Ind Env i I(mment 1.,1ke U"st * Em nn W.rrtcr Mi 1 foi I I'rtsk Force * Ad ..�� he Dike Flind _' wlp,si ^.[t Report �. A. Stnmdirty, C( I) A''VISORY COMMIT FE, Ch ii r Pascoe al Long, J(•rm " Piogr,im for bake Minnetonka, consideration of ShnrvI i!n Protc•ctic ('hr[ >_cr IV, Appendices A, Authority; iS, Dc ini t iotr[;; .nrii C, Shrrcland Standards and Criteria; arcs Scarir>ns I, flit t?:!![,Lion; ','Ii, Irnplcu[!�ntnt ion ; and VIf1 Partial List ref R ^tcrcr(cr 1,1 , .d A. :') WATER STRUCT11RKS COMMI Chair (;rat1 "oI [) Ah1) rovi[I of iniiiii , muetin; of 10 - ii - 90. 1,1 Arionity titu,!v rec (Iin3' ipprnv;tl to mneiid Cod(- 6:'.Ui, Surd. 4. r1 Dr�icin. k it I cations, �ccorrccnding, approval of 18 applica - tioil )!-I t t t ll1 i:' "f[, stipulatinP, temporary low water (I Ock c `_v!i i( 1 e v. 0(1 - c o�i i not be dcic( ^ci. d) Wiit(]W,Td .`1;rrirre [tc huildiuc, ,:r,•rFt1,fI init, nrcr >rneII TI p a letter h TI to laity cif i_np infr;rri.!t irtrl ,t1,( the b1i ing t'd. Ad troil;.i loll`,...- . 1 . A. 3) LAKE. USE COMM ; menc , personal n LJQVICes, EO 13ent1ty Type L! 11 111 cr V as the Coast Guard- approved personal flotation devises. e) Special event deposit refunds, recommending approval for Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and Viking Bassmasters. f) Save the Lake annual recognit;on dinner recommending Thursday, February 14, and Lord Fletchers o.r the Lake. g) Water Patrol report. h) Additional business. 7. A. 4) EURASIAN MATER MILFOII. TASK FORCE, Chair ..eese a) Progress on 1991 operations planning. b) Additio „al business. 7. A. 5) FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Boswinkel a) Statement of cash transactions, month ending 9-30 -90 b) Quarterly report for the three months ending 9-30-90 c) Audit of vouchers for payment 7. A. 6) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Strommen a) Finalization of office lease for enlarged space at Norwest Bank, Wayzata. b) MN Lake Management Federation annual conference highlights. 8. Unfinished Business 9. New Business A. Consideration of auditor and financial service for quarterly reports for 1991. B. Save the Lake Fund Analysis recommending adoption of the Mission Statement, Objectives, Funding Considerations, Budget Procedure and Amendments as presented. C. Designation of depository for LMCD checking, saving and /or securities, recommending Norwest Bank. D. Resolution cesignating the treasurer to sell, assign and transfer general obligat ns of the United States and the State of Minnesota maturing in less than three years. E. Resolution designating the treasurer and one other officer or the executive director, two signatures required, to pay, transfer or withdraw funds on deposit with Forwest Bank. F. Additional new business. 10. Adjournment 10-15 -90 RU OCT 2 2 ]30 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action deport: Water Structures and Environment Committee Meeting: Saturday, October 13, 199U, 7:30 a.m. Shorewood City Hall Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Vice Chair, Spring Park; Jan Boswinkel, Hinn onka Beach; David Cochran, Greenwood; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; /,Joert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rescop, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also prey, -nt: Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meet.irng was called to order by Vice Chair Babcock at 7:30 a.m. 1. ChaF)man Place Commercial Marina Agreement. Review T1le c- itimittee re Charles LeF•evere's r ?view of ra • license! agreement between Chapman Place Association, Inc. and fica nic Lawn. and Landscape, Inc. LeFevere questioned whether (,'hapman Place is operating a bona fide commercial marina operated by an .independent licensee under an arms length commercial transaction, or whether the proposed relationship is merely a SUbterfuKr- in which the licensee is simply an operating agent for an out.lot association facili LeFevere noted there have been changes in the license agreement. His review of the agreement led him to state that he is not, comfortable in recommending that the F>rop��sed license agreement to be in order. knhr�rt, 1'. Cuthill, President, Chapman Place Association, rF - s{ to LeFevere with a letter to the Executive Director in whi':ll he rec.porlded to the five changes detailed in LeFevere's 1 t tj,r. c-;uthi 11 further provided a statement of income and tinrt for 1990. Tllf( � re(,e!ived a memr dated 10 -3 -90, from the h ;--j ti_ve Director containing the results of his meeting with l')O.hi 11 and (liscufls,ion with LeFevere. Ili 11 pri� ?need photos of the dock area to show lllt ,Vrtlu'n?,`; t,O the" d�.,, k and shoreline area, m aking every effort t,, LMr'[1 requirem 11e insisted he has no intent of 1• ,,; i n; in abt:+rf> r e or (1 has always operated openly .end �,t,t�int-tF�d t , - , build a trust with LMCD. Cuthill went on to :t l:,in th,lt, the oriFtinaI marina operator, Waterfront I n . , ref used a contract renewal at the end of the f i r t y r l;l lr)pman Place was thus forced to buy the docks, as i f i -d i oterator - irreement, to be ass(_tred of being in ,+.i t r 1(PO). It was their der--i-ion to purchase the clocks. (.}l l i �;,, t•r• - „ -„ put, i.n a p - -psi ti., ,)n o`� preparing , operator tai) i `•ll wt Id i nc l ude some jrsu ranee of , •y ;haFrn "171 Pla(:e (loos not bell-v- there ever (I i " - , t`•'tl '1 r "t Ili— tllat thy' appl i -arlt Could riot . rrWfl I'll'! (I-Cks. I I S' 1 It -+ !'. 1 ll "_ �� ] `l r t }1 ^' doC}'!�, t,11- forIm.r operator" 1 -1 t on the 1 -t 1 r t •rl t lea t t }lF flr,c'1!.i arc- t aY.e d :iF'parat.el Y `,n "' �,•) .t i ! �) I t l t�' t V 'or)t,a.n)te_I Wat.f,r Structures and Environment Committee October 13, 1990 Reese note} that as a commercial marina, Chapman Place does not have adequate parking, and does riot provide public amenities. (It is grandfathered for 27 slips rather than licensed for special density requiring amenities) Co,r,hr.an stated that in looking at what the District is trying to accomplish, this arrangement provides a benefit to the general public, as well as the owners of the condominiums. ►le can foresee the need for some adiustm.�nt to the ordinances, noting a similar situation exists at. the Excelsior Bay Gables Slocum said he was satisfied with Cuthill's responses to the Le F r, vere letter, his opinion being that Chapman Place has done what the LMCD required in its order. S1o'.-um moved, Pillsbury seconded, to dismiss this discussion and to consider an ordinance chance to allow ownership of docks with an arras length operating agreement. Reese moved, Hurr seconded, to table the discussion until th,: matter of the Chapman Place docks and the Excelsior Bay G do, - k,i can be discussed in the same context. Motion carried, Slocum v ting nay. Cuthili advis,::a the committee that Chapman Place was prepared to sign an operators agreement for 1991 at an early Oate. The committee offered no objection to their doing so. 2. Communication with Lakeside Marina Regarding Non - Compliance The Fxecutive Director reported that ,Jim Dunn, Lakeside Mari n,a (71w,, r�r, has not complied with the temporary low water variance f;ran +,� -d in April. He was allowed to replace permanent d(--k wi.th flc,at.irik� decks in the same configuration, extended to t;UU' Th ! is only half completed. Slip si. ^es do riot conform t.o the orivin-il configuration. TI F: r - 0 -)r putting Lunn on notice t I,; +t t.Ilr Ii:.stri t .j is f kf:.,id Mj1r n tc have r}c c }:., in place i n t.Ilr' ox.1''t. 11 ; I c: 1'%rl, .`.iupf.il.'1 "t':'d fJy -311 aS bW It SUry The ,., k .� Lark' t.Il �t ,._it t. I_)r. until a l icenre is 15sueLl. C, (Al ir <?ri m I'I 1 1 l)i -iry r T 1C} "d, trJ 9CCer)LlanCe t, r Yi�i "I + 1 +• I1 f t.il F.. _ I I. r••- t��r rr>�,�.�n,r,l��rldat, ion and to ;.+uthc>riLe him t. �� .rl � -l'1 c, + it d t e r M )tl t i.. h ,_r . , l :d t., t � on Rrev i c,w () f Am<;rl i ty f�t,u;ty Val uo Stu( of t.h,,r l [71 11 ii1,- following f9• f i ..:� �.. f ;, I, :�•? I�, ,, t . d A 1 Gr of the ':r ,r � �i r .•r,,�•rr °� ttc,ifr., anr} t t 1 1 r t - : ; a n t i I , I T I ,, i r , I r � 11) , : I I t, (" (., Im I i t t e e f I (" t. '. - I I f � r 1 199U 'I'll" 1 I t. , � L(- is recommended . Mo t. i. (-) I I carr 1 111 JI I I I I I , I (I Y . 4. Vxk-e I !; i or Hay Yacht, Club: EAW statu.-i and response, by new marina operator. L) i -e r reported the management o the x I I t C ' I 1 ) 1) E BY C ) re f a c i l i t y and the dock tak-ri over by a new operator, [1 F, r 1'-i r k Ta v - r r i EiRG will continue to c (.) n d u c t a p pr()Vram from the restaurant operation. The th- [District, is pending. The greatest concern t 1 ( 'ity Cat FxI� i-, wlie.th( r there is enough parking_ ivi- Dire-Lor is preparing a detailed response to the t ri c);. has indicated its intent to continue with tJi ii-w (1 as) applied for by EBYC, pending the EAW It I t , ,. No amt ion was rf-vii red. J. 1990 1 D(,icirmr Liccitse Applications- d- Permit w t li the u ri d (-,. r F, ta ri d i ri ly. d 0 h­ (l;jy1(. Marina seconded, to recommend approval of applications received as of 10-12- th a t temporary low water dock Id ri,-)'u he de— iced. 110 t i carried rei :, a c(i)mi)1ai nt. li:i`; been f iled thl.-e barg do orl the West I llli£; in violation of Codr• ".03, Subd. U(Inporl­,e to 11. , I.-f p1*' rI1_iSaIr-. frr�m t I I e LKLOA i) : m ri t i r a i i t f 1 , " c IT), m i r m it I C n d i y i r a t f i ljl� d l • 1, 71 Watts :tructtires and Environment Committee October 13. 1990 0 11,600 a•res of usable lake area excludes the area within 1t >0' of zone, which is the area where most Eurasian water Milfoil is found. 8. Management Nan Response - City of Wayzata I'll'- E ?xe <'utive Director reported receipt of an eleven page rest�:.ns to the Management Plan from the City of Wayzata. It is b, - ilie r s. iewed. All lake communities have been invited to a review rr.et.ing set for b p.m., Tuesday, October 16, Wayzata City Couii i l Chambers. 9. Fee Schedu l e . Hurr requested a future discuss_on of the fees being charged fIr particularly developing a method of recuperating 1)i5t,ri le %ezal arid administrative ctrargres, incltiding EAW p re paratic,n it, was noted Chair Urathwol has a fee schedule on his priority list as part of the moratorium study. 10. Windward Marina - Shoreline: Building Re;r_•se rr;entioned a variance granted by the City of Orono whi ,1 p- rmit., construction of a very largo building at the W1:Idw_.r+d h' -iri na sh ket_ "'. m. Pi L lsbu ry seconded, to recommend a letter be serlt. to the t, i ty of Orono requ-sting information about the b":i1cJin'- "irnd any variances Franted. Motion carried unanimously. 1i Ad jou rrrrnen t v;'d, PC, .,wini��e). seconded, that the me,etinp be unanimously. Meeting' adjourned at Pi rc'c`.,C Z' James; Grathwol, (,h3ir F LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Lake Use Committee Meeting: Monday, October 15, 1990. 4:30 p.m. Shorewood City Hall Members Present: Robert Pillsbury, Chair, Minnetonka; Douglas Babcock, spring Park; Marvin Biorlin, Tonka Bay. David Cochran, Greerrw ')(1, Robert Rascop, Shorewood and Eugene Strommen, F.YF :cutive Director, arrived after the vote on item 1. Also pr(�sc ;nt: Ractlel Thibault, Administrative Technician and Ken : ;chilling, Sheriff's Water Patrol. 1. Code Amendment to 2.12, Suba. 7, Regarding Buoy Removal. The committee received a proposed amendment to LMCr► Code :'.12, Subd. 7 calling for removal or submergence of buoys no later than December 15 of each year, providing for a later date if aut.hoi by the sheriff after receipt of an application from the owner prior to December 15. Minor changes were also made to C-de 2.08 , Subd . 3 Impoundment, changing "towing" to "removal" and delcti.ng ''without charge" from the last sentence. Biorlin moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend an amendment to Cede 2.12, Subd. 7 and Code 2.08, Subd. 3 per the draft dated 10- 10--90. Motion carried unanimously. �. Proposed MN Department of Natural Resource Bill for an Act Regulating Pc:.rsonal Watercraft. 'I'llihault reviewed the DNR Bill regulating personal w 1 }. raft„ noting the following differences with the LMCD UtIR do i rif:-s a PW as a motorboat using an inboard motor � �VI-1 - i rig ;t Jet pump LMCD speci'�ies watercraft under 14' in a m( pc)weriri!* a jet pump . .. . I)iII% F, i 'i f le , ea person orl boarJ wear i r g personal I t:I t. i � �r1 i� ✓ i which -i i Coast ( Juard approved, 'Type 1, I I , V. 1,M(1) specifies Coast Guard approved personal ! i rh not specify types. on the age of operator arid � rill i t. 1 ­111 The LMCD Ordinance adopts the Age of (1 f i it t, i 'rr by reference to t-IN Statute i'I-IIt d nc,t inc lude the section:, f the LMC17 to opf within :JOO of shore, careless r3II pr l orworl Opt.�r which w , re adopted i f i On prehib.i tirw towing p('rsnn5 and operat -i rig thrC)LW]l uti t� t.il pw-- revifw C< . I:, .'�It.'. I',•.'i •Ill it lfl}! _.'tltl f.Il�' Writ,�'r' r'Ftf,r01 wr .;am a: ,.i '!i 1. w - tilt' �.a3t. :��t. ft.1)t r1, Lake Use Committee October 15, 1990 ' Cochran moved, Babcock seconded, to recommend the Board support the UNR Bill and the LMCD ordinance be amended to specify the four types of personal flotation devices. Motion carri.,d unanimously. J. Deposit Refunds_ Babcock moved, Biorlin seconded, to recommend approval of the following deposit refunds: z) Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club for 1990 race schedule b) Viking Bassmasters of Minnesota for 10 -19-90 tournament. Motion carried unanimously. d. 1991 Save the Lake Recognition Dinner The committee was unanimous in its recommendation that the 1991 Save the Lake Recognition Dinner be held on Thursday, February 14, 1991, at Lord Fletcher's. The Water Patrol will make recommendation of a deputy to be recognized. 5. Water Patrol Report. Schilling reperted there have been two watercraft personal injury accidents, one in Jennings Bay and one in Priests Bay. Buoy rernc >v will begin 10 -16 by Hennepin County. T'. will take ab(,;_:t two weeks to complete. T he summer work load is winding down and the water patrol is preparing for the winter season. Rascop requested a report on the prosecution of the BWI citations if3a),ued by the DNR on Lake Minnetonka. He is interested in who is doing the prosecution and the results. 6 Management flan Response - City of Wayzata The F : utive Dirotctor distributed copies of the City of rl,ryr,:ta response to the 5horeland Protection section of the m,tiia r_;m<-- nt plan. A11 Jal«; communities have been invited to a r « :i1.w rl "I -t.ing F'et for �-00 p.m. , Tuesday. October 16, Wayzata i t.y Counf'i l t;hambf,rs. ('r ) ( Iir.ir, careful r :,ding of the Wayzata response. A K:y the Wayzata response has been sent to David Arn hran suv.fiest-d a review of the document by a s—,iorr -il planr.ei whc would offer third party objective nrr >r,ts .nd who does not, have a conflict with work being done fvr t i 11)-nt C`ned. The committee consensus was t,,:, t ! rsf<_�uti •e Di.�ector investigate acquiring the short - rir t -f a 1.-)nd pl-..,ner. Y Ad urnmcnt. i r' t:r r,[' fi11't:11�'r kJll S]I: °.SS to brina be fCire 'i.,iF� cUlTmltt('�_ , P.M. i 9 t!.�f' 1 l ; 'Cr. 1�:.I1`; CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 10 -23 -90 ��1 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA PAGE 3071 A G E N D A MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7.30 P.M. TUESDAY- OCTOBER 23, SCHOOL- 1. DISTRICT BOARDROOM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 9, 1990 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, AND THE OCTOBER 16, 1990 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES Pg. 3073 -3080 3. PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS Pg. 3081 -3032 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL PARKING TO SERVE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (MATERIAL TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING. PLEASE BRING PREVIOUS MATERIALS ON THIS SUBJECT) 5. PjBLIC HEARING: CASE #90 -935, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 3020 HIGHLAND BLVD., LOT 7, BLK. 2, . HIGHLANDS, PID #23- 117 -24 -41 0013 FOR DOUGLAS AND CAROL FARMER. Pg. 3083 -2095 6. CASE #90 -936: REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR PAUL MEISEL AND KOENIG /SCHWERT AT 2339 & 2345 COMMERCE BLVD., LOTS 2, 3 &4, AUDITORIS SUBD., #167, PID #14- 117 -24 44 0002 & 0004. Pg. 3096 -3118 7. RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF ROLAND R. GAVIN FOR A FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 5000 ENCHANTED ROAD. Pg. 3119 -3121 8. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT 9. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FOR THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MINNEIONKA AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 Pg. 3122 10. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT - ISLAND PARK GARAGE HOOF REPAIR Pg. 3123 -3126 11. DISCUSSION: SHORELAND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT LMCD 12. APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDA':ION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE: FACILITATOR ON DOWNTOWN STUDY. Pg. 3127 -3129 PAGE 3071 } 13. SET DATE FOR ELECTION CANVASS MEETING NOV. 7, 1990 • 14. PAYMENT OF' BILLS Pg. 3130 -3144 15. INFORMATION/MI • .AN _OLS A. September 1990 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director Pg. 3145 -3146 B. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) 1991 Legislative Policies C. Letter dated 10/313/90 from Randi Saba, 2348 Commerce Blvd., on Mosquito spraying Pg. 3147 D. Letter dated 10/11/90 from the Minnesota Dept. of Public Service notifying the City of a Certificate of Commendatiou from Governor Rudy Perpich on the City's Community Energy Program. Pg. 3148 -3149 E. Economic Development Commission Minutes of October 18, 1990 Pg. 3150 -3151 F. Planning Commission Minutes of October 8, 1990• Pg. 3152 -3155 • G. Parks & Open Space Commission Minutes of October 11, 1990 Pg. 3156 -3158 • • 153 October 9, 1990 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 9, 1990 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 9, 1990 in the School District Conference Room 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, Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official John Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Dennis and Shelly Dorion, Roland Gavin, and Mary Pacholke. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. PRESENTATION OF WESTONKA DOLLARS TO JOHN i SANDY WILSEY, RZCYCLOTTO WINNER Mayor Smith introduced John and Sandy Wilsey, Recyclotto winners and presented them with 150 Westonka Dollars. 1.0 XINUTZ8 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve the minutes of the September 25, 1990, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. • 1.1 CASE 90 -934: DENNIS i SHELLY DORION, 5033 BARTLETT BLVD., LOTS 1,2 i PART OF 3, BLOCK S. SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24- 117 -24 12 0023, VARIANCE: BIDE YARD SETBACK The Building Official explained that the applicant has revised his plan and moved the garage resulting in a 16 foot variance. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -12; RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE A A FRONT YARD STEBACK VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GAP.,AGE FOR LOTS 1,2 i PART OF 3, BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24- 117 -24 12 0023, (5033 BARTLETT BLVD.) P i Z CASE #90 -934 3f) 93 154 October 9, 1990 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CASE #90 -938: ROLAND R. WIN, $000 ENCHANTED ROAD, LOT 1, BLOCK 21, BHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13- 117 -24 11 0069, VARIANCE FRONT i BIDE YARD SETBACK The Building Official explained that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request due to lack of hardship and the proposed garage would be too close to the garage behind it which creates an unsafe condition. The Council discussed this item. They pointed out that the applicant could attached this garage to the dwelling. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to refer this item to Staff to prepare a resolution of denial. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 REOUEST TO BE HEARD - MARY PACROLKE, 2 624 USTEDGE BLVD Mary Pacholke asked that the City Council request that the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District not do any spraying for mosquitoes by helicopter in the Mound area. She related her reasons for not wanting any spraying, i.e. sickness of herself and her a.,imals, other animals in the neighborhood dying. • The Council discussed Ms. Pacholke's complaints, the letters from the Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture, a letter from the University of Minnesota, and a letter from the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. The letters from the MN. Dept. of Agriculture and the MMCD stated that they have investigated Ms. Pacholke's complaint regarding improper pesticide applications to Lake Langdon and have determined that no pesticide misuse has been substantiated. The letters state that BTI and not methoprene was applied. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to direct Staff to write a letter to the Scientific Peer Review Panel asking them to research this problem and send a summary of their results to the City of Mound. Also asking the MMCD to have people on hand with Ks. Pacholke to monitor the spraying next year on Lake Langdon. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS i SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. • 30 -lq 155 • October 9, 1990 1.4 APPROVAL OF PAYMBNT REQUEST - CITY HALL ADDITION LED MODELING PROJECT _ MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve Payment Request #i for the City Hall Addition and Remodeling in the amount of $81,813.10. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED 8 SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON NAILER OF FORMALITIE81 DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CRRTIFICATXON TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #11840 - $1.500 The City Clerk explained that this is another water service that was serving two dwellings and needed to be split off. PID #19- 117-23 32 0204. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -122 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED 5 SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO • THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #11840 - $1,S00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE: COUNTY ROAD 15 BEAUTIFICATION PLAN The City Manager explained that the Economic Development Commission reviewed the County Road 15 Beautification Plan at their meeting in September. The City Manager obtained a cost estimate from Jim Robin, landscape architect who designed the landscape plan. The cost estimate ($15,192.50), is for landscape plantings in front of the Lost Lake area and in front of the parking lot across from the House of Moy. He pointed out that this was not budgeted for in 1990. Because we do not have a clear insight into the future use of Lost Lake and the future ownership of the parking lot across from the House of Moy restaurant, he recommended putting this item on hold for the time being. The Council agreed. No action was taken. • 3d 7-Ar 156 October 9, 1990 1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to authorise the payment of bills as presented on the pre -list in the amount Of $186,131.17, when funds are available. A roll call vote was u3animously in favor. Notion carried. ADD -ON ITEMS CHANGE ORDERS - CITY HALL ADDITION 6 RENOVATION The City Manger explained the following change orders: Change Order #21 - a credit from Shingobee for monitoring by Err;iirobate of the patching of a duct damaged by the contractor in the process of excavating. Deduct $585.00 Change Order #22 - Add smoke detectors at elevator lobby on each floor. These smoke detectors are required for the firefighter's operation called for in the elevator specification. They were left out of the electrical plans. The Electrical Engineer will pay the difference between the Change Order amount and the cost of the smoke detectors ($201.00) had they been included in the original bid. Add $801.00. 0 Change Order #23 - Addition of valving to each individual boiler unit for the heating system. The reasons for adding the valves is to provide zone isolation so that if one boiler needs maintenance, the other two do not have to be shut down, leaving the entire building without heat. Add $275.00. Change Order #29 - installing 1/4" plywood over the existing particle board in the existing building so that there is no chance the carpet will not stick and the particle board will not separate after the carpet is installed. This is also the least expensive way to provide an installation that the carpet company will guarantee. Add $4,600.00. The Mayor asked that these change orders be considered separately. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -123 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #21, CITY HALL ADDITION AND RENOVATION IN THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCT $585.00 • ?0`1� 157 October 9, 1990 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -124 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #22, CITY HALL ADDITION AND RENOVATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $801.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -125 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER #23 FOR THE CITY HALL ADDITION AND RENOVATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $275.00 The vote was 4 in favcr with Smith voting nay. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -126 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER #29 FOR THE CITY HALL ADDITION AND RENOVATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,600.00 • The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION /MISCELLAMEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1990. B. Planning Commission Minutes of 9- 24 -90. C. Petition that was circulated from residents in the surrounding area of the Melvin Zuckman residence, re: subdivision issue at 5012 Tuxedo Blvd. For background, this issue was withdrawn from the City Council Agenda in August after being denied at the Planning Commission. As I understand it, the matter is in litigation. D. Letter dated September 27, 1990, from Mark Saliterman, owner of Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center, re: fence between Saliterman's property and Hardees. E. LMCD mailings. F. Economic Development Commission Minutes of September 20, 1990. 307-1 158 October 9, 1990 G. Letter from Gary Nordstrom thanking the Council for their help in the fight against Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake. NOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to adjourn at 8 :40 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk • 3 07T cd MINUTES — COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — OCTOBER 16, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Smith, Councilmembers Jensen, Johnson. Absent: Ahrens and Jessen (excused). Ed Shukle, City Manager, updated the Council on the Dakota Rail issue. Council discussed the assessment procedure and possible percentage that could be assessed against the Central Business District. They asked the City Manager to have scenarios on the assessment roll that would take into account splits of 75x/25 %, 60x /40x and 50x /50x. The consensus was that the owners who provide their own parking should not have to pay for more parking, i.e. Meisels, Johnsons, Sherburne, Mueller /Lansing, etc. The only assessments that should be placed on these would be any costs outside of the actual land costs. They discussed possible dates for an assessment heari:g, but nothing was decided. They also discussed possibly improving the municipal lot behind the House of Moy Restaurant on Auditors Road. The Downtown Study was briefly discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle presented a proposal which would call for hiring a facilitator • from a planning firm that would serve the staff on a contractual basis to "spearhead" the downtown study and get it moving. Council consensus was to place this matter on the next regular council meeting agenda. Ed Shukle, City Manager, updated the council on discussions with Anthony VanDerSteeg for property behind his business on Commerce Boulevard for the purpose of Public Works storage. He indicated that Mr. VanDerSteeg is interested in selling this property to the City. Shukle indicated that he would be hearing back from VanDerSteeg shortly with regard to price and other terms. Ed Shukle, City Manager, updated Council on information related to a water treatment facility. He presented information from McCombs Frank Roos on sodium water softening treatment. This matter was taken under advisement. A Christmas party was briefly discussed. The Council agreed that they would like to do something similar to what was done for the city employees, staff, advisory commissions and others in 1989. Suggested dates were December 15, 8, 14 or 7. Staff will pursue the arrangements. Ed Shukle, City Manager, presented some conceptual designs for a new city hall sign and for a sign that would be placed at the east entrance to the city for recognizing service organizations. The city manager ib to pursue both of these. The possibility of having a city flag was also discussed. The city manager is to pursue this matter. 3o`7Ci COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 1990 There will not be a Committee of the Whole meeting in November as November 20, 1990 is scheduled already for a public hearing on the proposed 1991 budget. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Johnson, and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM. Respectfully rubmitted, Ed Shukl e City Manager ES:ls • ti . • 3 080 2 Delinquent Sewer and Water 10/17/90 33 400 241 $119.12 0 3 4390 931 147.54 33 4392 241 138.35 33 4392 572 169.59 33 4420 122 135.09 33 4630 541 125.25 33 4630 812 121.50 33 4690 303 151.61 33 4720 303 147.94 33 4750 124 165.97 33 4752 152 98.02 33 4840 691 290.38 33 4840 901 195.64 33 4842 091 106.48 0 3 4842 783 177.96 33 4842 932 145.00 33 4844 271 89.20 33 4844 871 180.00 33 4870 541 170.70 33 5000 271 161.16 33 5000 301 132.69 33 5030 063 92.51 33 5270 031 224.55 33 5390 061 131.25 33 5390 121 118.56 33 5480 064 157.83 i s 3QQl 33 5480 156 5 82.39 33 5510 332 169.34 33 5780 121 70.24 33 5870 721 115.64 33 5900 243 109.32 33 5930 451 107.54 33 5930 602 91.04 33 5960 211 95.75 33 5968 872 150.14 33 5990 094 114.63 33 5990 721 158.59 33 6050 031 175.40 33 6080 061 145.72 33 6202 062 168.48 33 6204 511 102.42 33 6206 091 127.21 33 6206 121 143.90 33.6320 033 108.26 33 6470 091 120.65 33 6470 121 151.75 41 1960 121 600.31 42 3430 601 418.92 42 3430 752 76.72 x7498.25 r] 302A Delinquent Water and Sewer 10/23/90 33 4060 241 K. Kinneberg $119.12 2628 Tyrone Ln. 33 4390 931 Morgan and Ward 147.54 4400 Wilshire Blvd. 33 4392 241 Daniel Brunette 138.35 4519 Wilshire Blvd. 33 4392 572 John Zambori Pd. 169.59 4681 Wilshire Blvd. 33 4420 122 James Jaremko Pd. 135.09 4424 Denbigh Rd. 33 4630 541 Ron Neraasen Pd. 125.25 4725 Bedford Rd. 33 4630 812 Dave Ladner 121.50 4854 Bedford Rd. 33 4690 303 James Steinwand 151.61 4785 Richmond Rd. 33 4720 303 Deanne Williams 1 47.94 4 °43 Dorchester Rd. 33 4750 124 Mary Cragg 165.97 4515 Manche�Ler Rd. 33 4752 152 Bart Skei Pd. 98.02 4844 Manchester Rd. 33 4840 691 Robert W=_.tro,:; 290.38 3113 Tuxedo Blvd. 33 4840 901 Richar: 2eihaye 195.64 3201 Tuxedo Blvd. 33 4842 091 Karen Strom 106.48 3245 Tuxedo Blvd. 33 4842 783 _ Robert r, 177.96 4821 Tuxedo Blvd. 33 4842 932 Klaus and Willer Pd. 1 , 45.00 4861 Tuxedo Blvd. 33 4844 271 Michael Pruyn Pd. 89.20 5006 Tuxedo Blvd. 33 4844 871 Carol Kreft Pd. $36.00 180.00 5138 Tuxedo Blvd. 33 4870 541 Jerry Olsen 170.70 4873 Cumberland Rd. 33 5000 271 Thomas Dulebohn Pd. 161.16 4448 Radnor Rd. 33 5000 301 Gary Nece Certified(Pd.) 132.69 4455 Radnor Rd. 33 6030 063 Rick Bosr,a Pd. 92.51 4428 Lamberton Rd. 33 5270 031 Duanne Van Poll Pd. 244.55 4704 Gordon Rd. 33 5390 061 Rand Sarles 131.25 4838 Glasgow Rd. 33 5390 121 Michael Gray Pd. 118.56 4852 Glasgow Rd. 33 5480 064 michael Kleyla 157.83 3107 Argyle Ln. 33 548J 156 David Nelson 82.39 3137 Argyle Ln. 33 5510 332 Richard Jorgenson Pd. 169.34 3101 Alexander Ln. 33 5780 121 Joan Conkey 70.24 2871 Marlboro Ln. 33 5870 721 Dean Larson Pd. 115.64 3062 Brighton Blvd. 33 5900 243 Glenn Melena 109.32 5139 Windsor Rd. 33 5930 451 Lorraine Hall 107.54 5125 Drummond Rd. 33 5930 602 C. Nordmeier Pd. 91.04 5214 Drummond Rd. 33 5960 211 Kevin Smith 95.75 4724 Hanover Rd. 33 IJ960 872 John, Sharp 150.14 5137 Hanover Rd. 33 5990 094 Sandra Hanson 114.63 4580 Aberdeen Rd. 33 5990 721 Joe Schepers Pd. 158.59 4767 Aberdeen Rd. 33 6050 031 Jeff Thorson Pu.$104.20 175.40 3200 Dexter Ln. 33 6080 061 Keith Johnson 145.72 3207 Amhurst Ln. 33 6202 062 Scott Berglund 168.48 4556 Island View Dr. 33 6204 511 Douglas Nelson Pd. 102.42 4828 Island View Dr. 33 6206 091 Joe Andrews Pd. 127.21 4921 Island View Dr. 33 6206 121 Holmes Empson Pd. 143.90 4922 Island View Dr. 33 6320 033 Gary Lyons 108.26 3219 Gladstone Ln. 33 6470 091 James Wertish 120.65 5222 Phelps Rd. 33 6470 121 Jerry Longley 151.75 5227 Phelps Rd. 41 1960 121 D.J.Peterson 600.31 2153 Basswood Ln. 42 3430 601 John Royer Pd. 418.92 2281 Commerce Blvd 42 3430 752 Toni's Flooring "76.72 3107 Argyle Ln. b 7498.25 $ 4539.37 t \ � McCombs Frank Roos Assoetates, Inc:. i i i i i i i i i Phase I Environmental Assessment For Central Business District Parking Lots Mou lid, Minnesota Prepared For: City of Mound, Minmesota 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 October, 1990 i i i i i i i i i PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT For Central Business District Parking Lots Mound, Minnesota Prepared for: City of Mound, Minnesota October, 1990 z, a PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ' Central Business District Parking Lots Mound. Minnesota ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No i Report Summary 1 I Introduction 2 ' s) Purpose of Study b) Scope of Work ' II Historical Background 3 a) Chain of Ownership ' b) Aerial Photography Review c) Minnesota Geological Records d) Minnesota Department of Health Records ' III Current Use of Site 4 a) Description of Site ' b) Visual Inspection of Site c) Visual Inspection Check List ' IV File Investigation Results 8 e) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) b) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) ' c) Hennepin County d) City of Mound Fire Marshall and Building Inspection Department ' V Conclusions and Recommendations 15 ' VI Standard of Care 16 Appendix t A. Aerial Photograph Copies B. U of M Geological Survey Well Logs ' C. United States Environmental Protection Agency Correspondence n. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Correspondence E. Hennepin County Correspondence ' F. City of Mound Fire Marshall and Building Inspection Department Correspondence ' Q. Photographs H. Facility Questionnaire i i MAP INDEX Map Number Description Map No. 1 Environment Site Assessment Location Map Map No. 2 Approximate Location of U of M Geological Survey Listed Wells Map No. 3 Approximate Location of USEPA MinnE�iota RCRA Listings and CERCLIS Listings Map No. 4 Approximate Location of MPCA Report Spills Map No. 5 Approximate Location of MPCA Reported Leak Sites Map No. 6 Approximate Location of Hennepin County Listed Hazardous Waste Generators Map No. 7 Approximate Location of City Listed Underground Storage Tanks Map No. 8 Approximate Location of MPCA Listed Dump Sites Map No. 9 Approximate Location of Sewers ' PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL RECONNAISSANCE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING LOTS ' Mound, Minnesota REPORT SUMMARY A Preliminary Environmental Reconnaissance for Property Transfer (ERPT) to determine the potential for hazardous material contamination that exists at the ' site for the Central Business District Parking Lots in Mound, Minnesota has been completed. The scope of services consisted of on -site observations, a review of Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statements completed by ' the former property manager, a review of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information (CERCLIS) list for Super Fund sites ' which may be near the property and a review of a partial title chain. The ERPT revealed no evidence indicative of hazardous contamination based on a limited scope of work conducted on this property. Additional details of the scope of work and conclusions about environmental conditions on this site ' are contained in this report. I I t r -1- t I. INTRODUCTI 1 This report presents the results of a Phase I Environmental Assessment. conducted by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.. for the City of Mound. The name and location of the property as shown on Map No. 1 contained in ' this report is of the Central Business District Parking Lots in Mound. Minnesota. A. Purpose of Study Due to recent legislation, an individual, corporation, municipality or financial institution who owns or operates on a property that is ' found to be contaminated may be held liable for all appropriate clean -up costs. The Owner of the property should conduct an appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the ' property in order to minimize liability. The scope of the Phase I study includes a visual study of the property, a standard series of questions used in discussion with management, review of available documents, observations of the property maintenance and upkeep and contact of regulatory agencies. Our observations are based on visual observations. Therefore, the results are only as reliable as the data received from the above sources. No warranties of statements or data received are made. ' B. Scope of Work The scope of the Phase I rtudy includes the following: 1. Contacting Federal, State, County and Local Government Agenci. charged with environmental recordkeeping. 2. Review of the Federal. State. County and Local records, regarding environmental records. 3. Research and review of the chain of ownership of the property. 4. Research and review of historical land use data. ' 5. Conducting a visual site inspection. 6. The preparation of a report of findings. II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ' A. Chain of Ownership No abstract or title search listing a chain of ownership was available when this assessment was completed. However, the City Attorney and Minnesota Title Company are preparing a tract search and those results should be made a part of this assessment when available. The following is a preliminary chain of ownership based on the information available at this time, we make no claims or warranties as to the accuracy of this information. ' From U.S. Government to Burlington Northern Railroad; ' From burlington Northern Railroad to McLeod County Regional Rail Authority and Dakota Rail, Inc.; From Bankruptcy Court to Elli Mills. ' B. Aerial Photography Map Review Aerial photography maps were reviewed at the University of Minnesota Wilson Map Library. Aerial maps for the years 1937, 1945, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1971, 1979 and 1989 were reviewed. ' The 1937 aerial photographs indicate the site was approximately ?5% developed with the majority of the site used as railroad bed, depot. railroad siding and unpaved parking areas. The entire property appears to have been railroad right -of -way with a main set of railroad tracks running east -west and a parallel siding to the ' north. Two buildings were located north of and adjacent to the siding. To the north of the property was commercial property and an apparent liquid storage facility with above ground tanks. To the ' south was a roadway (present Shoreline Drive) and commercial buildings adjacent to the road. The property to the east contained the main railroad tracks with some residential development north of ' the tracks several hundred feet. To the west was a roadway (present Commerce Boulevard) with commercial buildings adjacent to the road. The main railroad tracks continued to the west with some residential development north of the tracks and a wooded area and lake to the ' south. ' The 1945 and 1953 aerial indicated a similar land use on and adjacent to the site. The 1956 photos shows a similar land use on, and adjacent to, the site. Additional storage tanks were added to the northeast and a ' street was added east of and adjacent to the site. ' The 1960 photo shows that one building north of the siding on the site has been removed. Several commercial buildings north of the tracks were removed and the area used for parking. Some additional commercial development occured south of Shoreline Drive. The 1962 aerial shows the parking area on the site had expanded and the remaining building north of the siding was removed. Other land ' use was similar to 1960. -3- I1 r, 1 Land use shown on the 1964 aerial on and adjacent to the site was similar to 1962. The 1969 aerial photo indicated the old depot was removed and the parking lot had been paved. A lift station was constructed on the southeast corner of the site. A building was constructed adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. Other land uses remained similar. The 1971 and 1979 aerials show no changes in land use. The 1989 aerial shows removal of the railroad siding. Buildings to the north of the site were removed and the area used for parking. The western portion of the site west of Commerce Boulevard had been paved. Other land uses remained similar. C. Minnesota Geological Records The well log files were researched at the University of Minnesota Geological Survey. There were no wells listed at the UMGS office on the proposed Central Business District Parking Lot site. There are approximately 12 private and municipal wells within a one -mile radius of the site. There are copies of the USGS maps with the well log numbers located on the maps contained in Appendix B from the U of M Geological Survey. Also contained in Appendix B are copies of the individual well logs that were on file at the University of Minnesota Geological Survey and Map No. 2. which locates the wells that were on file with the Minnesota Geological Survey. D. Minnesota Department of Healtt. The well management section of the Health Department indicates that no well advisories have been issued within the Mound corporate limits. III. CURRENT USE OF SITE A. Descriptiun of the Central Business District Parking Lots The site is presently di% �d into three parcels by the railroad tracks and Commerce Boulevard. The southern portion of the site bounded on the south by County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and the north by the railroad tracks, extending westerly from Belmont Lane on the east to the First Minnesota Bank property. Ninety percent of this portion of the site is a paved parking lot. The northern portion of the site is bounded by the railroad tracks on the south and commercial properties on the north and extends from CSAH 110 (Commerce Boulevard) east to Belmont Lane. This portion of the site is approximately 150 feet wide along CSAH 110 and is a paved parking lot. The remainder of the northern portion is approximately 50 feet wide and contains an unpaved driveway extending to Belmont Drive. The eastern portion of the site is bounded by the railroad tracks on the north and commercial property on the south and extends westerly fvom CSAH 110 (Commerce Boulevard) approximately 250 feet. The land is presently used as a driveway access to properties to the south and southwest. -4- I I 0 n r 17 J 11 B The majority of the site is paved automobile parking lots surrounded by streets or commercial properties. The railroad tracks through the site appear to be in use. The site contains approximately 2.5 acres. The present adjacent land uses around the site are as follows: North: The area is occupied by commercial parking lots and commercial buildings with bulk fuel storage facility approximately 120 feet northeast of the site. South: Commercial buildings occupy the areas across County Road 15 in the area east of CSAH 110 and commercial buildings adjacent to the site west of CSAH 110. East: Generally, undeveloped property and roadway exist along the railroad tracks. Residential and commercial uses occupy the area further to the east. West: The area to the west consists of commercial buildings across from CSAH 110 adjacent to the site and residential and commercial uses along the railroad tracks to the west. Photographs taken of the site on September 27, 1990 are included in Appendix G. Visual Inspection of Site Vi -,ual inspection of the site was made an July 2, 1990. The visual inspection on July 2, 1990 was conducted by MFRA to answer questions contained on the attached check list. The entire perimeter of the site was inspected and the visual inspection checklist completed. based on those observations. The former property manager was interviewed to complete the Environmental Site Assessment Facility Questionnaire. found in Appendix H. Based on review of that information, it appears that the site has been railroad property and parking lots for at least the past 50 years. Fill for the parking lot most likely contains coal cinders. Based upon review of this information, there appears to be a slight potential threat to the CBD Parking Lot Site. -5- I A Mefom6s Rank Rags Ass d.iec Inc (612147&W110 Environmental Site Assessment Phase 1- Visual Inspection Check List Developed Property ' Site CBD Parkins; Lots File No: 9522 Esau =d._ Date 9/27/90 t f I it Yes No Item — R I. Evidence of soil, pavement or floor discoloration or chemical spills; determine muse and whether single incident or ongoing practice. — 2. Evidence of stressed vegetation, stunted growth or other distress, absence of growth or growt uncommon to the area — X 3. Evidence of over application of: — a. pesticides — b. herbicides 4. Evidence of abandoned roads and vehicle routes with no apparent outlet or purpose. — a. Have dust control measures been used on ary existing dirt or gravel roads? X 5. Evidence of filled area: — X a. when and how filled — b. materials used — X_ c. permits obtained — X 6. Evidence of storage piles on site or residue of some material storage. — NA 7. Observe and inquire about storage drums: — a. determine whether contents classified as "hazardous" — _ b. note evidence of leakage c. if empty, determine past usage and contents. — NA 8. Observe and inquire about all above and below grade tanks, pits and piping. _ — a. in use — _ b. leak tested — — c. abandoned in place — — d. removed — NA 9 Determine whether disposal of wastewater and other liquids is by: — — a. on -site septic system — — b. private on -site sewer — c. off -site put lic sewer — — d. locate any sanitary sewer outfalls — .— e. leaks or cdors — h_ 10. Determine source of drinking water, determine whether wells on -site and in the immediate are continue in usage or have been: — a. contaminated — b. abandoned — — c. condemned — NA 11. Has there ever been a fire or other incident which mused contamination on the site? --- �— 12. Do bodies or streams of surface water exist on the site? — X 13. Note and inquire about any unusual or noxious odors a. Does this facility have any air pollution emissions? Page 1 of 2 tombs Froa Roos Associates, Inc •i2j 476 -6010 Environmental Site Assessment ' Phase 1- Visual Inspection Check List Developed Property Page Two rYes No Item X 14. Do starmwater runoff controls exist? ' X 15. Does the facility have a hazardous anti solid waste disposal program? -B 16. Inquire as to the use of urea - formaldehyde foam insulation and asbestos. X 17. Inquire about PCB contaminated insulating fluids used in electrical transformers and other e ment, interior and exterior. ' 18. Has there ever been a tank truck or tank railroad car unloading area located on the property? — X 19. Has this facility ever used or stored radioactive materials on -site? 20. Determine the type of land use and operations that have occurred on each parcel of property to adjacent to the facility. t t Environmental Checklist Notes Item Comment 5a. Parking area Filled 5a. Railroad Bed Filled 5b. Paved over 5c. Not Applicable 14. Storm sewer intake on SE corner 14. Ditch to West 18. See Section IIB of this Phase I Environmental Assessment 20. See Section IIIA of this Phase I Environmental /assessment 'erformed By: _ Jim Thiesse Date: 9127/90 Page 2of2 L ' IV. FILE INVESTIGATION RESULTS An office investigation of the site of Central Business District Parking ' Lots in Mound, Minnesota, has been completed. This investigation consisted of gathering and reviewing the following government agency files and records: ' 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency 2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3. Hennepin County ' 4. City of Mound Fire Marshall and Building Inspection Department A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) ' We requested, from the U.S. EPA, information contained in their files. The U.S. EPA furnished a printout of the CERCLIS list for the 55364 zip code. The Request Identification Number (RIN) is ' 3789 -90 0'9522)• CERCLIS is an automated inventory of all potential uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, based upon state investigation efforts and upon notifications received as provided by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or "superfund "). These sites are in various stages of investigations. There were four (4) CERCLIS sites listed by the U.S. EPA within a one mile radius of the site as follows: ' MFRA Zip Map 3 ID Numbe Name Site Location City ST Code ID MND980609168 Metro Service Station 5377 Shoreline Blvd Mound MN 55364 A MND006247159 Tonka Toys Main Plt 5300 Shoreline Blvd Mound MN 55364 B MND980609135 Woodcrest of Mound Acorn Road & ' Surrounding Lots Mound MN 55364 C MND980609143 Woodcrest of Mound 2nd Addition 2820 -2840 Pind Road Mound MN 55364 D Also furnished was a printout of all permitted generators of hazardous waste and all treatment, storage, or disposal facilities for the information listed above. These are regulated by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The following list contains the RCRA sites that appear to be within a one mile radius of the site for Central Business District Parking Lots: Site ID Number Name Location MN'D032099186 Aerco Auto & Marine 5533 Shoreline Dr. MND139256267 Balboa Minnesota Co. 5340 Shoreline Dr. MND982426306 Contel Inc. Central Office Equipment Bldg. 2468 Commerce Blvd. 5.11 MFRA Map 3 City ST Zip Code ID No. Mound MN 55364 1 Mound MN 55364 2 Mound MN 55364 3 MFRA Site Map 3 IID Numbor Name Location City ST Zip Code ID No. OW98500461 CR Mfg Co. 5338 Shoreline Dr. Mound MN 55364 4 MN9981527385 Duanes 66 Service 2603 Commerce Blvd. Mound MN 5536 5 NND982209652 Harrison Bay 76 4831 Shoreline Blvd. Mound MN 55364 6 ' M*8261065 Home Laundry Inc. 2244 B. Commerce Mound MN 55364 7 NND981799927 Joes Auto Body 1590 Co. Rd. 110 N Mound MN 5536 8 NND982614398 Mound Collision & Paine 2334 Commerce Blvd. Mound MN 55364 9 NND98W1915 National Power Chair 2642 Commerce Blvd. Mound MN 5536 10 NND980825087 NSP Sunnybrook Stables 1585 Co. Rd. 110 N Mound MN 55364 11 NND982221806 Paul Auto Marine 1632 Commerce Blvd. Mound MN 5536 12 NND985682962 Quartz Inc. 5320 Shoreline Blvd. Mound KN 55364 13 MN0982620668 Solarium System Intl. 5340 Shoreline Blvd. Mound MN 55364 14 NND006247159 Tonka Corporation 5300 Shoreline Blvd. Mound MN 55364 15 MND982065o13 Toro Co. H I D 5300 Shoreline Blvd. Mound MN 55364 16 INtD982605768 Westonka Classic Coach 4839 Shoreline Blvd. Mound MN 55364 17 • Based on review of this information, there appears to be a light potential threat to the Central Business District Parking Lot. B. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) We requested and received, from the MPCA. information contained in their files. The MPCA staff conducted a limited file evaluation of the site. The file evaluation included review of the following: ' (1) EPA - National Priorities List (NPL); (2) EPA - Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and ' Liability Information System (CERCLIS); - (3) MPCA Permanent. List of Priorities (PLP); (4) MPCA - Regulatory Compliance, Hazardous Waste Enforcement Lot; (5) MPCA - List of Permitted Solid Waste Facilities; (6) MPCA - Hazardous Waste Permit Unit Project Identification List; (7) MPCA - 1980 Metropolitan Area Waste Disposal Site Inventory; and ' (8) MPCA - 1980 Statewide Open Dump Inventory. No listings under the exact address given for the property were ' found. However, the MPCA file evaluation has revealed that the following sites are within a one -mile radius of the referenced property: ' Metro Service Station (City of Mound). 5377 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound ( ' Woodcrest of Mound, 6390 Acorn Road, Mound (2); Woodcrest of Mound, 2nd Addition. 2820 - 2840 Pine Road, Mound (2); ' Tonka Main Plant, 5300 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound (2. 3); Mound Dump Site, south of County Road #15, west of Cypress Lane. north ' of Maywood Road and east of Belmont Lane, Mound (7); and -9- County Road #44 Dump Site (AKA Mound Dump #2). Halstead Lane. between Pine Road and Deerwood Drive, approximately the 2800 block. Mound (7). The MPCA listed dump sites are shown on Map B. The MPCA file evaluation also included a review of the Underground Storage Tank Information System data base. which contains information about underground storage. leaks, and spills of petroleum products and /or hazardous substances. It is managed and updated continuously by MPCA staff. No spills of hazardous substances and /or petroleum products have been reported for the Central Business District Parking Lot site. The Underground Storage Tank Information System indicated there is an underground tank registered to Commerce Place (Former Garage). 2220 Commerce Boulevard. Mound and Super America #4046. 2251 Commerce Boulevard, Mound. The City Engineer recalls the underground tank at 2220 Commerce Boulevard being removed by Hennepin County during road reconstruction. The MPCA search also revealed a leaking underground storage tank reported for Evelyn March Trust (old Super America Station), 2251 Commerce Boulevard. Mound. Tlie MPCA provided listings that were reported as hazardous substances and /or petroleum product spills. The reported listings for Mound are the following: Site Name Address 06/19/84 Unknown Metro Service Station Mound 06/19/84 1520 Westwood Dr Nelson Earl Garden Mound 12/18/84 Mound Kim Stello Mound 05/90/85 Mound Waconia Transport Mound 06/13/85 Mound Unknown Mound 07/26/85 Mound MTC Mound 04/03/87 Mound NSP Mound 04/07/87 Mound Unknown Mound 05/16/87 3701 Sunset Dr Suburban Transport Co Mound MFRA Spill Map No. Product Staff No. 4 ID Unknown UNK 9224 NA PP = == Gasoline Unknown DLK CPCB == =PCB 250.00 GA MO == =Fuel Oil 10.00 GA KBF = == Gasoline 13.00 GA PM == =Drain Oil 20.00 GA KBF = == Diesel 5.00 GA DWK = = =►Mineral Oil Unknown = = =Oil 25.00 GA PP = == Unleaded -10- 9272 1 826 NA 1120 NA 1207 NA 1302 NA 2557 NA KBF 2568 NA DWK 12422 NA i MFRA Spill Map No. Site Name Address Product Staff No. 4 ID 05/19/87 Mound 20.00 GA DWK 2664 NA Suburban Transport Mound = == Gasoline Mound Unknown DFT 3155 NA ' 02/05/88 Evelyn March Trust Mound ===1 Gasoline Mound Unknown DFT 3489 NA ' 05/12/88 Mound City of Mound ===1 Gasoline 05/18/88 Mound Unknown JMH 3515 NA West Tonka Pub Sch Dist 277 Mound = = =1 Fuel Oil 05/18/88 Moimd Unknown JMH 3517 NA i West `Panka Pub Sch Dist 277 Mound = = =1 Fuel Oil 05/18/88 Mound Unknown JMH 3522 NA West Tonka Pub Sch Dist 277 Mound = = =1 Fuel Oil 11/04/88 Co Rd 15 Juniper Unknown DFT 4238 2 Bob Johnson Mound = = =1 Fuel Oil 1 04/18/89 2670 Commerce Blvd Unknown KBF 4883 3 Chatman Place Apartments Mound PP = == Gasoline ' 06/32/89 2670 Commerce Blvd Unknown KCL 5318 4 Essig Joel Mound PP = == Gasoline N/A - No address reported by MPCA. These are reported spills and leaks which are regulated by MPCA. The Central Business District Parking Lot Site was not listed on the spill 1 e-.d leak inventory list. Based upon review of this information, there appears to be a slight potential threat to the Central Business 1 District Parking Lot Site. We also received from MPCA, a list of leak sites in the 55364 zip code areas. No leak sites were listed for the Central Business District Parking Lot Site. Within the 55364 zip code area, there appears to be nine listings within a one mile radius of the site. 1 Facility MPCA Staff Per ID M MFRA *` 5 ID No. Amoco Station Kable, J,lchard 74 1 5293 Shoreline Blvd Closed 1 Mound, MN 5536 Anderson Home Jablonski, Barbara 2661 2 2067 Commerce Blvd 1 Mound, MN 55364 1 -11- 1 t s �5 Facility MPCA Staff Per ID N MFRA Map 5 ID No. Champman Place Livermore, Robyn 1207 3 2670 Commerce Blvd Closed Mound, MN 55364 Grand View Middle Sch Tanner, Linda 541 4 1881 Commerce Closed Mound MN 55364 Mound City Hall Jablonski, Barbara 3059 5 53 Maywood Rd Mound MN 55364 Mounds Public Work Fier- Tucker, Dorene 624 6 5468 Lynwood Blvd Closed Mound, MN 55364 Shirley Hills Elem Sch Tanner, Linda 540 7 2450 Wilshire Blvd Closed Mound, MN 55364 Westonka Comm Cntr Tanner, Linda 539 8 5600 Lynwood Blvd Closed Mound MN 55364 The approximate location of these listings may be found on Map No. 5. Based upon review of this information, there appears to be a slight potential threat to the Central Business District Parking Lot Site. A copy of the MPCA response letter is contained in Appendix D. C. Hennepin County Department of Public Works Environment and Energy Division We requested and received from the County. a list of Hazardous Waste Generators, Transporters and Disposeis, on file in Hennepin County Records. There were 20 sites identified that appear to be within a one mile radius of the Central Business District Parking Lot Site. These sites are shown on Map 6 and listed as follows: Street Address 5533 Shoreline Drive 5241 Shoreline Blvd. 5300 Shoreline Blvd. 5533 Shoreline Blvd. MFRA Map Zip Company ' N6 Code Site ID Company Name 1 2 55364 55364 05302687 05320651 Century Auto Body & Marine Nurburgring Independent Porsc 3 55364 05315607 Tonka Toys Moved to Texas 4 55364 05302255 A R C 0 Century ' -12- Street Address 5533 Shoreline Drive 5241 Shoreline Blvd. 5300 Shoreline Blvd. 5533 Shoreline Blvd. u u 0 I i 7 I MFRA No Zip Company 0 7 Code Site ID Company Name Street Address 5 55364 0 Balboa Minnesota Company 5340 6 53364 05302447 C R Mfg. Co. (Shoreline Blvd) 5338 7 55364 05301844 Clark (Bill) Oil 5501 8 55364 05303720 Contel Inc. Central /Off Equip 2468 9 55364 05325956 Duane 66 Service 2603 10 55364 05306610 Harrison Bay Union 76 4831 11 55364 05312038 Home Laundry Inc. 2244 12 55364 05310693 Mound Collision and Paint 2334 1 3 55364 05310879 National Power Chair 2642 i4 55364 05311309 Northern States Power Co. 1585 15 55364 05319970 Paul's Auto & Marine Repair 1632 16 55364 05395002 Quartz Industries 5340 17 55364 05307687 R & S Collision Service 1590 18 55364 05314401 Solarium Systems Intl 5340 19 55364 05315061 Super America #104 (Mound, MN) XXX 20 55364 05315682 Toro Company (Shoreline Blvd) 5340 Shoreline Blvd. Shoreline Blvd. Lynwood Ave. Commerce Blvd. Commerce Blvd. Shoreline Blvd. B Commerce Blvd. Commerce Blvd. Commerce Blvd. County Road 110 Commerce Blvd. Shoreline Blvd. Co. Rd. 110 N Shoreline Blvd. Shoreline Blvd. Hennepin County did not provide a list of underground storage tanks or pipelines within the Central Business District Parking Lot Site. Underground tanks are ravulated by the MPCA and are subject to compliance with federal, state and local regulations. The MPCA provided a list of two underground storage tanks as shown on Map 7, and indicated that a leaking underground storage tank had been reported within one mile of the site. No tanks were reported to as located on the site. The City Fire Marshall also indicated he had have no knowledge of underground storage tanks on the site. Based upon a review of the information, there appears to be a slight potential threat to the Central Business District Parking Lot Site. The response from Hennepin County is included in Appendix E. D. City of Mound Building Inspection Department and Fire Marshall We requested form the City of Mound Building Inspection Department and the Fire Chief information contained in the building inspection files and the fire department files regarding the location of underground storage tanks and pipelines, uncontrolled leaks and /or spills of hazardous materials, hazardous material storage and disposal sites in the area. The response from the Fire Marshall stated that the records from the Fire Marshall's office did not have any listing of environmental hazards at the Central Business District Parking Lot Site. The City of Mound building inspection department response stated that there is a sanitary sewer across the site. Research of City maps and records with the City's Engineer, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., indicated that there is a 10" and a 16" sewer forcemain that runs -13- 1 ' through the site from the lift station on the east end of the site to the west. The lift station and forcemain are presently owned and operated by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). There is not a permanent easement for the lift station or forcemain recorded. At this time the City of Mound is working with the MWCC to formalize agreements regarding the easements. In addition to the forcemains, there is also a sanitary sewer service from the present ' Minnesota Federal Bank Building to the lift station. The approximate locations of these utilities are shown on Map No. 9. ' The City Building Inspection Department provided a listing of underground tanks, which the City had record of. ' Based upon a review of this information, there appears to be a slight potential threat to the Central Business District Parking Lot Site. The response from the City of Mound is contained in Appendix F. I I I r I -14- i i i i i i V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS After review of the past records that were available to our staff, we offer the following comments and recommendations concerning the site proposed for the Central Business District Parking Lot Site in Mound. Minnesota. 1. The site displayed no visual evidence that there was surface contamination. 2. The potential for hazardous materials contamination to exist on the site appears to be slight. 3. There are hazardous generators, users, transporters and disposers within one mile of the site. These generators are licensed and controlled by governmental agencies. Based on the data reviewed and site reconnaisannce described herein and pending contrary information by the regulatory officials contacted, we do not consider additional environmental assessments necessary at this time. -15- i t i i i i i VI. STANDARD OF CARE The recommendations contained in this report represent our professiorgl opinions. These opinions are arrived at in accordance with currently accepted engineering practices and location. Other than this, no warranty is implied or intended. By: Thomas R. Barron E.nvirormental Researcher I hereby certify that this assessment was prepared by me or :under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. By: James Profes Minn. 1C.7.7C 1 Engineer Reg. No. 20463 -16- I L APPENDIX A Aerial Photograph Copies 4i A= j 4 j "44 fr N , 'ry r, 4 A 6.0 -c - 12 * stl ! .9F ti 14 � 2t 4 .;.• _�! ll "� $ l,.S ` I a -� ifs r :} `' ., �'' �,(,i•V,,,11��p";!R• '1 .:^ '. {,;4, y.i\ .r f • • -i -_ •:� �� ! No t _> �" �.+ %i ,C f .fi S�1' y t� X' �� S,i M�� �•j ^L -r � �1 n ^gr 'itS�1s^r � � Ys ;' i J •S - r -�► d ■i ^� � • �- '1. � � .L .. >, .� c, � •c�a_ � -� Y (`, ••� '.'� 1� 1�" A`n.. {. = tGilYjt P . ' f ?1 - . �� :.v ' ,,��,,�, 'Ft , ,t �. t�� r•+.t '; - > .. � G t � An ��. �' ! :r � ! ,. +a � a � �' `,: '�•• �' ,1 t�a 'fir f ,, � + �'� . NI��� � • .� . - .b ��:��; � � � { '� ;c■ ark •� by }Ryt '�i .' 1w . �; �� i(ya r . ,� � � �. 1 !yl'S • z � • ;� 3 p IV 1:`l2+'"y yip: �r , 4 . Z t4. 1 t- =�i t y►1 tF ! ^ v ! • -,� ! 'r� _1,�f` / Z yr / � �•�• y t �r r� �&• "° A na• .. � _' - ' �i` � � Iz• - a ✓ - 'r fi } R � r �� �± ¢ � j � _��' _�� �fl 113!1 t �� 1• y � a� +._ �� .•. cr � �,�.', �F.� .La i.9 _ ..�.. i,', •� s tP r �% �`. �yY � • A=•'k'; `-i ,��� ._ r n. � a . YCJ•�i - 'M •� 4 , ,C ' � t t^ � -"` .�' 7.�JF �•+f ""'�'- w ' o r 8 i � . i�'�.. +�- -� ' � 1 '1 "Ti ��. � . aa t u► .v .,. - �; "•'r � �E i . �'L• tK�•C 1 �� v , ti ,t .•:�- µ �L r.�� � /// _ ri• F f-• f " ;1 ��, ; Jam �• . ^,�� J� O r. � t`N'. J. � � t s-'•ra ��w i Rea. 4ti ""'.. ::4'.... i.aff+�. t . . /�•� , `� ,1'��4 v �. � �. ti4� i' �t + 1 � ., _ +t�r•�. M� �-■J. „- tra+_.a ,1.:..io G a 'r'iO''"'" �cf�}I' r r•+"_'_" --- 1��•_ -.. �..5+'A'�' .... � .y�.,�t' jam}. r �lr di" {.�[ • r bb •* `� . , '�S � r y Y �...� -- �` + y �� " %�y� ��.- �� /7 i�� ,RInL_Alr'•�L �� ��'�_� \� X14. .�-��} .�,. 'q -� Y .�• -- r ^ice - .�"'1'IN h {(� �•F '� .�y • .I► � �Yrt T���T�'.'1 � I �i�js� ' •'4�%r � • t '� � .Y T F . ^ �.-� �/ Lr � 3Y;'f• ms's•' - " �i Z i t - � i . + '} �� a t a ; e .'_ • <: T .C' r 'i �7 r '7 < r -1I, S . iS �i!� a - a !" :1 r•r : at,.� - �. , G� . � `' r $� , r ��p �.' .,,,, -•a - .`;,•+,�, _.: �'� yam •:: � i t ` �,3 ,� � p (:. +. t t }r •.'. i^ ; s � t,+T�i ♦♦ � r ' � 0 I ►iw Aj i %k� jo -4 �� -e . ear " P3�F'�S. S } CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING LOT SITE MOUND, MINNESOTA 1971 & 10, va 7 Y �� gg . � Ott � . :'�; �• � , {. . . � - •tip• err. ' • . �- � ` �• `� + °1 �; ' � ` �:� • �•1 �`�. ? %�-. � s�t,+t .z �.�, `" ' • `T� Y ? ma y .' •a ,�' f il� r t� i`�• of. .t• , y n r j s, w. �iTi , ��i;.. _� ;i ','i�l'� l C�;►'�. L . , �+• � 'i. +�r!�•, i 2 Tvw pli 7 ILA AT ��• \•� ✓gill . ;'x�f. .� Fr; � T r 't• ^ r �l� is ` �'"}� , LT,`�ti CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING LOT SITE ' MOUND, MINNESOTA 1969 J� Fri f P ° of t � -��'� l �-�� .s ;�•�'. � 'low' I I rL L4 Vd, May, f � •. ,�. � s � j • ..� _�a s� ^ _ t (� - s��E� 7 J T1 000 m OF 4 -19J r t 7 Mac J V 7,7 v 441 erTl ', 41L w . ry 7 Ar 7 1 1 4, 41 t; JXW IL " r '&.,L 4- wjw WN �- Fo IN A r b IL A '. � RW '� �_ ;� •` r r )_fir i +? t� , +'H '�yr. �����+' `'. •� � - rte . • f C�r �+ Y � J � ~ �}��.•� 1 � T I '4. .`-� S Y ^taw. / `�� 1 fz ]L. \75: •. ^ � 4 • . IF • .d .jib.': .1 fit/ 1 +.4 !:a �� � 1 � �i i 4p I � S R M, At , " R "" .... .... ... • Aj r% -,i _Iew L /Ah SL - t CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING LOT SITE MOUND, MINNESOTA 1956 • a� .,. ""• �w�il j '; ��:' 'ail •`• -� ;,�• •, .� �; :�• s T t i f : j f " ; s p. Vii' :� �• i� .�,; `�; :� _ , •fir• ��+c �a�. ?� i����� 3 Lr r w � J p itl,. • qj •�� 1' ii, � • • i ce f I .���'• �` ,+ ,\ ! 1 \� t IVY AJ Alva 4 VA A all iL s � r r (®r P To i A IC J, d , -- .4 T 7: 49t ' JA I, lb n .7 t111r N �' .f. t. jr.4 � �. � s. lr + I �' I . WW v � • .:: ry.1 �`.f.1�,,�,._ -±�y -Gbh CENTFAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING LOT SITE MOUND, MINNESOTA 1945 A , I l v � 5 ' 1 f C � r l S lti - � f4..• ' �f � T y ' J 1 bg 7 Ll I 0 I 0 I 1 I [i APPENDIX B U of M Geological Survey Well Logs I _ STATE OF MIN4p11TA m Blf OF ~II ' l"IIIt i, is 0► _ c«:a"irr et.rw md birectift frw IN ' "w •oat lesstiw of wall L — 1 ' ` M -I- E S — L I�Ti4. 100 V V a _ S!'• j�S IQpforfA WOW 80. 9 2 5 MATER WELL RECORD for Mo S „P u Murlt.ofa Stat.a. 1JIA.01•.0J 6•ttyw pwt•r l mI nbor � 1. URa'! Wi it l i�, ar 8. er V. Adyw• {� � it Jtr••t .. w. cV • V. Lot.tiw amme man* A 1 sk tob wp of wall lot.tis. OIM tiw n. Do= PM m i 1,.44e6r a JUt gy h "s irec".i, pT►.. f�bL3 Sec 9 IL LO ATED B ' — Addy^ s Verifi tion i - ck �MIA10(8. JIlVA�(AJUI OF DATA, etc.' i ' 6 • ❑ Inic 1 rom r.eighbor 7 ❑ Otner Can't LOCJ:e State Why s• tp Cable tool 40 p...rwa 1[] Drls 1 bw - - fells "A IQ Air c Yw/ ll0 S mom L JrrW 90 Power Aoper Darrrti. e0 P*Ut Mpw 7V lartq 20 Irrip"m a Air own C] Ooomtaw 'l.J 1nb Vtll imam DIAV. � -.. fWY " ♦ R. irs M 1t . rptA L. w n. Ypr at. Boost Jjw- ma Or opt n. am" . ... ........... L 92M9 VA"M ISM .06t1.w 0 W� J.ptiwwo 1 +4!r► 20 JwWpt ore"% ;] At lmrt- sr r.w L3 kLU o"Mal Too . go 'b. Tr. 1 Jtot m = ' ' Ur ssatlto w ill—& fry_ R. M Jt. tlras n. to n. 4. raroet terror of Possible aott.dttt aw _ .. 11 n.. ur...bw yy. wv T p.C1 D ot. fYtollt �..t iwtalod Iiwtftetwrr'■ per slow Jwb•r mitt la'optA o! drop pip., ft. o.P da A.D. ■. fLri..f drop pdP Irp: ]JObw ib 10L.1. Trobiot 10 Ucirrec.ttep SG'J,t 40co.triiyp l 60 YATg' VB.L d71fAf.7ap I tm — FlUTI4 this wall an Arill.d order r lori.di.tiw 404 We Nport to trw to too b•.t of F too•leAp wt b utt. u e1Zt..t Jar � U4VM o Address t• V' JSPed AM.horiud Mpn..o +ai Dow Lowftw 1 L L - . v " E. H. RENN SONSIVE07tMANY Iw°n► L -/ 5465 Co. Rd. 1 h. Minnsa iE 28 ".. Date Started J U I V ? ? m��f� ! _ 10 Owner or Contrltor 17i ► ► APe of Mound Address Mound. inn. Job Location ' 3 oi nt Rd, j �` (� wV ��( j � I v� Lot Block — Twp or city tt County 11ennen'n State of Minnesota Well: l o ,, Lo 600' c,���wN _ „ , Cased with 12 t o 7 0 A. Total Depth of Well 729 ft. from gra& Trw .nd SI.. Feet of Open Hole _12Q __ Finished in ____ ht - s i mm, Water Level 70 ft- Tested at 62 5 gallons per min. Drawn down of 5 feet. ' Stre*n: Size Make _____ Slot or Guage . Number ' Pump: Make H.P. Type Tank Sue Motor Serial No_- __ -- Pump Serial No. _�__— . -� Drop Pipe a•., Size __ -_ ____ -___ Capacity of pump G.P.M. Date Installed A ` KIND OF COLOR OF STARTED ENDED TOIAL - TNICKNE3i v REMAAKf. FORMATION °ORMATION DEPTH DEPTH OF FORMATION av Rrown C 108 108 rU0 +� Sand Tan 108 190 82 Fine Brown 190 250 60 Gravel l �.., - - - - - - -- — - - - - -Soma _Stur7 G i Light U _ 131 u 2 277 22 Some Sandstnr►e Gr ay - - 3 7 ` 26 -= - n ravel Jordon Sandstone Gra 2 /73 ' 1 L-erio Too 5t. LaWT . Sands con�> - Sala 1 P Gr een �Q3 44 _— _13Z__ Francoy i.,►1 3arid,r jie 440 65 r •- i)rPsbach 505 6,40 95 fAn� l i:►vo , r 1 _ - = - --- — — - f t to J G i '^ \. \ S 1 AJ X11 . �1B1S111 . __. - 700 100 Coal e - n lir,kley Red 700 719 19 Red Cla -c.i s 719 10 WELL RECORD 117-:141-13 � ' . p10 f-S r KEYS WELL RR"= CQMI WATER I the" `oub.., ► .-\t VU UGE OF MOUND, MrIZI SOTA � %� � Owner_ - _ - ' — — Location .-- 141.lbrcndt Well No ---I— Size 1 0ll _ Total Depth 189, —Type 1 DRILLERS LOG Ttl� WELL MATERIALS 0. 35 blue clay - ' " 278 10" Pipe ___ - - to _ _ =` of diameter of Outer Casing 85 97 muddy gravel ` _' to �35 3lue clay - ' of _ "diameter o f Open Hole 97 ' to —__ " -, 9u u�;— ' of —"diameter of Inner Casing 135 202 Fine gray sand & Clay Laps 9 C�A� __' to ___ __ - — ' _" TV f ��.._ �'1 � of "diameter of Open Hole 202 255 Gray clay _ to _ .___. _' ' to Mix grout_— . (yds.) (Sacks) 255 260 Broken Rock, sand clay`��pa �:� ' ' ^`* Johnson — _ - _' to _ -- __ - ' -- - _. -- _ -- - - - - _ ' ; '�� „ diameter Screen 1 100 260 , 275 Fine gray Gravel '►� -!�;L _ _ slot —__ to _ — RECORD OF TEST PUMPING 275 , 285 ; Coarse water Gravel v_ 3 11 to _ ___ __ _. Static Water Level ft. from - - -' to - - -- - - - - - -- - - 70 GPM _ 40 — D.D. — Hours f GPM -- -- D.D. _____ Hours ' to _ —_' ___ — - -_ -_ . _- - GPM ___ __—._ D.D. Hours to - - -_' GPM -- D.D. Hours ' GPM D.D. Hours to - - - - to -- _ —.- Remarks: Minn. Goo. 3 r 2 1 PERMANENT PUMP DATA � 4 J ft 5 I�1�� �--�� 1 Mfg. --_ Capacity _ . ___ Type -_ Serial No.. -_— Drift Clay, Sand &Gravel 0 - —_ —. C PM _— _____ __ . TDH Motor Make._ H. P. —__ -- -_ —_ -- Type-------- i Village of 1Kou�tu7eLrn�`$ka A n�our�y - - -- 'colts _ —_ -- Ph. _ __ RPM _ ft. — ____ -_ in Col. pipe _ in. Shaft _ ft. _ _ in Bowls _. _ Stages ----Type in suction pipe & __ _- ' __ - . - -- ft. Total - ft. Length of Pump — ----_ in. drop pipe & — No. Cable ft. - ______ in. air line _ in. Pitless ____. —_ ft. bury ­-- in outlet -__ ourtaltlp Nam I twrohtp Number NumOs aa I v j ;;= m Q C gi 4eaC1 m aen.n pd Seth "7I .. N 1 , , AMnlan Name umber W t t E WATER WELL RECORD MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL NO M,...w S4afat s 15&4 01 of jar Wolff S"Vk an No Frectnrt 4. WELL DEPTH (tamtpblted) " " 1211K 175 ' ZOl UNG METHOD 10 Lame tad 40 Reverse Yetd, map I loouon. 20 Hdbw rod "" Atr :SAotary 60 tad 7 USE 35?F to ad Cempiatm It. 7 -17-17 M Drrm 100 Dw so 6mtl 1 110 90 Port 10 Doerraac 40 MatutmtW Het Ptemp Vumbtr _ /,( O Urtpttm 50PuY� 910 Initial" rcJ 6OMannW i� ��� 70 A. uq I10 -- ! adY !. CASING HOI1 DIAII. 1 2. PR ftM OWNERS NAM z HEIGHT: A IQDYck 40 Thrae/ad Surface 1 cmr 20 GeN. We4tMe _�-� Dme Shoe? Ye N Im �a' � Dr " Niu = A m. 10 It. Wnpltt dvh. Wi n. ttiJt. ' 1 FORMATION RAG COLOR FROM TO m. to It. wee" Iba./fl.n. t if FORMATION • �/e _ in. to It. Wool Ib&At. � a to.._JI. 30 9. SCREFj b � Or apes bk ~ ew IIaYa_ � h It. to 1t ear . ' CLQ tuft V Type #te, •t� D. •%92 -w _ LmWh _ � � J IN � �.�� h �F�ti�T� udlwGaS ' ee so � t0 STATIC WATER LE L 1-47 t� scowl S V •� � h ]D bd. 0 ab v Doe Mos ured ( � land ocetoor C14 W ! 1 J w a 11. PUMPING LEV4 w ---I Surface) h. after M. pmnpaaR — E.p.m. ` _ Iu other hrs. pumpute il+ 12. HEAD WELL CCNPIETION hileas 20 Baaerem� ��JU At {east 12" abort Rmu M 40 PIdRIC auK proteetetn *fit 'tom 13, WELL GROUTED? - iii MY 1 9Wn � 17 No ` � , ^ 160 114eel Cement 20Ifentmue 33 * t a-iOS `� ` y� G m3terul from 0 taLi — It ru. ydo. 1, to 222 14. NEAREST SOURCES OF POSSMU CONTAMINATION 1 8 ebw V `� 1" Iris _ mnruan t ype u Well dtanfeeted upon tnmpM nn> O Yo 0 No /• L 15. PUMP j / '7 - _ 1 3 C, a L y Dot, metal. - - -. -- 0 NO uWaltad 9 Manufan o. - 7171 Model number �� —_,__ HP Vast. - .(� - h openly p. p.m ' le -� — Jle{q!al d drvp}gr t• !Q ` -._. _`_ Tlq lb Sahrwelble 3O LS. Turbine � Rllopnatme r te. I * 201et 00 Centntlool 60— —�^- - 16 FJ1bJEVG l�tJy } T • . - '- - - <r l r . '° ' •, y LOCATED BY wei 0 %Io'. la Oa a rwea/ Witf t/ Abandmed O Permanent ❑ Tempvary 0 Not 1 2 ❑ Name on Mai toX All ION This well vo dulled uncle my furtut tm t and this report n true to the brat d my 3 J Lot�B iOC�. krowle�e and bdd 4 • ❑ Plat Bcok ` 5 • ❑ !nfo. Frorn Owner Z 6 - ❑ Info. From Neighbor Add rsti — 7 • ❑ Other' {" e r lo• s ^!`� � D 7- -31-8 _ State V', hV Ao hed Repram etattre _]Nadi_- Inhlnaan_ om _. _ D l 7 -11.97 /, e� Name d Driller 6/74 11 h r / 7"d Wool vye �Lt tEVATION. SOURCE OF DATA, etc a- - e on P. 9allboX ' 3 • J Lot Bock 4 • r Pat Book ' 5 ❑ Inio. From Owner 6 • Info, From Neighbor 7 • EL-t Other �A 4wvn a o;L� ' ❑ Can' Loca State Why W Jet At wr 1 O Il WATER WELL CONTRACTORSCERTIFICATRON Thu "I was drJled utdr mY lundrum ud Mu reiart a true to the lam dray Irow•laye led 101101. - - -- - ea+. -e Lmm mr Aurno New /'mar Ala, Address Awhortaed Repussaauw �_— *�t`aa�r M• 141 Nude of DHhr A ?CZ 7r.:A !12,xvm WATER WELL RECORD MINNESOTA VNIQVF WELL NO Ahaaaaat Sraaa 156A 0J.08 M Wdkr Saxa* U 4 3 6 2 5 tfaaae trorrlttF Number not Numlae Sortrrt No. Fncum 4- WELL lam ltomFktadl am of cow mulmild a E , -4 14 S1 W fI. wW 'Aeuen fret Rod Intmatmn a Street AMmea and City d Well Lacattm S. DRIVING M ETHOD ' U40 lboveLINA Pro Nowd R V1, AP-203 1 O Cate tad 40 Raeaee 70 4iao Dow Am exact m nowin and frith "V nay tm. 20 IYRw rod SO Air fG load _ Y f r t AddwoName Sftwary f�Jwted 1plbro r r 6 DRIP LI4G FLUID t I t .4. w r t E usher 7. USE t0 Dons" 40llrrrr+IN Qty temp I ' ; . La Nanhn B 3 D 20 trn am SO Ntmr 10 Wy ANOM O f0 mummat too MAurco "Ovin I rNOMETY OWNERS NAM l CASDIC ttaj pA11. 401%gihe NEttlrT: ... . t�tM � s.far - R. 23Gak. �_ A,Irer w�... Gow Htiwa � -tw D= Drove Slaa ttn. .. D� D is r � t . ....:,......_ ftLAL t ��M 1 FORMATION LOG COLOIL • F HARDNESS OF FROM TO — is r am 'rL Wafra RmAL JKAL Ira= - a W R W00l NLAL JIL itr.JC scowl S R. a.r it M 50 a r L T,. - P&,mftd — 30 ae11-IlLft..� & •- , 10L STATIC NTA e a.owere a6aaa Iaarlla�rad �0 1 t. PUMPM UrAL (lelar tad taAaeel , a U R. aher 11M u FIRM WELL COMRSTIM ' eLI i �caral sow US 1=5 Iarld...rFrn a�r.aat� -...- :n •¢••� tdYd to AN fart 17 aY�a Its O F4ae od4 -1w •'r7 )OJ U5 1" 11 WELL G1IMn Dt IV ft T. O w floe � D� y �� "0 + M 33 Nst Crone 33 11 ter ���� o � Ja Grout autsul _ tra — p ft. tat ,da ' ew i SMP" us 14. NEAREST SOl1KES OF POSSBU CONTAMINATION WIN dfdallamdntoaaglaw l 0r. 0 f IS. KW . - _.. . Me saatalYd ONO �IaRad Mmrtdaaww i ome Maim -bs ` tEVATION. SOURCE OF DATA, etc a- - e on P. 9allboX ' 3 • J Lot Bock 4 • r Pat Book ' 5 ❑ Inio. From Owner 6 • Info, From Neighbor 7 • EL-t Other �A 4wvn a o;L� ' ❑ Can' Loca State Why W Jet At wr 1 O Il WATER WELL CONTRACTORSCERTIFICATRON Thu "I was drJled utdr mY lundrum ud Mu reiart a true to the lam dray Irow•laye led 101101. - - -- - ea+. -e Lmm mr Aurno New /'mar Ala, Address Awhortaed Repussaauw �_— *�t`aa�r M• 141 Nude of DHhr A ?CZ 7r.:A !12,xvm Cawwy WATER WELL RECORD MINNESOTA UNIQUE WELL NO, I I Muamra SkMis I56A 01.0111 Air W11110 Swask 1st �, 3 O 2 1 3 litre' or,rhq NtWOlrr RwW N ueie Smite, No. Frutm 4 WELL DEPTH It1am91etedl of Cal"Wiliss e1q s �cns �rq aw oe m t a um It. 21-17 aW1 mntmt hst Raul Inter wn a Stns Address and City d Well Laatm »� ; 5 DRILLNG METHOD Ic" - Sw Dr, R �1 AIL - 202 10 Cade tool 40 Rtwuae 70 Im DWR own in station rid with "X." Sk map well ism. Y' Hoi ro0 50 Air IIO Name on Mailbox ' N AMA= Naaw 4 - ❑ Plat Book 801etted 5 - ❑ Info. From Owner 6 - ❑ Info. From Neighbor 7 • [Other itiib i [] Can't Locate State Vf :Matey rtawt7 , ' 6. DRIII�NG W , , B 7 USE 10 Dpmestar 40 8lotponew O Han Pwttp 10 4*Ptan 50 PuMe 90 hsdwt., j _ 8 3 3 �( V M Mu0o1a1 llo 70Ar CatdtttanrrrR IIO F- -- I ruY 8. CASING HOLE DIAIL !. PROPE=TY OWNICK S N41019 1ffawk 40 TbrWd HEWJHT: AboiVlraw j a Surtam !.. Attic c��4W Mli_a __ 6M Cu Rtl w ft 8D fah. S0Walded 313 Plntr ,p �_ u ,w x ' .dV1iW'W POWATION LOG m. ts��� h. y►'e�t tlult. 3. COLOR M1ON I FROI4 TO m. to It. West am. / !j 'J m.w It. Wet/tt Wa./it. �a t`_It. elm i 9=1 1,11111 1 1 L�� bins ? u J o l .io 9. SCRE�� or qm 6* ' Main 7 _ 1� h.ta h. iw! ` 30 to 50 Ty9a are 88ML Du e1q s �cns �rq I LO r SO ire ill 1 " h sad An ft. p 10. STATIC WATER L l w h= m 0 ohm . Dw Mwed go a 11. PUMPMG LEVEL tlas tend n.Lmi It. afas hn. pstpar 84160. us 12. after h P Slim 1Y. HEAD WELL COMPLETION 10 Pitlee Kiwar. ■etrtten _ Wlmlrt 1 Y t 20 flare , dlut 30 At la. 17' shat p.W � dO flaMt caa08 Ratem — ► f 11 WELL GROUTED? f Yea " O No Ca Neat Ceattnt Z:l Bmttoautt 30 `` 1� Grout rtr7!lrrvl — Irom� tt 1 1t. N. yda h c . M le NEAREST SOURCES OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION I." no w leer dnal,m era 61 Wen drmnlatted upon ccanortm? O Y0 o I5. PUMP CA ( ad, Oatr mstjJW ptanufanurer s name 'Jtalif drop >N, IO_ vb . TlL�S . .50 �aq�o,istfs ....,. ' i Y J r 16. EXI WELLS Unused wish on R0p. Y 0 Yea O No AGarn:otrd O Permanent O Temporary 0 Nat old IB WATER WELL CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATION This well was dulled under my lurndKi m and this rrpmt a true to the hest d my krowkd8e and hrs,el 271% ���ta��ta Ne.t LnwNo '. Addnestifl(.M _ -X@ A.. Authmad Repreentauvt Name d Dnikr 8174 70M aw r & »� ; ` at c Ic" - C WCATED BY I LO r SO ire ill 1 " h sad An ft. p 10. STATIC WATER L l w h= m 0 ohm . Dw Mwed go a 11. PUMPMG LEVEL tlas tend n.Lmi It. afas hn. pstpar 84160. us 12. after h P Slim 1Y. HEAD WELL COMPLETION 10 Pitlee Kiwar. ■etrtten _ Wlmlrt 1 Y t 20 flare , dlut 30 At la. 17' shat p.W � dO flaMt caa08 Ratem — ► f 11 WELL GROUTED? f Yea " O No Ca Neat Ceattnt Z:l Bmttoautt 30 `` 1� Grout rtr7!lrrvl — Irom� tt 1 1t. N. yda h c . M le NEAREST SOURCES OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION I." no w leer dnal,m era 61 Wen drmnlatted upon ccanortm? O Y0 o I5. PUMP CA ( ad, Oatr mstjJW ptanufanurer s name 'Jtalif drop >N, IO_ vb . TlL�S . .50 �aq�o,istfs ....,. ' i Y J r 16. EXI WELLS Unused wish on R0p. Y 0 Yea O No AGarn:otrd O Permanent O Temporary 0 Nat old IB WATER WELL CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATION This well was dulled under my lurndKi m and this rrpmt a true to the hest d my krowkd8e and hrs,el 271% ���ta��ta Ne.t LnwNo '. Addnestifl(.M _ -X@ A.. Authmad Repreentauvt Name d Dnikr 8174 70M /D ' WCATED BY use • me assn. 1J r 17 , Z - 0 Name on Mailbox ' 3 - ❑ Lot -Block 4 - ❑ Plat Book 5 - ❑ Info. From Owner 6 - ❑ Info. From Neighbor 7 • [Other itiib i [] Can't Locate State Vf I LO r SO ire ill 1 " h sad An ft. p 10. STATIC WATER L l w h= m 0 ohm . Dw Mwed go a 11. PUMPMG LEVEL tlas tend n.Lmi It. afas hn. pstpar 84160. us 12. after h P Slim 1Y. HEAD WELL COMPLETION 10 Pitlee Kiwar. ■etrtten _ Wlmlrt 1 Y t 20 flare , dlut 30 At la. 17' shat p.W � dO flaMt caa08 Ratem — ► f 11 WELL GROUTED? f Yea " O No Ca Neat Ceattnt Z:l Bmttoautt 30 `` 1� Grout rtr7!lrrvl — Irom� tt 1 1t. N. yda h c . M le NEAREST SOURCES OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION I." no w leer dnal,m era 61 Wen drmnlatted upon ccanortm? O Y0 o I5. PUMP CA ( ad, Oatr mstjJW ptanufanurer s name 'Jtalif drop >N, IO_ vb . TlL�S . .50 �aq�o,istfs ....,. ' i Y J r 16. EXI WELLS Unused wish on R0p. Y 0 Yea O No AGarn:otrd O Permanent O Temporary 0 Nat old IB WATER WELL CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATION This well was dulled under my lurndKi m and this rrpmt a true to the hest d my krowkd8e and hrs,el 271% ���ta��ta Ne.t LnwNo '. Addnestifl(.M _ -X@ A.. Authmad Repreentauvt Name d Dnikr 8174 70M Owner Loca `'DEL". RECORD I1T �• �rf'.0 KEYS WELL DRILLING COMP Y WA i cusn vun_ su��seu■� � VILLAGE OF MOUND. Well No —j— Size 20" Type � :G•� '' G' G1C' � �� DRILLERS LOG WELL MATERIALS 0 30 , Yellow clai d v _ j 163 . 20" H1k Steel Pipe 3' above nd _' +o -- of diameter of Outer Casing grou 30 110 , Mue clay r.1( to ___— __ ' of " diameter of Open Hole i10 , i18 Hard Clay L ,� 118 , +0 161 Ha rdpan a r t v of „ d diameter of Inner Casing —_ -- to _�_ S S `r— o diameter of Open Hole .. 61 238 Shakopee ,. ' to _ -- -- _'to Mix grout (yds.) (Sacks) 238 , _ 2116 Sand & Hardroc to "diameter Screen 246 , to 250 , Saridrock z v� VE66RID OF TEST PUMPING 2 50_ +0 259 Soft Sandrock � ,tat' Level 851 ft. from 2598" ' to 317 _ Sandrock & Shmale ma i ds �. GPM 8 16 N D.D. Hours to 744 GPM 14 1 __._ D.D. Hours 818 GPM 16 D.D. Hours to ' to GPM D.D. Hours to GPM D.D. Hours to Remarks: PERMANENT PUMP DATA U sed S" bowls - 3 stages - 120 of Column Mfg. Type — Serial No and 10' of suction -Gas Hama Test Pump ' - -- Capacity GPM TDH Motor Make Typ H. P. Volts Ph. RPM — _ ft. _ in Col. pipe — in. Shaft ' ft. in Bowls —.— Stages Type —__ ft. in suction pipe & ft. Total Length of Pump ft. _____ in. drop pipe & No— Cable ft. ______ in. air line — in. Pitless ft. bury in outlet MIL.rw lrl t ' 1 t 1_ a t _ _ L t e t i fI AI L Of MIMMIM)1 A DI►AM1M1N1D 1 WATER WE 1l R V. MMA1M. SMNM. I71 1 WI.. M.. 1.. IIL I M '­ IN t;iwf I w E 1 L" ■vim Imp, - 4 I J xv IO — YI S� MLM 1 t M asz.— 41 3sD 1 .J ejLv 33 0:53 Eli �/• TED ❑ Fame n Mail IC x Lj Lot -B; k E P'at B k Info. F m Own r V -. Mr FIGFR CYATM111, 90UK'L 01' OATA..M 7 • E] Other ❑ Can't Locate State Why RAIRIN #28^1 ^/:1P A l V IPVRV PAPV 1 1 7 , � 7 n A MLAL TN - -- M,AN(h,•p �. "° 17 kCORD . m 1. 1.►RO►LRTV OWNE03 AAML Jot F. Ssittu* A'"" 6049 Oar Iftm U. XON" •. W►LL 09M 4•00M.11) OIrd OF MAIM. 1 �. 1/40 /. 10cMwMr .❑Rww TOIMY.. IL❑0., '~ \ >D M.Y1. -0 1❑Ar S .i 110 ` 4 +�+ 601.IM. .❑,w A... . 011E IAII..IM 4❑pA...1... TO 6..M, E❑..t m- 1❑r.l.*11 sou�..M. .A3?w no .❑ 1. CAMUPG MOOIQ: AL..1CIr. MOLE OIAM E O,,,. 11011..1 1. iDRw1iL 60 0...... T� Iw — ► w `",A M P. TM 0. STATIC WATER ..LVLL —03 1.► OOM7✓y M4 ►OMg10L&V98L0.r.IWw14w) ILd1. 1a ,�,r9 e� - -- t•. e..R.. Ld ►..MM1 „_. I1. WELL 111.46 COMPU �A1M........ 1❑wrr dw )QV Mr 11 - .1... w.. tl. ❑r. E* nrr 1❑11.. l' MIM. 3❑Lm-" 1❑ Oqw, *� ft. ft 6 h.. L r n. IS. M.MM M..M0 ►WM.fw1..IM1Im db.MII. W.1wr.11INM.►..I..,I.M.0 T.Ift M.L] 080y Ovadhd Ono -a ► �s •w�r— Mr. M..M >• Y .r— IiMOL d ...«.. ...... � S 9I_. M..M/ d.q ►W. T,►.: f s bft. /w IOL ra"; 20 0 .e11...MM, 10M, .0c.w.ry •❑ IL. WATRAWLLL CONTRACTOR! CUT1►ICATIMi 11u w9 .. MMr W.Y .T ►.1111111.. W M..►r. M TwL r 1M L.1 d 01 M►.bw W LMM. SO" AA61 7:) -L ift Jfthft dl. M1M. W ON1. 5/711 30M }"wttlfE. SN�� W TI Y. Aj t t v Ir 4. W AMJY :lki�_ rs tO_ AO r ff ts - - -tom. _mo San Z& �:� -:, � t ' r 6�, 8t�e'a3�i ksstlis Of arterW id't it yea . �{ V�(/" -.•�:. -fie , - �. —.� -- - -� � � �' �� p L" 1cj�� q (A i r) i r i•' E�S � ------ - - - - - -- - feet at-- - - - - -- ��► . • ► • n ,,�,F 6. ,Amon -t of gravel used in we1L__ 7. Work on well began- -L=- _,.___---- __,fit!! Well was oompleted 9. Number of working --- --- -- ------------------------------- 10. Test of well: t �. �°n of Lest-- - - - - -- - - - - -boom &&ndior water r From ground , leyd "' t �• . Pumping water level __ _ _ _ ___ _ - - -�( - t Drawdown ------ _/_'Y y A j 11. Pump No. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _.. _ . -- _ was installed in this well by ------ ---- 12. Remarks ,, - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- _ _.. F R S r _ �.1.5_.._ D141J161.1 -- B -u - - �1 alY' -------- - - - - -- ---� s; _ - - -- - r r-. �J J u I 7 2� -z3 AAcA13D . 9 �/o t -!5 aka Cev alC lJo . (vaukd) 0 W. S? '44 a :�.'. JEM MINMEMpTA UM MS OM Ma 4 3 4 3 IN W&W ran* ' r w in %OM N. I Fn M 4. nu OL/ "Momi1 MMM v y w u 95 ft M DmWm W Dwscum In= V ImMr%Ms s Semi A I eM Clq 1 WOO Law= 5 ME= MMMD 1AM ID Ce14 4r 40 10- 7p AYOI MO pR war ■ ers� .;u ShKA w » Ilia '14A� ONW 110 31ft.f 401w"m Oak-wow A. 1 1 1 1 - w 7. U1i 0 No too �•, ' r�...w so Fra so 111111111011117 ' a Ter w.. m Mwrdlm 140 cAME.dr J � - � � 7OArCiirry 170 1 w b ------ I L CA$UM 1141 MK i F"Lm "MIS MAIN �� Jib." HKIGXr: A:w1Yar ' - t I&k ""wow IDQIV. ID1g1r; owbo M. A Ywr 2714 NALSrea � LDnmW to Dow one T 14. 4'R u" ft Cc,�` 5536" �_ is Y .-�.1L WSW Ihiw& r w ' 1 FOOIATIOM LDG COLOR ROM TO w. r IL .44& UAL --Jr 1`J& w. r R wayr raAt- _Ja e Top snail �Oi 50 black 0 3 a x1®1 a:F.l lr M... i..fru a-. L is R. CUT ZMT 3 W TM �..��?.� ob1"� 60 9S N"'c" t4 took sir Il m m tL wd —a rt — a u a fr2S/27 a1r Mm"rM V 4m1,oe ' 11. MIW/� 4YIIw / 0 fL mr M. P+Fb 30 Lr,a a. do w c tee RPM M dL" ML CMN T M i lUl.e show. oalll/ee4w vm m.� k 7asm 1!' inrwwel a war. CADUTM p Tn 0 Ma ' to Mar Camaa4 ID ROMAN w Gno rae.9m r.n L ft 1+ ' 14. MURKST SDUMCLS OF POROUS COMi TNI — ' T - El Address Verification wa/4feimeel woawI how !Tm 0 I N ame on M u j"Mr o - l9dru 0 , 0 101 imam 3 - Lot Brock _ M..r1ea1..'....t Mi 4. rl Plat Book Mmw.maw mp 3/A— vm=— n r 1.•w d bw we 72 IL aFm11. ll ' 6 - F1 Info, From Ncighbor Mourmid411gje Tnc 'Ir I "' Ln L.S. Twbim X3 [] Can't LocXe State ' rY m1" 40 cmrd w n — . It EXNTM W ILLS 1 1 G Tr p w I Lo a wnid ring, aw" dYrrmal D 'ern O Tw*m" D "a I." 17 RM•!KS ELEVATION. SOURCE OF DATA. ou _. _. IL woo wO1COMTSACTomurTICATIM The wN wo *Aw wdw rp Mri dnm W Mir girl Is b is 14 W d or -/ '�+ � -",•'� tnwteyl W tmd. "10068 Ai � � � • h _. , y' L .awrr emm�� lint :vii '� L 111 LlZ2 LZ r ' .... ....... .. ... .., ... Mme d D"Nlr N, 811111 e t t t APPENDIX C United States Environmental Protection Agency Correspondence t 95Z z '.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. CHICAGO, ILUNOIS eoea REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: 2�a s G,ll c., ma Re: Freedom of Information Act Request No.RJN = f O Dear 5HSM -12 ' This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act request referenced above, concerning database searches (by zip code, county or state) for the information listed below: 0 i i i Enclosed is a copy of the CERc:LIS printout for information listed above. CERCLIS is an automated inventory of all Potential uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, based upon State investigation efforts and upon notifications received as provided by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CFFRCCIA or "Superfund "). These sites are in various stages of investigation. Enclosed is a printout of all permitted generators of hazardous waste and all treatment, storage or disposal facilities for the information listed above, These are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). U We have reviE!w � ; -)ur Cla?WIS database and found no record of sites for the ration listed above. We have revie -KMA database and found no record of permitted gen reatment, storage or disposal facilities for the infor :.ed above. p Sites listed :,:r. )undment Assessment (SIA) facilities on the CERCLIS p .,,.v,— addresses which may or may not coincide with the actu,;i of the site. Further information may be obtained fr a at the address listed below. SEP 2 71990 j I -2- ( There is no charge since the total fee did not exceed the $25.60 minimum. The charges for this request were You will be ' charged in a cumulative billing as agrrems upon with the FQIA officer for Region V. Enclosed with this response is a Bill for Collection in the amount cf This covers computer printout, system and programming fees for the enclosed reports. This bill cannot be waived in the event the material is returned to the U.S. ' Environmental Protection Agency. The charges were confirmed on ' While this letter responds to your request, additional specif fc information on any of these sites may be available in r address your o wish to request additional information under FQIA; please ' written inquiry to: Mr. Robert Hartian Freedom of Information Officer (SPA -14) U.S. Environmental-Protection Agency - Region V 230•South Dearborn Street ' Chicago, Illinois 60604 You may wish to contact the State environmental agency at the address below, for information they may have on file: y ' Rich Svanda, Assistant Director Solid and Hazardous Waste Qivision ' Minnesota Control Agency 520 LaFayette Road St. Paul Minnesota 55155 We hope you find this 'Information ul. f ave any questions abo t is le ter, please contact at (31 ?_) Sincerely yours. n R. Kelley. Chief Superfund Program Management Branch cc: FOIA file M R. H_; tian, OPA CITT ST fllt N—ESUTA RCRA SITES FS 55364 ^MOUND MN O'y/1,5/1990 M GUND MN 55364 !MOUND # ID NUMBER NAMF. SITE LOCATION 55364 MOUND IN 55364 110.!ti" '!N 5536u *FOUND Y MND032099186 AERCO AUTO AND MARINE 5533 SHORELINE DR MOUND MND139256267 BAL30A MiNiA6iUTn Cu 5340 SHORELINE; BLVD 11INNETRISTA Y ^!ND932426306 CONTEL IN LzNTRAL OFF E;" 2468 COMMERCE BLVD MOUND "9 UIP BLDG `iCUND '".N 55364 A0UND M?-D985660461 CR MFG CO 5338 SHORELINE G ICU 14 Y `1ND9E1527385 DUANES 6o S::rt 2603 COMMERCE BLVD "CU IND982209652 HARRISON bAY 7o 4d31 SHORELIN �ljLVD .iND985679224 HENNEPIN wE57 PAINT A`1.^, R 1185 CO RD 110 `i E'PAIR Y "yD982611865 HOME LAUNDnY INC 2244 3 COMMERCE BLVD ` 1ND982643355 IND SCHOuL ilI -3T 177 5910 SUNNYFIELD RD E MND076496272 ISLAND PARK SHELLY 440C TUXEDO BLVD !1ND961799927 .TOES AUTO bUDY 1590 CO RD 110 N Y MND962621260 MINYETRISTA CITY Of 1701 CTY RD 110 w Y `ND982614398 MOUND ( n:,TLjoN nNb PAINE 2334 COMMERCE BLVD Y MND985681915 NATIONAL POwiR CdAIA 2642 COMMERCE BLVD Y MND960625C87 NORTHERN STATcS PwR SUNNY 1585 CO RD 110 NORTH BROOK STABL35 Y MND932221806 PAULS AU10 MAgiN-'- 1632 COMMERCE BLVD Y `ND985682962 QUARTZ 1` 5320 SHORELINE BLVD . Y `!ND932620663 SOLARIUM 6131L -1S ltiTL 5340 SHORELINE: bLVD "ND006247159 TONKA COnP 5300 ?;!ORELINE BLVD m'ID982065013 TORO CO h I b 53eO .iiORELINv BLVD • Y `!ND982605765 WESTONKA CLASJI: COACH 4839 SHORELINE: BLVD CNT 101* 21 CITT ST ZIPCOD£ MCUND FS 55364 ^MOUND MN 55364 M GUND MN 55364 !MOUND ►!N 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND IN 55364 110.!ti" '!N 5536u *FOUND .` 55364 11CUN" MN 5536'. MOUND MN 55364 MOUND My 55364 11INNETRISTA MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND "9 55364 `iCUND '".N 55364 A0UND MN 55364 10UND MN 55364 ICU 14 " "' 55364 MCU4D 553644 "CU `1 >. 55364 :;oUND 55364 ilibNESOTA CERCLIS SITES 09/25/1990 Y ID NUMBER NAME SITE LOCATION CITY ST ZIP COD Y MND980609168 METRO SEAV STA CITY OF MO 5377 SHORELINE BLVD "OOND '!N 55364 U4D Y 7ND006247159 TONKA TOYS MAIN PLI 5300 SHORELINE ELVD MOUND MN 55364 MND980609135 NOODCREST OF MUCtiD b390 ACORi; RD 5 L `!C?JN MN 55364 OTS `ND980609143 WOODCREST Ot MOUND iND AD 2820 -2840 PI!l -; FD CUND MN 55364 DITION C N :' 101 * 4 I I I I 1 APPENDIX D Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Correspondence Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898 ��� Telephone (612) 296-6300 t . nllntitxOiA two Ocic *�, 2, 1110 Mr. Thomas Barron McCondi3 Fran}: Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North ' Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear Mr. Barron: ' RE: Property Transfer File Evaluation This letter serves to rresrx:)lxj to your request regarding hazardous waste sites in the vicinity of 2280 Ccimerce Boulevard in Mound, MinnesoLs. We understand that Mc(_'( Frarrk R( - V - )s Associates, Inc. is requesting information regarding verified or rx>tential hazardous waste sites at cr near the above- referenced property. V(,gan ing your request, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff are wiIIiIq t() advise you as to whether there is information in the following MPCA files which indic:atc�s that there has been a relea e or threatened release of a hazard(als su).)stance, pollutant, or contaminant at or near the above- referenced prY)J.peII Y. The MiIA staff have conducted a li ndced file evaluation on the referenced pi ujx�rty. The file evaluation included the review of the following: (1) EPA - National Priorities List (NPL); ' (2) EPA - C(Alg:)rehensive Envirorunental Response, Corr>pensation, and Liability Information System (CER(2-IS); (.i) M1- CA - Pe17rlanent List of Priorities (PLP) ; (4) MI '(:A - Regulatory Compliance, Hazardous Waste Enforcement Log; ( `.) MIX A - List <4 Perms tted Solid Waste Facilities; (6) MPCA - Hazardous Waste Permit Unit Project Identification List.; (7) MP(:A - 1.980 Metr pcd itan Area Waste Disposal Site Inventory; and ' (fl) M1't:A - 1980 StatFnaide orr,n Ixiq) Inventory. W' ' n') 1 i st i nys urndr� the exact addhpess given for the property. 1PANW2ver, ' oul. f i to ovaluuat i''n has on that tl� foll,-wing sites are within a one -mile l:ildius vI thy' hIA ro St at i('11 (Ci of 1�k)rnd), 5377 Shureline Boulevard, Mound (2); W" X II_-rest ( It Mound, 6390 Acorn Road, 1�k (2) ; W xyh - rest (d Ir )und, 2nd Additic)n, 28110 - 2840 Pine Road, Mound (2); I Regional Offices Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes - Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportun ty Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper e 1 Mr. Thr -rnas Barron Page 'I' o ' Oc:tobe.r 2, 1990 Tonka Main Plant, 5300 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound (2, 3); Mound DunID Site, south of County Road #15, west of Cypress Lane, north of Malwi�xx! Read and east of Belmont Lane, Mound (7); and ° County Road #44 Dump Site (AKA Mound Dui #2), Halstead Lane, between Pine Road and Deerwood Drive, approximately the 2800 block, Mound (7). ' The file evaluation also included a review of the Underground Storage Tank Information Systan data base, which contains information about underground storage, leaks, and spills of petroleum products and /or hazardous substances. It is managed and updated continuously by MPCA staff. No spills of hazardous substances and /or petrolemmm products have been reported under the title or the exact address given for the property. The Underground Storage Tank Information ' System has indicated there is an underground tank registered to Commerce Place (Fo.rmer Garage), 2220 Commerce Boulevard, Mound and Super America #4046, 2251 Cram rc c! Fk-)ulevar.d, Mound. Our search has also revealed a leaking underground storage tank reported for Evelyn March Trust (Old SuperAmerica Station), 2251 Commerce Boulevard, Mound. Enclosed are: a list of leaking underground stor j e tanks reported within the 55364 zip ' code area; and ° a list of hazardous substance arid/or petroleum product spills that have been reported in Mound. ' We suggest that you also contact the city of Mound or Hennepin County regarding the location of pipelines, underground storage tanks, and possible spills of petroleum prcxiucts and /or hazardous substances which may have occurred in the ' area. This letter does not constitute an assurance on the part of the MPCA or the ' state of Minnesota that the property in question is free of any hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or other conditions which may adversely affect the public health, welfare or the environment. Please be aware that the information provided in this letter is submitted pursuant to time Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13 and is not intended to relieve fn n liability any persons who may otherwise be liable under ' any prevision of state or federal law or re-Tilati_on. Nor is this letter i nt.endr d to relieve any persons f rcen reslzms i bi l i.ty they may have to investigate proF*?rty prior to becoming involved in a transaction relating to that property. ' Lastly, yr)u should be aware that the absence of information on a particular parcel of prof *?rty does not necessarily mean that there are no problens connected with this property. Mimum. Stat. § 11.513.17, sLd)rJ. 14 ( 1988) rFX.Iuires that a person i�kresting this assistance pay the MP(A's cost of l - )viding the assistance. The charge for this file evaluation is $70.00, which iri.ludes two hours spent by staff at a rate of ' $35.00 per N,mr. A bill for this and any other assistance provided this month will to mi to yule at, the end of thF� mirmth. ' Mr. TI x ris Barron Wage Thre -o "k to"'er " 1990 ' If you have any questions regarding this letter or if you would like to review our files, please contact Susan Fager of my staff at (612) 297 -1796. ' I Enclosures 1 �1 I 1 Sincerely, 'xU t'► ' Ronald R. Swenson Supervisor, Site Assessment Unit Program Development Section Ground Water and Solid Waste Division RRS:cn I Enclosures 1 �1 I 1 � � � � � M � e � � � � M � � M M r M MINNESOTA !POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY HAZARDOUS WASTE DIVISION TANKS 6 SPILLS SECTION City Leaksite List for Zip Code: 55364 ' Report Date: September 27, 1990 Facility Staff Person ID i ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AMOCO STATION 74 5293 SHORELINE BLVD Kable, Richard Closed MOUND 55364 ANDERSON HOME 2661 2067 COMMERCE BLVD Jablonski, Barbara MOUND 55364 CHAPMAN PLACE 1207 2670 COMMERCE BLVD Livermore, Robyn Closed MOUND 55364 CITY OF MOUND 1461 4848 MANCHESTER RD Jablonski, Barbara MOUND 55364 CONNORS _ TIl CO 2800 8201 HWY 7 Jablonski, Barbara MINNETRISTA 55364 EVELYN MARCH (OLD SUPERAMERICA SN) 442 2251 COMMERCE BLVD Jablonski, Barbara MOUND 55364 GRAN 17TE RIDDLE SCHOOL 541 1881 COMMERCE Tanner, Linda Closed MOUND 55364 JOANNE GMES RESIDENCE 2807 4720 N ARM DR Jablonski, Barbara JOHNSON 806 CO RD 15 b JUNIPER Jablonski, Barbara MOUND 55364 LUCH Jur 1854 720 N ARM DR Jablonski, Barbara ORONO 55364 MOi1NN CITY HALL 3059 5341 HAYWOOD RD Jablonski, Barbara WORKS BLVD EL LEENWARY SCHOOL IN11TY CENTER L� BLVD WIND 624 Fier - Tucker, Dorene Closed 540 Tanner, Linda Closed 539 Tamer, Linda Closed ---------------------- - - - - -- End of Report ---------------------------- - - - - -- Page: _ m" m m m r m m r m m m m m m r rr rr rr �r 9/21/1990 Page: 1 SPILLS AND LEAK REPORT LOG • PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT Spills Reported Starting 1/01/1984 and Before 9/27/1990 SITE UK ADDRESS PRODUCT STAFF S" 6/19/84 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN UNK 9224 METRO SERVICE STATION MOUND PP--- GASOLINE 6/19/84 1520 WESTWOOD DR UNKNOWN DLK 9272 NELSON EARL GARDEN MOUND CPCB - - -PCB 12/18/84 �: MOUND 250.00 GA MO 826 KIM STELLO MOUND ... FULL OIL 5/09/85 HOUND 10.00 GA KBF 1120 WACONIA TRANSPORT MOUND - -- GASOLINE 6113185 HOUND 13.00 GA PM 1207 UNKNOWN MOUND -- -DRAIN OIL 7/26/85 MOUND <<1.00 GA KBF 1302 MTC MOUND ■ -- DIESEL 4103 /87 MOUND 5.00 GA DWK 2557 NSP HOUND - -- MINERAL OIL 4/01187 MOUND UNKNOWN KBF 2568 UNKNOWN MOUND - - -OIL 5/16187 3701 SUNSET DR 25.00 GA DWK 12422 SUBURBAN TRANSPORT CO MOUND PP--- UNLEADED 5119/87 MOUND 20.00 GA DWK 2664 SUBURBAN TRANSPORT HOUND -- ■GASOLINE 2/05/88 HOUND UNKNOWN DFT 3155 EVELYN MARCH TRUST MOUND - - -1 GASOLINE 5/12/88 MOUND UNKNOWN OFT 3489 HOUND CITY OF MOUND ... 1 GASOLINE 5/18/88 HOUND UNKNOWN JMH 3515 WEST TONKA PUB SCH DIST 277 MOUND ... 1 FUEL OIL 5/18/88 MOUND UNKNOWN JMH 3517 WEST TONKA PUB SCH DIST 277 MOUND - - -1 FUEL OIL 5/18/88 HOUND UNKNOWN JMH 3522 WEST TONKA PUB SCH DIST 277 MOUND - - -1 FUEL OIL 11/04/88 CO nD 15 #JUNIPER UNKNOWN DFT 4238 BOB JOHNSON MOUND - - -1 FUEL OIL 4/18/89 2670 COMMERCE BLVD UNKNOWN KBF 4883 CHATHAN PLACE APARTMENTS HOUND PP - -- GASOLINE 6/12/89 2670 COMMERCE BLVD UNKNOWN KCL 5318 ESSIG JOEL MOUND PP--- GASOLINE m m r � r m m r r m r r m m m m m m m 9/27/1990 Page: 2 SPILLS AND LEAK REPORT LOG - PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT Spills Reported Starting 1/01/1984 and Before 9/27/1990 SITE N ME ADDRESS PRODUCT STAFF SPILLNBR 7/02/89 4833 TUXEDO 5.00 GA KBF 5467 UNKNOWN MOUND PP ... GASOLINE 8/09/89 4848 MANCHESTER RD UNKNOWN KCL 5775 MOUND CITY OF MOUND PP== =PETROLEUM Minnesota Puilutioi: Control Agency Tanks and Spills Section LEAK /SPILL FILE REQUEST FORM In the space provided below, please fill in the name, address and telephone number of the party or firm requesting the files listed beloj. Thank you for writing clearly. t 1 1 Y 1 1 1 1 NAME: COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: TELEPHONE: STATE: ZIP CODE: Your request will be filled as time allows. Minn. State. y 115B.17, subd. 14 (1988) requires that the person whom requests assistance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Commissioner pursuant to this statute reimburse the MPCA Commissioner the costs of providing this assistance. The cost:; associated with performing the services you are requesting are reimbursable based on the al7tual MPCA staff time spent on the request and typically ranges from $70.00 to $150.00 However, occassionally costs may be higher due to lengthy file searches. Depending upon the volume of information and the n jer of leak and /or spill sites, you may be asked to review the files in person. An invoice for copies of the files retrieved (17 cents per page) will be sent to you within 30 days of your receipt of the files. An invoice for the time spent retrieving the files and providing the information requested will be billed monthly. Please list the information for the files you are r- questing below. List these files dated Janu 1, 1987, o later in the space below PLEASE BE COMPLETE. FACILITY /SITE NAME TY} .r INFORMATION' REQUESTED SPILL OR LEAK STAFF ADDRESS ent file or specific information NUMB PER 1. 2. 3. [l t t t t fl F re f l v APPENDIX E Hennepin County Correspondence t w ii The cost of a complete printout of generators, transporters, and disposers by zip code currently is $28.40 (142 pages). The cost of a complete printout of estimated waste volumes by zip code currently is $51'.20 (251 pages). Please contact Betty Nelson at 348 -8998 for further information regarding these printouts. If you would like to order either printout or both, we ask that you make yoar request in writing to this office. Checks are to be made payable to Hennepin County Treasurer. file (printout) HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Environment & Energy Division HENNEPIN 822 Souih Third Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 -1208 Phone: 612- 348 -6846 FAX: 612- 348 -8532 *** NOTICE *** The number of requests this office receives for photocopies of computer printout information has increased dramatically over the last year. We have noticed that a :large number of the requests for copies of the printouts are for the same zi .2 code frcm employees of the same company. This notice is to inform your company that the printouts can ' ordered in their entirety at a cost of $00.20 /page. By ordering complete pr.-, - -. , you save both your company and Hennepin County time and effort in proc individual 1 requests for printout information. t w ii The cost of a complete printout of generators, transporters, and disposers by zip code currently is $28.40 (142 pages). The cost of a complete printout of estimated waste volumes by zip code currently is $51'.20 (251 pages). Please contact Betty Nelson at 348 -8998 for further information regarding these printouts. If you would like to order either printout or both, we ask that you make yoar request in writing to this office. Checks are to be made payable to Hennepin County Treasurer. file (printout) HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer 9'gZZ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ■ Environment & Energy Division HE 822 South third Street, Suite 300 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 -1208 -J] J Phone: 612 - 348 -6846 FAX: 612 - 348 -8532 REQUEST MR FILE EVALIIlsMCN II*FORMATION The following is an invoice for charges associated with handling your request for file informatic'i from Hennepin County Environment & Energy Division. DATE SENT 09/20/90 CUMPANI: DATE RECEIVED 09/18/90 McCombs Frunk Roos Associates, In::. 15 050 23rd A v- -n ue North 1 , mouth, MN 55415 Attn: Thomas Barron 1 INFORMATION REQUEST: Zip code printout for zip code 55364 Pages copied 4 pages at $00.20 /page $ . 80 ICT (secretary) time } hour at $11.25/hour $ 5.62 Environmentalist time at $17.81/hour $ ' Postage $ . 65 TOTAL DUE $ 7.07 Checks may be made payable to HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER. Send payment to: Hennepin County Environment & Energy Division 822 S. 3rd Street, Suite 300 I Minneapolis, MN 55415 Please call 348 -4919 if you have any questions regarding this invoice. I HENNEPIN COUNTY file:formreq.lavin on equal opportunity employer 9/05/90 HENNEPIN COl1NTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE PAGE 41 . HAZARDOUS WASTE MONITORING PROGRAM GENERATORS, TRANSPORTERS. AND DISPOSERS SOR)LO BY ZIP CODE ZIP COMPANY CODE SITE ID COMPANY NAME STREET ADDRESS ' 55359 05319868 HERTZ'S AUTO i YACHT SHOP INC. 1564 BUDD AVENUE 55359 05307245 INDEPENDENCE (CITY OF) 1790 COUNTY ROAD 90 . 55359 05307821 K M H ERECTORS 5295 WHY 12 NEST 55359 05315768 KORTUEM'S SALES A SERVICE A RE 5839 HHY 12 55359 05309003 MAPLE PLAIN CHIROPRACTIC CLINI 5420 HWY 12 • 55359 05318967 MAPLE PLAIN MARINE 1351 COUNTY ROAD 83 55359 05309877 MIDWEST TURF SPECIALISTS 5260 INDEPENDENCE 55359 05310488 MOBILE MARINE SERVICES 6461 HIG104AY 12 NEST . 55359 05310691 MOUND MEDICAL CLINIC 4960 HHY 12 55359 55359002 NATIONWIDE CARRIERS INC. PO BOX 104 . 55359 "=319878 PAWNEE ROTATIONAL MOLDING INC. 5370 HHY 12 55359 05325984 R C HYDRAULICS. INC. 6260 HIGHWAY 12 55359 05314819 STEVENS WELL DRILLING CO. 6240 HHY 12 . 55359 05315260 TECHNICAL ORDNANCE INC 9200 NIKE ROAD 55359 05325117 TRI -K SPORTS INC. 5010 NEST HWY 12 55359 00530271 XXXXX XXX?0( 55360 :J19:0780 ANDERSON'S POLISHING AND BUFFI RT. 1, BOX 186 • 55360 01900670 THOMAS PHOTOGRAPHY RT 1 BOX 7 55362 07120060 BONDHUS CORP. P.O.BOX 667 55352 55362001 CLOW STAMPING 218 CHELSEA ROAD 55362 17120070 CLOW STAMPING COA iJANY 218 CHELSEA ROAD • 55362 17120150 OULD CHEV OLDS CO. I94 AND HHY 25 55362 17120010 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. - MO 55362 17120080 U.S. E P A RES EARCH LAB - MONTI P.O. BOX 500 55364 05302687 *CENTURY AUTO ROY A MARINE ' 55364 00539704 *HEM N PAINT /REPAIR(SEE 05319 1185 COUNTY ROAD 110 55364 05320651 *tJURBURGRING INDEPENDENT PORSC 5241 SHORELINE BLVD. 55364 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- 11OVE0 TO TEXAS 5300 SHORELINE BLVD. ' 55364 05302255 A R C O CENTURY 5533 SHORELINE BOULE F.5364 05319846 BAB!ER AUTO 9ODY i MUFFLER 4844 BANTCOTJ BLVD 55364 05301551 BALBOA MINNESOTA COt' -'ANY 5340 SHORELINE BOUL7 55364 05302447 C R MFG CO (SHORELINE BLVD) 5338 SHORELINE BLVD. 553.4 05301844 CLARK IBILL) OIL 5501 J':, ')OD AVE. • 55364 05303720 CONTEL INC. CENTRAL /OFF EQUIP 2468 C -:ERCE BOULEV 55364 05325956 DUANE 66 SERVICE 2603 COMIERCE BLVD. 5' 4 05306610 HARRISON BAY UNION 76 4831 SHORELINE BLVD . 5! o4 05319702 HENNEPIN NEST PAINT AND REPAIR 1185 COUNTY RD 110 N . 55364 05312038 HOME LAUNDRY INC. (E 2244 B COMMERCE SOUL 55364 05325311 ISLAND PARK SKELLY 4400 BLVD 55364 05302979 MIMJETRISTA (CITY OFI 7701 COUNTY ROAD 110 ' 55364 05310693 MOLXID COLLISION AND PAINT IEP 2334 COMMERCE BOULEV 55364 05310879 NA " ONAL PONFR CHAIR 2642 COMMERCE BOULEV 55364 Gb311309 NOkfHERN S':.: : PONER CO. - MO 1585 COUNTY ROAD 110 55364 05319970 PAUL'S AUTI. ., MARINE REPAIR 1632 COMMERCE BOULEV 55364 05395002 QUARTZ INDUSTRIES 5340 SHORELINE BLVD 0 55364 05307687 R A S COLLISION SERVICE 1590 CO RD 110 N 55364 05314401 SOLARIUM SYSTEMS INT'L 5340 - 4 0RELINE BLVD. 55364 05315061 SUPER AMER)" 9 104 (MOUND /MN) XXX _ 5536" 05315682 TORO COMPAN (SHORELINE BLVD) 5340 SHORELINE BLVD • • s om � m �s m � ma m m m m m � m m 9/05/' HEtlNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PLIBLIC SERVICE PAGE 42 HAZARDOUS HASTE MONITORING PROGRAM GENERATORS, TRANSPORTERS. AND DISPOSERS SORTED BY ZIP CODE ZIP YPANY 0 CODE TE IO COMPANY NAME STREET ADDREIS 55364 510692 HESTONKA PUBLIC SCHUUL., (27'1 5910 SjNNYFIELD ROAD 55368 01900010 AGRICO FARM CENTER BOX 277 553b8 :8001 FRANCK , SANITATION A TRUCKING 55368 00300 NORWOOD TIMES ITHEI 225 H ELM 55368 01900730 OAK GROVE DAIRY UNION AND ELM 55368 01900790 SHANAIIAN'S INC. 55368 01900550 TON'S AUTO BODY 55369 05320016 *AUTO- TRONICS TINE -UP CENTER 8 CENTRAL AVE. 55369 05301860 *BISHMAN DIV.RUGBY IND. (t10VED 400 COUNTY ROAD 18 55369 05302110 *BRAGER INC. (CLOSED) 9491 DEERHOOD LANE 553b9 05303950 *DAL MACHINE If.C. INEGATIVE FI 8575 NO CO RD 18 55369 05376071 *ED'S BODY SERV. INO MORE IIAZA 10758 HIGHWAY 152 55369 05 05345 *FIXSEN AUTO BODY (I)SE ID 0530 10957 93 AVE. N. 55369 05320443 *GOPHER TRACTOR SERVICE 10081 PO BOX 640 (JCT 101 55369 05305685 *Gf')Ja IV GRAPHICS INC.ISEE 05 7401 KILMER LANE 55369 05320456 *M t A INC. (NEGATIVE vENERATO 9160 ZACHARY LANE 55369 05309296 *MCCROSSAN C S INCIOSSEOI IND BOX AD CO RD 18 55369 05309293 *MCCROSSANIC.S.) INC (SEE 0530 7865 JEFFERSON HHY 55369 05309653 *MID AMERICAN DIESEL 1008) 11915 BROCKTON AVEIAI 55369 05320832 *NOBLE MACHINE INCI JEFFERSON 85 JEFFERSON HHY 55369 05307255 *OSSEO AREA PUB SCH -OSSEO HS 1 317 -ECOND AVE N.H. 55369 05316427 *OSSEO ENG.REB.(VILLAGE ENC. S P.O. BOX 242 55369 05319908 Y ^hULSON MFG. IOOB- 5/31/861 PO BOX 265 (HHY 152) 55369 05312934 iv INC.(SEE 053129351 9600 - 85TH AVENUE N 55369 05313145 *..�EDICRAIGI 40 SH 4TH ST 55369 05325955 *SPORT -PORT INC ISEE 053247901 HHY 152 55369 053160.1 *US PRE - FINISHING 10081 10650 HHY 152 55369 05325120 *WAYCO TOOL INC. (ABSORBED BY 22 SH 4TH ST 55369 05300482 ALLIED BLACKTOPPING 10503 89TH AVENUE NO 5.•'69 05321922 AfIBERSON (DARRELL) 19200 - Bl PLACE NOR 55369 05300655 AMERICAN AU'O BODY 30 SH FOURTH STREET 55369 05301577 BARTON SAND AND GRAVEL 10633 - 89 AVENUE NO 55369 05301628 BE14NETT IA H) 105 BROADHAY STREET 55369 05301923 BLADHOLM 11000 -89TH AVENUE NO 55369 05301952 BOB & CARL'S AUTO BODY 107 CENTRAL AVENUE 55369 05302040 BOTTLERS SUPPLY d MFG CO 340 CENTRAL AVENUE 553b9 05302200 BROOKLYN TRUCKING COtIPANY 8812 ZACHARY LANE NO F' 05302436 C S MCCROSSAN INC 7865 JEFFERSON 1114Y 5i -b9 05320345 CAMDEN PHYSICIANS LTD (GROVE S 13800 - 83RD HAY 55369 05-18956 CAR -MECH AUTO SERVICES INC. 10763 - 93RD AVE14UE 55369 05302456 CARBIDE TOOL SERVICE 10650 COUNTY ROAD 81 55369 05302558 GASPERS IGARY) AUTO REPAIR 8715 JEFFERSON HIGHN 55369 05302775 GEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO. 11600 85TH AVE NORTH 55369 05302735 CENTRAL AUTO RFPAIR 521 CENTRAL AVENUE 55369 15302810 CERAII TRAZ CORPORATION 325 HIGHWAY 81 55369 05303995 CLASSIC MACHI14E 21 4TH ST. SH 55369 05303230 COIYIERCIAL ASPRA.. CO 77TH A ZACHARY LN NO 55369 053033bO CONTINENTAL SIGN A ADVERTISING 9490 DEERH000 LANE N 55369 05303445 COOK COMPOSITE A POLYMERS.IPO 8976 2ALHARY LN. • 0 am W) r� m mm mm m m m r mm M� 9/14/90 HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE PAGE 47 • HAZARDOUS HASTE MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT 4.5.10 GENERATORS, PLANS, AND WASTE VOLUMES FOR ZIP CODES 00000 TO 99999 .7IP CODE GENERATOR ID GENERATOR NAME PLAN ID HASTE CODE VOLUME 55359 05318967 MAPLE PLAIN MARINE 05309606 1I3S4H -B 7 55359 05318967 MAPLE PLAIN MARINE 05309607 6PXXX2 -P 25 55359 05319868 HERTZ'S AUTO d YACHT SHOP INC. 05307610 2N5P12 -C 600 55359 053/9868 HERTZ'S AUTO d YACHT SHOP INC. 05307611 5PXX18 -N 1 55359 0531986^ HERTZ'S AUTO d YACHT SHOP It4C. 05307612 2HXX12 -N 1 • 5359 05319878 PAl -INEE ROTATIONAL MOLDING INC. 05306602 2NSP12 -C 500 55359 05325010 DATUM- A- INDUSTRRIES INC. 05309749 2NXX12 -C 24 • 55359 05325010 DATUM- A- INDUSTRIES INC. 05309750 6PXX12 -P 20 55559 05325117 TRI -K SPORTS INC. 05310039 6PXX12 -P 1C 55359 05325117 TRI -K SPORTS IVC• 05310040 2NXX12 -T 8(l 55359 05325117 TRI -K SPORTS INC. 05310041 1I35:H -B 4 55359 05325984 R C HYDRAULICS, INC. 05309869 2NXX12 -T 48 55359 05326203 *O'" ^RA'S FURNITURE(NEVER OPENED( 05306441 2HXX16 -C 35 • ZIP CODE .fAL VOLUME 17,981 • 55364 05302255 A R C O CEtfTURv X11385 2MXX12 -C 200 55364 05302255 A R C O CENTURY '..11386 5PXX16 -C 30 55364 05302255 A R C 0 CENTURY 05311387 6PXX12 -P 100 55364 05302447 C R MFG CO !SHORELINE BLVD) 05303992 6PXX12 -P 400 55364 05302687 *CENTURY AUTO BODY d MARINE (OOB) 05306748 SP2N12 -N 100 55364 05302687 *CENTURY AUTO BODY & MARINE (008) 05307057 5PXX1B -N 50 55364 05302979 M:tTt!ETRISTA (CITY OF) 05305114 2NXX12 -N 10 55364 05302979 MilitiETRISTA (CITY OF) 05305115 6PXX11 -N 300 55364 05302979 MItn)ETRISTA (CITY OF 05312583 1I3S17 -B 5l� 55364 05306610 HARRISON BAY UNION 76 05311899 1I3S3H -B 20 5556• 05306610 HARRISON BAY UNION 76 05311900 2HXX12 -N 5 55364 05306610 HARRISON BAY UNION 76 05311901 2NXX12 -T 150 . 55364 05306030 HARRISON BAY UNION 76 05311902 6PXX12 -P 1,200 55364 05307087 R 8 S COLLISION SERVICE 05312005 21M12 -C 300 553b4 05307687 R A S COLLISION SERVICE 05312006 5PXX17 -N 3 55364 05307687 R b S COLLISION SERVICE 05312007 1I3S3H -B 250 • 55364 OS307687 R 8 S COLLISION SERVICE 05312008 6PXX12 -P 15 55364 05310879 NATIONAL POWER CHAIR 05307807 2NXX12 -T 160 553b4 05314401 SOLARIUM SYSTEMS INT'L 05312311 2MXX12 -C 300 55364 05314401 SOLARIUM SYSTEMS INT'L 05312312 211XX12 -N 11595 55364 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302607 5PXX18 -N 4,200 553b4 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302608 5PXX18 -N 2042 5534 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302609 6PXX1I -N 1,400 55364 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302610 4KXX11 -N 1 55304 05315607 *TON)(A TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302611 5P4K12 -N 850 553o4 05315607 *TOtMA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302612 6SXX12 -N 200 553b4 05315607 *T3NKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302613 2NXX12 -N 165 55364 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302614 6PXX12 -H 2,000 . 55364 05315607 *TOUKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05302615 2MXX12 -N 1,400 55364 05315607 *TOt4(A TOYS -- t: ED TO TEXAS 05302616 6PXX12-N 300 55364 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05303956 2M6P12 -N y40 55364 05315607 *TOHK A TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05303957 6PXX12 -N 220 55364 05315607 *TOIA(A TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05303958 5PXX12-N 275 553(34 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05303959 6SXX11 -N 400 • 55364 05315607 *TONKA TOYS -- MOVED TO TEXAS 05304035 2NSP12 -N 165 • 9/14/90 HENNEPIN COUNTY BUREAU OF -.'BLIC SERVICE PAGE 48 HAZARDOUS WASTE MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT 4.5.10 GENERATORS, PLANS, AND WASTE VOLUMES FOR ZIP CODES 00000 TO 99999 0 0 0 0 0 r o r. ro rip i Me 0 ZIP CODE GENERATOR ID GENERATOR NAME PLAN IO HASTE CODE VOLUME 55364 05315682 TORO COMPANY (SHORELINE BLVD) 05308270 6PXX12 -P 250 55364 05315682 TORO COMPANY (SHORELINE BLVD) 05308271 OUXX11 -N 100 55364 05315682 TORO COt1PANY (SHOREII14E BLVDI 05308272 IIXX17 -N 20 55364 05315682 TORO COMPANI (SHORELINE BLVDI 05308273 2MXX12 -N 110 55304 05315682 TORO COMPANY (SHORELINE BLVDI 05308274 2MXX12 -N 30 55364 05319702 HENNEPIN HEST PAINT AND REPAIR 05312808 1I3S3H -N 1G 55304 05319702 HEtINEPIN HEST PAINT AND REPAIR 05312809 2MXXAZ -C 20 55364 05319702 HENNEPIN WEST PAINT ANO REPAIR 05312810 6PXX12 -P 30 55364 05319846 BASLER AUTO BODY A MUFFLER 05312841 1I3S3H -B 50 553b4 05319970 PAUL'S AUTO E MARINE REPAIR 05309482 2NXX12 -T 150 55364 05319970 PAUL'S AUTO A MARINE REPAIR 05309483 1I35411 -8 40 553b4 05319970 PAUL'S AUTO A MARINE REPAIR 05309484 4U4U11 -S 160 55364 05319970 PAUL'S AUTO A MARINE REPAIR 05309485 6PXX12 -P 800 55364 05325311 ISLAND PARK SKELLY 05308936 2NXX12 -T 20 55364 05325311 ISLAND PARK SKELLY 05308937 ZH3R12 -N 1 • 55364 05325311 ISLAND PARK SKELLY 05308938 6PXXX2 -P 600 55364 05325956 DUANE 66 SERVICE 05306777 2NXX12 -N 60 55364 05325956 DUANE 66 SERVICE 05306778 6PXX12 -P 150 55364 05395002 QUARTZ INDUSTRIES 05313216 3t01X11 -S 1000 55364 05395002 QUARTZ INDUSTRIES 05313217 3FXX11 -S 8,000 ZIP CODE TOTAL VOLUME 32,896 55369 05500482 ALLIED BLACKTOPPING 05307224 2NXX12 -T 100 55369 05300482 ALLIED BLACKTOPPING 05307225 1I3S42 -6 50 553b9 05300462 ALLIED BLACKTOPPING 05307226 6PXXX2 -P 11500 55369 05300655 AMERICAN AUTO BODY 05306292 2NSP12 -C 192 55369 05300655 AMERICAN AUTO BODY 05306293 SP1I18 -C 192 55369 05301446 SOLVENT SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA, INC. 05311640 2HXh12 -C 150 55369 05301510 UNITED TELEPHONE LN 05308823 2NX0(12 -T 15 55369 05301628 SENNE'kT IA 111 05312597 2NXX12 -T 135 55369 05301628 BENNETT IA tl) 05312598 6PX0(12 -N 250 55369 05301628 BENNETT IA HI 05312599 1T3S3H -8 15 55369 05301628 BENNETT 1A H) 05312600 2MXX12 -C 20 55369 05301860 *BISttMAN OIV.RUGSY IND. (MOVED TO S01 05300538 6PXX11 -N 21000 55369 05301860 *BISIIMAN DIV.RUGBY IND. (MOVED TO S01 05300539 SPXX17 -N 200 55369 05301860 *BISHMAN DIV.RUGBY IND. ItIOVED TO SD) 05300540 2NX0(12 -N 1,600 55369 05301860 *BISHMAN DIV.RUGBY IND. IMOVED TO SO) 05300541 6PXX12 -N 55 55369 05301860 *BISf1MAN DIV.RUGBY IND. (MOVED TO SDI 05300542 2NXX12 -N 110 55369 05301860 *BISfI11AN DIV.RUGBY IND. IMOVED TO SDI 05300543 2100{12 -N 110 ' 55369 05301660 *BISHMAN DIV.RUGBY IND. IMOVED TO SDI 05303445 2HXX12 -N 165 55369 05301923 BL.DHOLM 05304038 6PXX12 -P 300 553o9 05301923 BLADHOLM 05313122 2NXX12 -T 50 55369 05301923 BLADHOLM 05313123 1I3S3H -B 30 • 553b9 05301952 BOB A CARL'S AUTO BODY 05308328 ZNSP12 -C 55 55369 05301952 BOB A CARL'S AUTO BODY 05308329 6PXX12 -P 60 55369 05301952 BOB A CARL'S AUTO BODY 05308330 5PX0(18 -N 5 55369 05302040 BOTTLERS SUPPLY A MFG CO 05301535 6PXX12 -N 10 55369 05302040 BOTTLERS SUPPLY A MFG CO 05310257 1I3SSH -S 210 55369 05302054 MUELLER MACHINE INC.IHELLINGTON LNI 05313156 2NXX12 -T 23 553b9 05302200 BROOKLYN TRACKING COMPANY 05307249 1I3S42 -5 21 • r aSIDQM asAjors IRM C 80l os ! 7 digit code - XXXX N - Z I file:(dewahl( wastecode 12/81 I� I�l1QnCJdrI4 or Wr PgdCRIAEA rimer gate XXXX Use 2 digits to describe each at the 2 majc _amponents. A As arow .acs A icing A ammonium hydroxide t1k ' C Cr 8 alcohols C aldehyde/ketnne 9 C boric /fluoboric HCl X L KOH lime/ CaOH M ! mixed paint D Z Cd Cu T chlorefluorocarb. r Hr M mixed U unknown/Son. a we H halogenated HC's gen. inorganic N L40H V varnish H Hg M mixed M mixed S NaOH ' I Pb N non - halogenated HC :9 nitric U unknown/gon. M Mixed U unknown /gen. P phosphoric, -ous O Um R gen. organic P P U unknown /qen. Ag ' X X Au i QII.S 7 P2371CIItS • OXMAa/5 9 C AMCS OW 0 III iJNeB!>aS ' M P sexed A &jade, imude C carbaaate A 8 pe6'oxide bromine, iodine A 3 aromatic alcohols A 2 asmmonium $ate biologic U petroleum unknown/gen. H halogenated HC C chromic acid C cfano, - nitriles C cyanide, -ate K oily waste leg rags) M mixed D chlcrates, -ites D dyes, stains D drugs U unknown/gon. N orgonophosphates - chlorine E benzene r ferrocyanide P phenolic R r M fuming acids raxed G H amine halogenated HC I M isocyanete mixed pyrethrin V ureas N nitro -, ato- compd's I PC3,P88 P gen. photochem U unknown /gen. P perchlorste/picrate J epox ! sulfur comp'ds R 5 permanganate fluorine M P nixed phenol U X unknown /gen. x -ray them U unknown U unknown N=AT2CmMX:F Or P96701 COIpCS�!'°' P8IISICAL SIV= diva: 5 - M ai;at 6 - N ' 1 A i D are only haz. components presents 1 liquid - aqueous 2 (A) is 10 times 181 2 iquid - organic 3 A 8 are in a non - hazardous carrier lure! - aqueous q A 8 are residue in original container slurry - organic 5 oil/wstar or organic inorganic maxture sludge - aqueous 6 3 or more major components 6 sludge - organic 7 solid - inorganic 8 solid - organic 9 17 emclsicn, gel, sol chengeeol• - sublimes, Polymerizes, .2c F twc or more liquid phases H heterogenecus mixture !I73.I1G COM dig 7 ., ' 8 recycled lead acid batteries C shipped haz waste - full charge N less than or equal to 10 gal/yr; feedstock; byprodu -t ' P S recycled oil - 6M disposal on -site: treated and/or severed T toll agreement I file:(dewahl( wastecode 12/81 I� I APPENDIX F City of Mound Building Inspection Department Correspondence Fire Marshall Correspondence u I F� 1 1 i Mound, Minnesota 55364 October 3, 1990 Mr. Thomas Barron McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 SUBJECT: Central Business District Parking L Mound, itN. 19RA# 9522 Dear *'- . Barron, As per your request for information from our files concerning environmental hazards at, or in the vicinity of the property located at: Centr.' Pusiness District Parking Lots (forme :&N Railroad Depot) 2280 Commerce Blvd., Mound We have no information tnat there is ,�r- under ground storage tanks at that address. T would check with the gas company for underground pipelines that may run through the area. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, Gerald Babb Mound Fire Marshal GB /jb cc: Ed Shukle, Mound City Manager Don Bryce, Mound Fire Chief October 5, 1990 01 C ' I ` Y c A MOUND MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (412) 172.1155 Thomas Barron McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23 - - L! I.VC:i liL LL Plymouth, MN 55447 SUBJECT: Central Business District Parking Lots Mound, Minnesota MFRA 419522 Dear Mr. Barron: Please find enclosed a Recap of Underground Storage Tanks in the City of Mound, which I have compiled to the best of my knowledge In the near future, I hope to work with the Fire Marshal to compile a complete inventory of underground storage tanks in Mound. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, �.�U' Py .lames i,�,} Planuini; & inspections s I i FlicI"sure i e ,. r "e bn, s of race color, national origin, or handicapped status e•' r yment in is programs and activities 4845 MANCHESTER ROAD 2 - 1,000 GAL TANKS REMOVED 8 -8 -90 ' 24- 117 -24 -41 0015 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD 2?- TANKS REMOVED IN EARLY 1980'S ' 24- 117 -24 -21 0034 CITY OF MOUND ------------------------------------------------------------------ ' 4831 SHORELINE BLVD. TANKS EXIST, BUT NO RECORDS 13- 117 -24 -44 0014 HARRISON BAY UNOCOL --------•---------------------------------------------------------- ' RECAP OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS CITY OF MOUND, MN 10 -3 -90 t------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ' 1730 COMMERCE BLVD. 13- 117 -24 -22 0025 4 - 10,000 GAL. TANKS AS OF 6 -30 -81 OLD FINA ' -------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- 2251 COMMERCE BLVD. 1 - 8,000 GAL TANK REMOVED 7 -25 -86 14- 117 -24 -44 003E 1 - 6,000 GAL TANK FILLED WITH ' OLD SUPERAMERICA CONCRETE SLURRY 2 -28 -86 t 2603 ------------------------*----------------------------------------- COMMERCE BLVD. TANKS EXIST, BUT NO RECORDS 23- 117 -24 -14 0022 ' PHILLIP 66 ' ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2620 COMMERCE BLVD. TANKS EXIST, BUT NO RECORDS 2 ?- 117 -24 -14 0050 MEYERS 4850 EDGEWATER DRIVE 1 - 1,000 GAL TANK 11 -10 -87 ' 13- 117 -24 -44 0071 MINNETONKA BOAT RENTAL ' ----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4845 MANCHESTER ROAD 2 - 1,000 GAL TANKS REMOVED 8 -8 -90 ' 24- 117 -24 -41 0015 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD 2?- TANKS REMOVED IN EARLY 1980'S ' 24- 117 -24 -21 0034 CITY OF MOUND ------------------------------------------------------------------ ' 4831 SHORELINE BLVD. TANKS EXIST, BUT NO RECORDS 13- 117 -24 -44 0014 HARRISON BAY UNOCOL --------•---------------------------------------------------------- i r i a r i i i i RECAP OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS CITY OF MOUND, MN 10 -3 -90 PAGE 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5293 SHORELINE BLVD. 3 - 6.000 GAL TANK REMOVED 5 -29 -86 13- 'i7 -24 -3d 0021 1 - 2.000 It " RITE -AWAY OIL CHANGE l - 500 of of to " (OLD AMOCO) 1 - 560 GAL DRAIN OIL TANK REMOVED 4 -2 -87 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5337 SHORELINE DRIVE 2 - 12,000 GAL TANKS INSTALLED 3 -7 -86 13- 117 -24 -34 0074 1 - 10,000 GAL TANK if „ SLIPFRAMER 1 t.A 1 - 8.000 GAL TANK of " ------•----------------------------------------------------------- 5545 SHORELINE DRIVE l - 500 GAL TANK REMOVED 5 -5 -89 13- 117 -24 -33 0066 OLD CITY HALL ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5550 THREE POINTS BLVD. 3 - 12,000 GAL TA "KS INSTALLED 6 -1 -82 13- 117 -24 -22 0017 1 - 12,000 GAL FIBERGLAS TANK IN- PDQ STALLED 1 -8 -87 2 - 12,000 GAL TANKS REMOVED a RE- PLACED WITH 2 12,000 GAL FIBERGLAS TANKS 8 -11 -88 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4400 TUXEDO BLVD. 1 - 6,000 GAL TANK 19- 117 -23 -24 0020 1 - 8.000 GAL TANK 15LAND PARK SKELLY ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2333 WILSHIRE BLVD. 1 - 1.000 GAL FUIL OIL TANK REMOVED 13- 117 -24 -34 0043/60 6 -22 -90 AMERICAN LEGION 4 0 UP < -, ` .. -�� X1 �• � I . Dc _� .;i; fir•-• '`�-. ,�- `� �,�`: -, � -- .. J !•L 4 f R "t K�_� . _ - � ... � .?,. + . ":. "�.- .., - ti , -:y.. � -.. ~ %4..� ; r E a V V - 40 I, P., I I - 4 0 IMNL an now 4 ........ ... 0 4 1 , W I -M�ff eZ "'- ' ` *tKM +� ��r�tit I � l ot , • S.'-T Na v AW - T VW " v -777 - IF • p 0 . . fi� 44 .�.�: -_ l �t j o oi iqm MOW » taw .:/ I M .� w r, a • `Y � � Z�Y, A s: P �- .. IVP�' .. . roll �- - -_ rte, ...,�,,,�. _• . � .mot � •.� '" � s I M .� w r, a • `Y � � Z�Y, A L 1 t t APPENDIX H Facility Questionnaire ' Environmental Site Assessment Facility Questionnaire i F 7 F McCombs F rank Roo As sociates, Inc. Twin Cities , 'dud �J J Environmental Site Assessment Facility Questionaire s Facility Name: �c � O' A/ ass 'vets L 411 7 l ie 7 Facility Address: Al ' Telephone No.: ( &iz ) 472- Persons Interviewed: Title/Relationship: I Person Conduc the Assessment: Signature: Date: Firm: '4 I 1 I. General Information/Site History ' 1) Briefly describe the type of operations conducted at this "acility or site (i.e., raw material:. used, products produced, services offered, 1 etc )? A I"w��io.�A �.- ..,� ►o,.,/ p hi -.t��9 7�1�_r 7/ '0 '�'- io e1Z AS O q v e S rt•++�K• .DOri r� 6 � 6 � C,"' � P -� ,G/ "S 1 2) How long has this facility /site been er.?aged in the above activities? _'t ' 3) Have any operations or proce:zls changed significantly over the years? I r I (J NO ❑ YES If yes, explain. i� i970. 4) Can you provide any historical information about this acility /site regarding prior activities or property uses? ❑ No YES If yes, explain (review old aerial photographs, maps, site drawings, etc. if available). u 5) Has an Environmental Risk Assessment or Environmental Audit ever been conducted at this facility /site? diZ ❑ YES if yea request a copy of the report or briefly. explain results. 1 -- 1 6) Has this property ever been used for agricultural purposes? @140 ❑ YES ' Comments: 1 6) Can you provide the names and phone numbers of previous facility owners or operators (i.e. Presidents, Vice Presidents, Environmental 1 Engineers, Shop Foremen, etc.) who could help identify previous environmental problems that you may not be aware of. MOr�� P-.1I - MIA t, Los ti�•ss 1 _ 7) Briefly describe the industries and general land use within a half mile radius of this facility /site. 0 0 w... e,r I a' r U Si- Svr *OvKL{ s S 1 2e5 te(rJi- I 1 1 WCA'Lw�. is 0 t a.V9� 6r —! J Ow•-• b 6) Can you provide the names and phone numbers of previous facility owners or operators (i.e. Presidents, Vice Presidents, Environmental 1 Engineers, Shop Foremen, etc.) who could help identify previous environmental problems that you may not be aware of. MOr�� P-.1I - MIA t, Los ti�•ss 1 _ I F u II u 1 II. Regulatory Information 1) Does this facility /site have a formal organization or person responsible for managing environmental matters and complying with environme regulations? (] NO (]YES If yes, explain. T' 2) Has the 7 or State Regulatory gency ever conducted a facility inspecton �,t this site: Q�NOU YES If yes, request a copy of the inspection r, eport or identify areas of non - compliance. 3) Have you attempted to identify, classify or analyze any of the wastes you produce? 0 No ❑ YES (Request a copy of any waste analysis if available.) Comments: _ NIA 4) Does this facility /site hold any permits, licenses, variances or waivers from the EPA or a state regulatory agency with regard to any environmental discharges (i.e NPDES rmits, air discharge permits, RCRA permits /licenses, etc.)? t] No OYES If yes, request a copy of all permits, licenses, etc. Comments A I I A / 1 e �-/ 7 JIs /O • So T </� OM �ilf T etc 1 1 1 L S) Has this facility /site filed notification with the F or State Regulat�o that you generate or otherwise ma „age hazardous ,M Agency L.t1 ND waste? YES If yes, request a copy of Notification Form (EPA 8700 -13) and A Part A Permit Application. Comments: 6) Does this facility /site manufacture, formulate, use, store, transport or otherwise manage any hazardous substances regulated under OSHA, TSCA, FIFRA or WCA? (v3 ND [3 YES If yes, explain. 7) Has this facility /site ever received a letter or notice of ncn- compliance from the EPA or a State Regulatory Agency regarding violation of any environmental laws? ONO [] YES If yes, explain. 8) Are you aware of any environmental problems en=4nte ed by other facilities or sites in the immediate area: NO [TYES If yes, expla / / /_ /VO 6ft2 om 5 O- Qdi�a tsw f� S1 le . �. 4.L. / a -w G Q ?V,pe- A sMo�eit SCfoL .-ot / f/IOCF I qp�r� . /yI o•��' j yCl�1 dT A 7Q y f Gip / <oX /��r� r iri le- e4 S L i t i III. Waste D i sposal 1) what types of wastes are generated by this facility /site and how are th'?y normally disposed of? 2) Has any waste (including been b u rned o buried at discarded raw materials this site? I] NO Q"YES or products) aver If yes, explain. C ,ne / e� S TI`o-- 1 I r04A 3) To the best of your knowledge, have liquid wastes (i.e., spent solvents, drain oil, paints, etc.) ever been dumped on the ground at this site? (] NO ©'YES If yes, explain and identify ar: -s. r � 1 I n I w A 10 V-A —A L �L -e- L e e s k 0 •^ 4 CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 10 -�3 -90 #2 I " M Discharges 1) Have you ever had a spill, discharge or uncontrol ed release of Waste or hazardous substance at this facility /site? [No ❑ YES If yes, explain. 1 d) Does this facility /site discharge any cooling water, process waste water or other liquid waste to- a) A pit, pond or lagoon? fNO ❑ YES t t t Comments: b) A surface water U.e., lake, river, stream, etc.)? BIND ❑ YES Comments: c) The ground or down a well? [TNO ❑ YES Comments: d) A sanitary sewer or storm sewer system? C3'NO ❑ YES If yes, specify name of receiving PMW or water body. e) A private septic system, drainage field or dry well? (] ❑ YES Comments: 3) Does this facility /site discnarge any contaminants to the air? This way include, but is not limited to discharges from spray painting operations, storage tank vents, dust collection systems, ci is processes and general ventilation of process areas, etc.) EYTO ❑ YES If yea explain. 1 t 4) Does this facility /site burn any waste in an incinerator, boiler, furnace, kiln, etc. 2NO []YES If yes, describe the activity me how ash is disposed . V. Geology/Hydrogeology 1) Briefly describe the soil underlying this facility /site (i.e., sandy, clay, gravel, rocky, b roc etc.) fi Qi i � ww a ��Y III r'! / 7 �f � � /c.� _ . f.,, � .", • f • /�� / riti�row� ylr. �E!-y !o I iS •K ' r __ v � j�N 4 s�hr �T �Svr'�i► � e 2) Approximate depth to ground water? 9 , 10 ' 3) Are you aware of any other unique geological or hydrogeological features at this site (i.e., ground water flow direction, soil perff pability, faults, ore deposits, flood plains, wet lands, etc.). LwT ❑ YES If yes, explain. I 1 4) Are there any areas on this property where material has been hauled in from off -site and used as fill? ❑ No (YES If yes, describe the activity and fill material used / '001e-ft lee v le . S) Are there any water supply wells at this site? [ NO ❑ YES If yes, how many and how is the water used (i.e., drinking, cooling, process, fire, etc.)? t 6 Are there any groundwater monitoring sells at this site? ffVD 0 YE5 If yes, how many? ' 7) Do you conduct routine groundwater monitoring or have you ever had a s le of groundwater analyzed from any of the bells at this site? LND ❑ YES If yes, describe and request available analytical data. NIsq _ 1 t 6) Have any of your employees ever complained about drinking water at ' this facility /site with regard to odors or bad taste? ❑ ND ❑ YES U ments: N 9) Are you aware of any groundwater contamina on roblems in the 9c;,eral area around this facility /site? Etc a YES If yes, explain. 1 VI. Above Ground Tanks 1) Does this facility /site store raw materials, petroleum products, ' cal roducts, wastes or other substances in above ground tanks? ND EM If no, go directly to section V1I. ' 2) Do MW of the pipes connected to these tanks run underground? ❑ ND ❑ YES If yes, explain. ' 3) Briefly describe all above ground storage tanks, include tank identification, size, material of construction, material stored, ' secondary containment provisions and approximate age. Record appropriate information on the "Above Ground Tank Inventory Form" at the end of this section. Comments: 4) Briefly describe procedures used when filling and draining tanks, include procedures to prevent spills and overfilling, and spill clean up procedures. 1 1 5) Does this facility /site have a program for routinely inspecting above ground tanks for corrosion or other damage that may result in leaks? ❑ ND ❑ YES Comments: Above Ground Tank Inventory Form Tank I Size I Material of I Product/Material I Type of Secondary I Age ' VII. Underground Tank 1) Are there any underground storage tanks (UST) at this facility /site? Include USr holding fuel oil and motor fuels. GhO ❑ YES If no, go directly to Section VIII. 2) Briefly describe all MIST, include tank identification, size, material ' of construction, corrosion protection, material stored, secondary containment provisions and approximate age. Record appropriate information on the "UST Inventory Form" at the end of this section. 3) Have any of these UST been used to store materials other than u,st was specified in 2 above? ❑ ND ❑ YES If yes, explain. 4) Briefly describe any inventory monitoring or leak testing procedures used to detect possible leakage. S) If a tank leak test method is used, does the method test the i tegrit of all interconnecting undergound piping? �] ND [� YES- know ' Comments: 6) Have any tank inventory records or leak tes results indicated possible leakage or loss of product? ❑ ND U YES If yes, explain and ask for appropriate records or test reports. 7) Are lmu able to provide any ormation regarding UST that have DYES already been removed? ❑ ND If yes, explain. Tank I size I Material of I Type of corrosion I Type of Material i Type of secondary I J1p VIII. Container Sturage 1) Does this facility /site store raw materials, petroleum products, chemical products, wastes or other substances in containers or drums. This does not incluOe small quantity over the counter LJ consumer type products. ND (] YES If no go directly to Section IX. 2) Briefly describe the types of material stored in containers at this facility /site and approximate amounts of each. 3) Briefly describe how and where these containers are stored. 4) Briefly describe haw containers are handled during loading and unloading operations. 3) Briefly describe how empty containers are handled and disposed of. r t IX. Miscellaneous Information 1) Has this facility /site ever used PCB containing lectrical equiPMWt cc managed waste contaminated with PC8's3 B.&a 8 YES If ,(es, explain. 2) Have asbestos containing building materials, pipe insulation, taw mate ials, etc. ever been used at this facility /site? 02 YES If yes, explain. 3) Have any pesticides, herbicides, fungicides or wood preservatiws ever been manufact r formulated or otherwise used at this facility /site? &NNO� YES If yes, provide details. LE Additional Information/Comments S Tie•.!1'wrd �• � �D��i� p�••� f .6�oc� no.��i "C Ile eve .S� /!!f s�iOP�• -mow / B'� /�DO�T�d �Y / -7 0t-s- a ✓KS, Or m m r == m= m m = = == r m m m m m ` �` •o; , . \w • - - - —='i � -. woodarnd k' i t j • Poine O o C MILE ADIUS amp >- Dut h Lake t � le i' —� :� •; �� aQ I `• •. ".) .3hodyv. I � � �;' • I �.��/ :.� �•' � �-.:, ::� . - Point ----� — SITE J LOCATION • Mou y 9� . _ aYNERN I — L .;� Seton PB a Sk 24 90 l _ .a' Cooks Bay ':: -_ • • ='� Phelps -N ' cQ' _ �' '���''; - • `^-� Island Bev 1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING LOTS (Former B &N Railroad Depot) SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 Section 13 T117N R24W SE 1 /4 of SE 1/4 Section 14 T1 17N R24W Hennepin County ' Mound, Minnesota 55364 Map No. 1 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. SCAL ENVIRONMENTAL 15050 23rd One N Engineers BOO J FAGI SITE 612 /47 6 -60W .�� s ur ve yors riot Man ASSESSMENT Rt2/�7.6010 Sve 1 i. � has N • . aR11 r � . L 1 Dut h •1 o i roofs ' F 9 o ` — 1- `4 1 m 9 9A 1 "A U � int and /•�« . MAP NO.2 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. scA 15050 23rd Ave N Engineers "0OR J PAGI APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF Plymouth. MN E5447 Planners U OF M GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 612476.6010 surveyors IfIL111140. LISTED WELLS 952E I' 9� E MILE ADIUS r. ;Sh'a Poll i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ♦k Q J G A o 0"10 � i Point a to E, I & Scot+ O WES OOD, 1 W S ETRI POINTS c R t t[ [tr . O , v a < t ,fM N S Y O tir s \° C1,400 w RCs pp r Wy "t q► < O �' Z M�IOpI�n h'�/,►sl GRANDVIEW V; A MIDDLE SCN t ltc Lake ■ N o Harrison *ES, O r�o o �VD < OR tiff♦ °t %� " Q ttt I J ♦' �O 8 2000 t S u SET RO ° `!AL SAM K /]v S SET E a l0 Q � J Gk i � 3 y � 04 i / NILLCRES W ; + RD S p J e �t r4 M C GUIEMOOD c' ,'. TONRT' < J O c f 4 RD � i t_ •IDiR •0 q ps `? w v S al r � 9 rJ r 1,0 1 I n O L O t¢! 2 z N V O + Ir P rt r u E06EMA ltnwOpD o * '_ �LrO 7 • I e > r y /✓� 6 s SIND� o _ ROSEDAIE E (ME ST NUT KS O 'a'j0 e, J I3 I NORT ERN • R RD Aeir�u R Z N 1S o ©O 9 / l ® / 6 s 0 f 7 C l IN v I <G[ ° RD 'Q' at fWO�ODAD � N - DR �� d 8 1 1 0 V i MAYWOOD " RD RD ` ♦�w I �_ 0 [AC/ DI Ist 2'm - .,z, W t RO 8 lAlt SfA 4� r a �♦ � CITY NAIL y t� \�w >r N Langdon Lake �, 3 ` ��c s' ♦�o'. Serun [,o RILCA C < j aUSN RD J J try i o + ARILETT lVD FytR pA C RICK no s [R s o 125 .lo � /l b p C` 8 �r J z o > C ♦ GALWAY < RO Tit o N b° SEACNW ,° W e O ♦° W W D O R OR �[S WOOD V p s �< W H KVD F C ;IR. 0 MUST , ADOD -4 3 I/ OU RR GNT0 LY Ulm 0 j / N J SU[ _ C RD > RD 1� GlENw000 RD11 p1G CT /�� set, mo role ©i ? . a� ♦ � g p_ r 28W Y ICR RD t `Co Bay 0 UTN R D ` O RICHMC + C I rA1AfULD RD AFTON RD ♦S11f r 0 DOR I 3 < f "IDLEwO OD +A MANCH t ♦ R MAN [` utw\NOp ,p �SNT RD DONALD C N4 p \vJ i p ��> ` W i7rffG R R = C0 RIDG RD N \G C 1° s foV6 r SINCLAIR y 0� 0 I G RC RD '� 1 E Q NANOYER �'r DRU MOND Ro + + ARERDE NorduroAf• ` \N 11101 R N NANOY A / Prrinr ►M"' J �j > � s( Priest Bay ��• �� � 1Rs _. _ R Y RD _— I� � � T�..W MAP NO.3 SCALE McCombs Frank Roos Associates Inc. APPROXNATE LOCATION OF 1505023rtlAve N Engineers BO0F U.S. EPA N INNESOTA PlymouTn, MN 55447 Planners 612/476-6010 Surveyors riL N LIST 9522 a I EM1t�eE11 f Jhb�t 0 I u .as W IF I f ETR Ni Mw .T r f 69 • ee ~ s 888 w _ CRANOVIEre V� � Al MIDDLE SCN ' Ire Lake ■ o Harrison g2000 v SUNSET RD ° ELM �Eal IoM �i ' Ba MIII,RE >• ! < w < < t Qp pppp b � O GUYMOOD O O J r it�IR� 3 S t• 1 i RO < = s ALDEe A o� v z u oa �v�, ♦�tO�RjE LYNWOOD iElro i > �� •i � J 3 >C fA�Eer g X �+� OQNORTHERN S E' s •� _� b ENEStNU nu O 11 J�� o RD ri��� .��� < S REII w0 ~ IS s ., w w wi +eooatwOt t •p '^ p CUAVW0000 RD E R n N s OR ♦ y s C► i $ MAIN 00D < A� D F r p tatQJ of II* Tc 1 W s RO ' lake Sch ('� D L t C"TNALLL ° O o ` o T Langdon Lah �� �, 3 t s jpOD ser[,n 1A w r RIlOA ' < aVSN NO C J ETT e < eARTLETT LVO 1?5 ;, C RICILAD (f r 9. VR C ` j 5 L.7 J GALWAY R[ O Tit 0 f W a lEAt EAC W w �p ° ' O :OR t [S w000 i V R s /1 O UND NIRE KYp C IR. cRt t � RusTICw000; eR 6Nip 11 TM 3 SUFFOLI r Mf r , RD1t CLENw00D NO NwM� N fil !ED FORD C) its z P 2800 FAIaFIEID RD Coo Ba ./ A/TO[I RD �L�, ..4, 006 - IDL[V/ OD <R MAN D R MAN L " = e O RD DONALD CUA l Nte D +'N I R = Pi Rlt{'l RO D NAG ~ oV� •' sINCLAJR 5� 0 L O 6 Rt RD ` R MA NOV R r < AR[R01 /1 NO►daf►Ohtf NR ` N < D U M NO w KANOV It J , PI,�I,I ' 3 0 � r �( Priest Baby R VIED ' MAP No. 4 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. SCALE 1505023rd Ave N Engineers 80OK I PAGE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MPCA Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners REPORTED SPIL ?S ' 612/476 -6010 Surveyors f ILI Flo 9522 eo/1 J o f Ioiw[ o m GA E. > :0 o I ssoei U WES 000_ I J I = N Q v ETR POINTS = IN ELV N• J IL t �[w R S Y 0 1M �y W 4 h s R r ShOR[go ' y .►� ' e s v IIIEE � f / o[N h GRANOYIEW V 9 a h MID' arc Lake ®■ Harrisoin e` o < w r tM •f �0 8 2000 C; ! � t u � S uK SEt c Et M ilAl ct J F N wv Bay MA \KC O CIO `^ W ft SAM s R 0 2 R D 4PaJ y0e v �C Ln i f � O� *M 1? O GUYWOOp O 0 « C Ito j •_ ALDER RD ivy R T s n + o o >• u O t r i 4'� ,,, u Ewv ' LYNWOOD o Z ® ©� i L r.? «Z < 'j' SANDY E o YD u ROfEDAI[ •O« . I s [NEST NUT R= O TiO o�yT•J•••• -- NORT ERN • R F RD jL� ti j R[E 0 NO 1S o 3 L O F p ) t7 J I N[ W< WOOORIDC[ = j �,/r p �YAYWOto0R0 O' ED N ` i DR � A r V p MA OUCI �� u RO < NO of the 2 z. RD S I F Att set, I T ` T •i�/ z GI All •! 4 Y t` \N Landon Lake , S �c+' 7i •� c �o� ` eton (.c < RILOA C• < j RUS" RD RTlt r q► '� < T• [ �r[R 1 0O 0 aiLETT LVO 1f-.1 ;•[RAIO p� C R14:1 RD �r I R. 0 C ; ---��� J O C 3 i./ Jew GALWAY W RL E 1 O P W BEACH rO W • ' i OR ES wOOG i E v p > W NIKE 6LYD 1 1. 1 C < � u ♦ 'Ia. W RUSTIC" OOD, v aR Gvro lT U 1N 0 U IL SUTfOLI '4'r R0. 'r> R `1A GtENW0 RD Y\ \G CtN pp//��/�'�\ aRU REO FORD ' = o N •'P� 8 �� c 2 800 w IL < R D e ; r = ��) 0 U1N at RJR O RICNM< O z O ! W rAIRiIELD R Co oks +� a D V kJ ./ AFTON RD Y y Ll r4� DO1 2 z Y It "IDLEWO OD <R MANS Vt • R MAN u = AwtMOR ,p O a+'MA 44 Ito DONALO cu 'A I It = u Oi SINCLAIR 40 L 6 Oki 5� RD t O +tM HAN OVER N < ARER Hotdurobl! ``M .9 It W ;OND no NANOV R / P„i„► 01 "3 0( J Priest Bay �` I. tI R Y RD McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 1505023rd Ave N Engineers PlYS10 lh, MN 55447 Planners 612/476.6010 Surveyors MAP NO.5 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MPCA REPORTED LEAK STIES _ I 'ao/bwllloiw� o O w< t r ES 000, Q-10 GRANDYIEW q MIDDIE SCH L! s Lake ■ t E tC * SUNSET * RO g [t jtlAE QOM M A �� o ►y ri�` g o cur C W R o' o R 0 TOiN ! t ,Y Atoll RD II• t aI ��^ . � ..g t, go < IYN wE�oD LTD O I}0� ss g CHESYNtI Harrison ' R2000 B ay J c� w ° i 3 a` f a �b r `"„� i �/ TE♦ u o 4t• J dr � u EoGEW A a11Es 11! .I N R .Oil G OWoo wRo �j' O < < V • /� « MAYOO " R > i M _ lad) of tnt 2 ��' o RO lake Scn •v >E a[ CITY HAILS ° 0 Z o M Langdon Lake � O < OI No + RI►f % J f MILEtr LVO 0 125 rTE r OHb�P w SEAc «w ip ° .OR D ES w000 i o <> CI GWI[ a� O RR j RUfiICw00D < f I 've W W R t1� , GLENwOOD RD NWH� H 2800 o it '11)tEwO DD < A J C i AW1MOa F+'Ht pp R = E RIt�' SD 0 NAG $INCLAIN tt RD t' .t`' O M 14AMOVEI D RL a a J � J e aca Ro W ; 4 A RE0 FORD IKR < RD W ITN f 14J O RICMMC RO • S LI r o0i �� ♦ R MAN DONALD C liff O_ 4 1 A DRU •IK MON HO/OlCIOAIf �� ,t3 1/ Prrint ► t G �°� 3 Priest n�1 R r RD McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Ave N. Engineers Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners 612/476.6010 Surveyors MAP NO.6 T PR XIMATE LOCATION O] HENNEPIN COUNTY LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE 522 4` r f 1 = M N GRANOYYW v � N Lf l rc Lake ■ Harrison o ` VD < t� u s~ = J o Ba . j ` . t < tT Ito c wVAL S�� d 1 �� y � J1 L c Q N JSLINS w O [L M j RD� y� tlR j M D 4' V *» NILLC > O ! 1R► < r t f a ,rt 1 � O GIMe•ODO O O � S � •. t � � s RD < ` S Q ti_ AIDiR v • y w u r' J Z u tom` in a < .t i s1NuuR � � • ' Hor4icraFlc if plain Priest BOY e ' McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Ave N Engineers Plymouth. MN 55447 Planners ' 612/476.6010 SurvEyors I ARDA W RICK RD GALWAY j RI s IE BLVD 11- u C iN 3 surfollp M fORp o g RD p RICMM4 1 ' g ON • MAN ALD Cuul Q 4L 1 f . ..... W S y1 Imo' MAP NO.7 •A`t APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF "A MPCA LISTED UNDERGROUND 9522 STORAGr WANKS LVNWOOD 11 1 a K • o < R M G RD u •< wo s o O " ED N S< 1 all RD 1 1 9 u V „_,YzAYNOsODRO r RO RD i V. • O MAYN000 • _ IaE jNe 1 ScA < 2 a :x O a CITY "ALL $ RD ` 4h� �•S < w Land on Lake 3 � s.' •,o ' ,.��"°� < avSM RD C + LYO �t44LD a aARI IETT Qf O f / t rite BEACHW 11) QCS COR WOOD i e 0 O Bit rR. 3 (,RI[ v o MUSTIMOOD A s o Y r 'rt N �+..r RD 61.INWOOD RDt�NW 2800 N e _ ' , < Z G Cooks Bay it z i 1 tAl211ILD RD i o R =101, E W OD <11 m • �L i ,+ _ L'MSMDe IAW` 2�i i s1NuuR � � • ' Hor4icraFlc if plain Priest BOY e ' McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Ave N Engineers Plymouth. MN 55447 Planners ' 612/476.6010 SurvEyors I ARDA W RICK RD GALWAY j RI s IE BLVD 11- u C iN 3 surfollp M fORp o g RD p RICMM4 1 ' g ON • MAN ALD Cuul Q 4L 1 f . ..... W S y1 Imo' MAP NO.7 •A`t APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF "A MPCA LISTED UNDERGROUND 9522 STORAGr WANKS �i 1 1 i 1 1 1 Q ee/t4tnE. I Peiwt o m V E. O ' V WES D. f s o 'O 4E 5 a I. POIN t S ELY (� R CRANOWEW OI V MIDE SCM J11 1rc y Lake ■ Harrison .` < <� _ •�` 82000 B t+;`� F aSUNSET RD p ELM ilAl SAM d! J r " MA lN O CIO Q . W s RO ■Dyfv 4� .fr�0 an 46 4� IF -'V /n r y GuYW00' i =_ AIDiR RD p Eo6 jAAtER or a < g LYNWOOD Z YD At a i f ``t y= 4 f of SAN& ROSEDALE <O = s S MESTNO s; 00 ���� NORT ERN R o f+ S R E l Ipt a w NOOORIOGE 2 " 4 ' � p ONAIW000040 / E D N i.z DR ' A. R ca i EEA 0 v RO 3. v s • /. LAa DI for < IRE 2 r v . RD t a teL� SCA Gy = � CRY MAIL a t Langd on Lake Q un Srtun Lo s 1 < RILDA < aUSN RD in? rlt� t►r i p ° a aARTIETT lYD 125 ♦f LD C RICR RD C L S, GAIKA W Rt ,TTE Sl ONEO r1 V 6EACMw rp • ' i CR ' COR IO000 Y p < I MIRE QYD C _ 4RI[ a at TN R y RUSrIcW00D; 'A GN1p l4 sur ROt1t GLINWOOD RD N�' CjN M Rau RED rom KK < RO 2H00 g Cooks Bay ° °TN ° RtCNMf O g iktlrIILD NO Al, TON RD t�Ll r a 00{ • IDLI1r 00 411701 MANS R R MAN • " _ no o Lt i s W T ND. O R +'NS C O DONS 0 ,CN F at MtRR � GY � O L SINCLAIR 01% ti` 3 s RO •' �t i M NANOvER AREROE < Hardlfrobir t`� ORI MOND RD MANOV R „ < !! w1lL r.1 R tsf Puinr ►. I� a J�� r s Priest Bay 3 //�� �` MAP NO.8 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc SCAL APPROMMATE LO ^ATION OF e Ic 15050 23rd Ave W Engineers LISTED Plymouth. MN 55447 Planners T �+ 612/476 -6010 Surveyors "� N DUMP M 5 9522 • • +-, A 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /' MAP NO.9 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. '` "`f L -' 15050 23rd Ave N Enq nears aooR APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF Plymouth, MNs5447 Planners CL•iATL�L+ 612/476 -6010 Surveyors ►�� M SEWERS RS 9522 .RLV n _ n LIFT STATION WET WELL -- I �,Wr �FORCECM�Alm • RVICE CEMAM 0 J W to 7-; -111U 6 SANIT ARY SE 10 FOR 5NORE.LINF- D BLVD. v POST J �Q OFF IC3 V I x Q170,ps.�, - ,QDA� -- - - � . �/ STY G LOT LAW OFFICES WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, U NDERWOOD & M ERTZ • .aw,..�ws.... IwCwb'.0 .w•c�s.o�•� . +�soc..T.o.+s 1100 FIRST DANA PLACE WEST A THOMAS WVRST. PA MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 CuRT1s A Pc^ws P A JAMES D LARSOew. PA October 23 1990 THOMAS F UNOERw000. P CRAIG M MERTZ ROGER J FELLOWS Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Mound, Minnesota Re: Central Business District Parking Dear Mayor and Ccuncilmembers: TELE ►MOM( 4 6 1 21330- 4 200 FAX NuN6ER 16:2) 336 2625 F used is a copy of a letter received late oil October 22, 1990, deter Johnson representing himself and William and Phylli_ .!^ son. 1 believe that the letter is self - explanatory, and this will show you the general layout of what they propose to purchase. You will note in his concluding paragraph that the purchase is subject to being able to negotiate a satisfactory arrangement for ingress and egress over the parcel owned by Mueller and Lansing. The City needs these same reservations to make the parking lot a workable piece of property. Hopefully this w'L11 help you in your considerations this evening. Very ruly yours, 1 Cur s A. Pearscn City j�ttorney CAP:lh Enclosure cc: Mr. Ej Shukle, City Manager 1 � 4 �..r ►� -� G j�.l.E Gc 4.c ZrG g'�� 219 October 23, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90 -128 RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND AUTHORISING THE EXECUTION OF AN OPTION AGREEMENT WITH DAKOTA RAIL, INC. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound established a date for a Council hearing on the acquisition and improvement of Central Business District Parking Lots in the City of Mound, and said public hearing was conducted on September 12, 1990, and WHEREAS, the public hearing was continued from September 12, 1990, to October 23, 1990, with directions to the staff to seek contributions to the land costs either through authorizing easements over the property or by the sale of a portion of said property, and WHEREAS, the City staff has negotiated with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and with William Johnson, Phyllis Johnson, and Peter Johnson, and has determined that some funds can be received from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for a permanent easement for an in- place sewer line, and WHEREAS, the Johnsons have by letter indicated a willingness to purchase property adjacent to their buildin% and in front of their building as well as 50 feet of frontage on Commerce Boulevard for a specific sum, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the amounts of money which can be obtained from other sources to reduce the cash outlay by the City and other benefitted properties in the City of Mound and has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to acquire the properties from Dakota Rail, Inc. and to stabilize and solidify parking available for the Central Business District, and WHEREAS, it is determined that it is in the best interests of the City to exercise the option agreement and to proceed with the acquisition of the proposed parking lot properties, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks puolished notice of the September 12, 1990, hearing was given, and the hearing was held on September 12, 1990, and continued to October 23, 1990, and all persons desiring to be heard regarding said improvements were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such improvements as set forth in the Preliminary Engineering Report for Acquisition and Improvements of CBD Parking Lot for the City of Mound, Minnesota, dated August, 1990, and prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. are hereby ordered as proposed in the Notice of Hearinq and as explained at the public hearings on September 12, 1990, and October 23, 1.990. 220 October 23, 1990 2. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for the improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for making improvements to the Mound parking facilities as outlined in the preliminary report. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to notify Dakota Rail, Inc. that the City is exercising its option and that subject to the terms of such Option Agreement, the Mayor, City Manager, City Attorney, and other City staff are authorized and directed to close the transaction with Dakota Rail and to acquire said properties for the sum of $235,000. They are further ordered to return to this Council with specific agreements with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and with William Johnson, Phyllis Jc.hnson, and Peter Johnson for the sale of easements over the said property and for the sale of certain portions of said property in accordance with a letter from Peter Johnson dated October 22, 1990. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION DENYING IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, a hearing was held on September 12, 1990, concerning proposed improvements to the Central Business District Parking Plan, and WHEREAS, the parking improvements depend upon acquisition of certain lands from Dakota Rail, Inc., and the price of the land and the price of the improvement to the benefitted properties are determined not to be in the public's interest, and WHEREAS , the hearing was continued until October 23, 1990, to allow for negotiations, and an option has been signed with Dakota Rail, Inc. which requires the City to exercise the option on or before November 1, 1990, and it is determined that exercising said option is not in the public's interest, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The proposed improvements as advertised for acquisition and improvemnt of the Central Business District Parking Lots shall not be made. 2. The option agreement between the City of Mound and Dakota Rail, Inc. shall be allowed to expire, and the City Council determines that it is not in the best interests of the City to exercise that option based on the terms contained therein. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was made by Councilmember and duly seconded by Cou:.cilmember __ _ __ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted on October 23, 1990. M—ayo- - - r - - -- _.----- - - - - -_ Attest: City Clerk tic t zz ' YY! 14>80v 0000 SANFAXO IO sir 10% FrM W.JONNSW C.ARYL MJiGER WAIINX Y MrAulw. JR C SCOTT MAM JAMF3 M YvnutA w&UAM R KnDeG AMC SCJR12 Ri(71AW J SCItIIK"UI WAAh 11 GAYKIJU October 22, 1990 Curt Pearson, Esq. Mound City Attorney 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 IAW CWTES JOHNSON & WOOD 7SO EAST LALL S I REET WAYZATA M)NKFSOTA SSDLI ILLEPNONF. (612) 175 1SI5 TtLECOPIEK (612) 4175 0111 ZZO: CUM MLVLI %A infVA I MOCNO U-NALSUIR 55144 TFt E►NO%E (01 Z) 17: IDA� T ►I fCO►IE• ( {:Z) .7L 4i ": Re: Mound Downtown Parking Dear Curt: P. 2 nFrnUSC EA LL J %'1U)ERL!.TCKF IAmb L` M.CIU,ed0h LA 1.AL V. — UI> LOKWF i. (,ARf)NTR IIAN!1I NFJVkICK )A% C MD IFRBERN'P William and Phyllis Johnson are interested in purchasing a portion of the property which is currently covered by the City's option with Dakota Rail. Specifically, the Johnsons are interested in purchasing a portion of the "North Parking Lot" which is situated adjacent to tho.ir present property at 2250 Commerce Boulevard (Coast -To -Coast Building). The hand -drawn sketch map attached hereto describes in general terms the parcel that the Johnsons wish to purchase. No survey has been performed. we have estimated the total square footage of the parcel as follows: A. South of Coast -To -Coast Parcel, 39 x 317' 12,363 sq. ft. B. Northerly 50 feet of North Parking Lot 50 x 189E 9,450 sq. ft. C. Parcel averaging 32 East to West lying immediately Westerly of the West Line of the existing Coast - To -Coast parcel 32 x 85 LO ea. t. TOTAL SQUARE FEET: 24,533 sq. LL. The Johnsons will agree to purchase the property described herein for a price of $60,000. As conditions for purchase, the Johnsons would require: 1. Waiver of any special assessment as a result of parking purchase from Dakota Rail. UC%. 22 '70 17100 VoOe s /r11i Curt Pearson, Esq. October 22, 1990 Page Two P. 3 2. Concept approval for subdivision of existing parcel into two separate cowmercial parcels. The proposed subdivision lines are shown on the attached sketch map. Our purchase is also subject to our being able to negotiate a satisfactory arrangement for egress over the parcel now owned by Mueller i Lansing. Very truly yours, J N i WOO Li Pe r W. John PWJ /jkp or- x V ^,"mm 0w0m �*/°, lb 4r,x°~S ~~ �L dr coo _ � � 4 u� rJ ` _ � - - rn ' \ \ \ | } | - - - -- / `~ \ \ � ) 118000 CBD LOT ACQUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 50 -50 split CUST.. EMP. % OF % OF 1989 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REG'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 6.5 6 8.5 2.67 100.00 5.13 239000 6.26 2207.86 908.64 1108.54 4225.04 14- 117 -24 44 0001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 10 11.0 3.46 50.00 2.57 133100 3.49 2857.23 454.32 617.35 3928.90 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 5.05 119000 3.12 0.00 894.10 551.95 1446.06 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.57 50.00 2.57 313500 8.22 1298.74 454.32 1454.09 3207.15 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.25 51.60 2.65 141500 3.71 3506.60 468.86 656.31 4631.77 14- 117 -Z4 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.57 26200 0.69 0.00 454.32 121.52 575.84 13-117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10 -5 3.30 50.00 2.57 63000 1.65 2727.36 454.32 292.21 3473.89 13-117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF NOY 30 22 5 47.0 14.78 95.00 4.88 400000 10.48 12208.18 863.21 1855.30 14926.68 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS JDHh;ON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.04 50.00 2.57 81200 2.13 1688.36 454.32 376.63 2519.31 13- 117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 3 15.0 4.72 75.00 3.85 106500 2.79 3896.23 681.48 493.97 5071.68 13- 117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.57 18100 0.47 0.00 454.32 83.95 538.27 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 10 25.0 7.86 100.00 5.13 160100 4.20 6493.71 908.64 742.58 8144.94 13-117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERSIX BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.89 23.50 1.21 48000 1.26 1558.49 213.53 222.64 1994.66 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 11 0.0 0.00 85.10 4.37 75500 1.98 0.00 773.26 350.19 1123.64 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 3 7.5 2.36 62.00 3.18 88400 2.32 1948.11 563.36 410.02 2921.49 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 3.93 74.00 3.80 58800 1.54 3246.86 672.40 272.73 4191.98 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.59 15000 0.39 0.00 636.05 69.57 705.62 13- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 45 2.5 0.79 66.66 3.42 178900 4.69 649.37 605.70 829.78 2084.85 13- 117 -24 33 00-3 TONKA HEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 207.91 10.67 387400 10.15 0.00 '889.16 1796.86 3686.01 14- 117 -24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 0 42.0 13.21 58.00 2.98 224800 5.89 10909.43 527 01 1042.68 12479.12 14- 44 0037 RUSTIQUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.72 32.50 1.67 85800 2.25 3896.23 295.31 397.96 4589.50 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.26 112.00 5.75 51000 1.34 1038.99 1017.68 236.55 2293.22 14- 117 -24 44 0039 HEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.12 40.00 2.05 153500 4.02 7532.70 363.46 711.97 8608.13 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 7.5 11 5.5 1.73 50.00 2.57 171100 4.48 1428.62 454.32 793.60 2676.54 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NETKA 17 0 4 13.0 4.09 27.00 1.39 96000 2.52 3376.73 245.33 445.27 4067.33 13-117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.94 29.30 1.50 65900 1.73 779.25 c66 23 305.66 1351.14 13-117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.03 80.00 4.11 105500 2.76 4155.97 726.91 489.33 5372.22 13- 117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGQUIST 15 2 4 13.0 4.09 60.00 3.08 101300 2.65 3376.73 545.19 469.85 4391.77 13- 117-24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.20 49.99 2.57 108000 2.83 1818.24 454.23 500.93 2773.40 445 167 294 318.0 100.00 1947.96 100.00 3816100 100.00 82600.00 17700 17700 118000.00 REVI:;cD 10-22 -90 Alt. 1 141600 CBD LOT ACQUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 40 -60 split OUST. EMP. % OF X OF 1989 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REQ'D. REO'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 *,4- FIRST MINNESOTA 8 6.5 6 8.5 2.67 100.00 5.13 239000 6.26 2649.43 1090.37 1330.25 5070.05 157-24 44 0001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 10 11.0 3.46 50.00 2.57 133100 3.49 3428.68 545.19 740.82 4714.69 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 5.05 119000 3.12 0.00 1072.93 662.34 1735.27 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.57 50.00 2.57 313500 8.22 1558.49 545.19 1744.91 3848.58 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.25 51.60 2.65 141500 3.71 4207.92 562.63 787.57 5558.13 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.57 26200 0.69 0.00 545.19 145.83 691.01 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.30 50.00 2.57 63000 1.65 3272.83 545.19 350.'S 4168.67 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF NOY 30 22 5 47.0 14.78 95.00 4.88 400000 10.48 14649.81 1035.85 2226.3- 17912.02 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS JOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.04 50.00 2.57 81200 2.13 2026.04 545.19 451.95 3023.17 13- 117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 3 15.0 4.72 75.00 3.85 106500 2.79 4675.47 817.78 592.77 6086.02 13- 117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.57 18100 0.47 0.00 545.10 100.74 "S. 93 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 10 25.0 7.86 100.00 5.13 160100 4.20 7792.45 1090.37 891.10 9773.92 13- 117 -24 35 0014 KEN PERSIX BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.89 23.50 1.21 48000 1.26 1870.19 256.24 267.16 2393.59 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 11 0.0 0.00 85.10 4.37 75500 1.98 0.00 927.91 420.22 1348.13 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 3 7.5 2.36 62.00 3.18 88400 2.32 2337.74 676.03 492.02 3505.79 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 3.93 74.00 3.80 58800 1.54 3896.23 806.87 327.27 5030.36 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.59 15000 0.39 0-DO 763.26 83.49 846.75 13- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 45 ?.5 0.79 66.66 3.42 178900 4.69 779.25 726.84 995.74 2501.82 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 207.91 10.67 387400 10.15 0.00 2266.99 2156.23 4423.22 14- 117 -24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 0 42.0 13.21 58.00 2.98 224800 5.89 13091.32 632.42 1251.21 14974.95 14- 117 -24 44 0037 RUST IQUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.72 32.50 1.67 85800 2.25 4675.47 354.37 477.55 5507.40 14 -117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.26 112.00 5.75 51000 1.34 1246.79 1221.22 28;.86 2751.87 14 -117 -24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.12 40.00 2.05 153500 4.02 9039.25 436.15 854.36 10329.76 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 11 5.5 1.73 50.00 2.57 171100 4.48 1714.34 545.19 952.32 3211.85 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NETKA 17 0 4 13.0 4.09 27.00 1.39 96000 2.52 4052.08 294.40 534.33 4880.80 13-117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.94 29.30 1.50 65900 1.73 935.09 319.48 366.79 1621.37 13- 117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.03 80.00 4.11 105500 2.76 4967.17 872.30 587.20 6443.67 13-117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGQUIST 15 2 4 13.0 4.09 60.00 3.08 101300 2.65 40 654.22 563.82 5270.12 13- 117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.20 49.99 2.57 108000 2.83 2181.89 545.08 601.12 3328.06 445 167 294 318.0 100.00 1947.96 100.00 3816100 100.00 99120.00 21240 21240 141600.00 REVISED 10 -22 -90 177000 C@D LOT ACQUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4; (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 25-75 split CUST. EMP. % OF % OF 1989 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REQ'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 6.5 6 8.5 2.67 100.00 5.13 239000 6.26 3311.79 1362.96 1662.81 63 F.57 14- 117 -24 44 0001 SNYr.R DRUG 19 2 10 11.0 3.46 50.00 2.57 133100 3.49 4285.85 681.48 926.03 5893.36 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 5.05 119000 3.12 0.00 1341.16 827.93 2169.08 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.57 50.00 2.57 313500 8.22 1948.11 681.48 2181.13 4810.73 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.25 51.60 2.65 141500 3.71 5259.91 703.29 984.47 6947.66 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.57 26200 0.69 0.00 681.48 182.28 863.77 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.30 50.00 2.57 63000 1.65 4091.04 681.48 438.31 5210.83 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF NOY 30 22 5 47.0 14.78 95.00 4.88 400000 10.48 18312.26 1294.82 2782.95 22390.03 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS JOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.04 50.00 2.57 81200 2.13 2532.55 681.48 564.94 3778.97 13-117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 3 15.0 4.72 75.00 3.85 116500 2.79 5844.34 1022.22 740.96 7607.52 13- 117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.57 18100 0.47 0.00 681.48 125.93 807.41 13- 117-24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 10 25.0 7.86 100.00 5.13 160100 4.20 9740.57 1362.96 1113.87 12217.40 13-117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERSIx BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.89 23.50 1.21 48000 1.26 2337.74 320.30 333.95 2991.99 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 11 0.0 0.00 85.10 4.37 75500 1.98 0.00 1159.88 525.28 1685.16 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 3 7.5 2.36 62.00 3.18 88400 2.32 2922.17 845.04 615.03 4382.24 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 3.93 74.00 3.80 58800 1.54 4870.28 1008.59 409.09 6287.97 14 -117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.59 15000 0.39 0.00 954.08 104.36 1058.44 13- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 45 2.5 0.79 66.66 3.42 178900 4.69 974.06 908.55 1244.67 3127.28 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 207.91 10.67 387400 10.15 0.00 2833.74 2695.28 5529.02 14- 117-24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 0 42.0 13.21 58.00 2.98 224800 5.89 16364.15 790.52 1564.02 18718.69 14- 117 -24 44 0037 RUSTIQUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.72 32.50 1.67 85800 2.25 5844.34 442.96 596.94 6884.24 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.26 112.00 5.75 51000 1.34 1558.49 1526.52 354.83 3439.84 14- 117 -24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.12 40.00 2.05 153500 4.02 11299.06 545.19 1067.96 12912.20 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 11 5.5 1.73 50.00 2.57 171100 4.48 2142.92 681.48 1190.41 4014.81 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NET.KA 17 0 4 13.0 4.09 27.00 1.39 96000 2.52 5065.09 368.00 667.91 6101.00 13-117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.94 29.30 1.50 65900 1.73 1168.87 399.35 458.49 2026.71 13- 117 -24 33 0049 3IG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.03 80.00 4.11 105500 2.76 6233.96 1090.37 734.00 8058.34 13-117 -74 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGQUIST 15 2 4 13.0 4.09 60.00 3.08 101300 2.65 5065.09 817.78 704.78 6587.65 13- 117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.20 49.99 2.57 108000 2.83 2727.36 681.35 751.40 4160.10 445 167 294 318.0 100.00 1947.96 100.00 3816100 100.00 123900.00 26550 26550 177000.00 REVISED 10 -22-90 Alt. 3 • PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION #90- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 3020 HIGHLAND BOULEVARD, LOT 7, BLOCK 2, HIGHLANDS ADDITION, PID #23- 117 -24 -41 0013 P & Z CASE #90 -935 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 23, 1990, pursuant to the Mound Code of Ordinances to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an oversized accessory building at 3020 Highland Boulevard, Lot 7, Block 2, Highlands Addition, PID #23- 117 -24 -41 0013; and WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a 16' x 24' addition onto an existing 24' x 24' detached accessory building resulting In 960 square feet of floor area; and • WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R -1 Single Family Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Mound Zoning Code allows accessory structures that exceed 840 square feet of floor area in Residential Dis- tricts subject to issuance of a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that a Conditional Use Permit for an oversized accessory building is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The garage space is to be used by the occupant only. 2. A landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the City Planner to ensure adequate foundation screening for the adjacent neighbors to the north. 3. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the follow- ing legally described property: • Lot 7, Block 2, Highlands, PID #23- 117 -24 -41 0013 (3020 Highland Boulevard). /i RESOLUTION #90- • PAGE 2 This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the County Recorded or the Registrar of Titles In Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statues section 462.3595. Subd. 4. This shall be considered as a restriction on how this property may be used. 4. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. Proof of recording shall be filed with the City Clerk. I' MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 24. 1990 Case No. 90 -9351 Douglas t Carol Farmer. _ :. 3 Highland Blvd., Lot 7. Block 2. Highlands. PiD 423- 117-24 -41 0013, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BUILDING. (PUBLIC HEARING). Building Official, Jor, Sutherland. reviewed the applicant's request to build a 16' x 24' addition onto an existing 24' x 24' detached accessory building. The square footage of the finished accessory building would total 960 square feet which exceeds the 840 square foot minimum without a conditional use permit. The P -osed addition and the existing garage conforms to r - red setbacks. The applicant's request appears to meet the c it >ria for granting a conditional use permit. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit as requested. The applicant. Doug Farmer, spoke on his behalf and explained the reason for the garage expansion Is to store two 1939 antique cars, which is his hobby. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. David & Linda Jagerson. abutting neighbors to the subject property. spoke In opposition of the proposed garage expansion. They noted the following reasons: 1. The use Is nonconforming to the residential nature of the neighborhood. 2. The lots In the area are too narrow. 3. The Increase In hard cover. 4. They plan to construct a foyer addition In the near future, and their view from It would br obstructed by the garage. Mueller noted that. including both the garage and the house, only 18% of the lot will be covered. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. The Commission expressed concern regarding the use of the garage. and how they can prevent a commercial use to appear In the fu- ture. After further discussion regarding the aesthetics of the garage, the following motion was made. MOTION m; • ueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recom- mend app,: ov_ , l the conditional use permit to allow a 960 square foot garage as proposed, with the following stipula+lonst 1) the garage space is to be used by the occupant only, and 2) the applicant is to submit a landscaping plan for approval by the City Planner to determine that adequ foundation screening is provided (especially to the side of the structure). Motion carried 7 to I (those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Muel- ler, Thal, Meyer, Jensen, Smltn and Michaels Voss was opposed) . Voss stated his reason for ooposing Is that he sees potential for fut.., abuse of the use. This case will be heard by the City Council at a public hearing schedules October 23, 1990. 30 t) MouNoC4ycovnz,I. " C����E� OCT i ? `D t G ven \e� Nouw v, k i �� . L Io tiTwC7 e }�%y�tKkDS 0 491541 9 ; A44w-p e I� / 1a t f CJoq e-, Lad, a /) Te e L - r e4ly 1Wi1,'/M1Z -e- /�/7 4 �ol e ZAV5� - ,V.14(� 11 -Ale- llOee5dp Off/ /J1�/ �/�it�I>SG1`y /rl/6� /�11• .Ueve �~ 7o dd fi� �1iwef-ci,-L iw rk / n /n • I o der- cif-rs arG wl tee. y ,"o l o o Sep f-dd /1141 a,/ L 6e So�,-,c�� y JL #c e fD 4401• 4 pN li e-v Awp f Sto/"G 7V,, . rov9.A out +Ke, qfrr - pre, - Go r Tidies / -rwn moWe�S � Sn b 1 o we r 5 � e.�e. • i io cr�ln -eke LcoI o`F m, ne 6oncCaD b� remou6Aa ALL my Veh 0e5 -aon\ h� i i 3og S►nc�rely� Do 0 6 F , &( - me f-- C �T �� �• �7/ I 30-T ,r r �40 - - -- -- - - - _ c - - _ • "` 12 1990 i * Btick U lo� r � . r t' f� ,�� zG//iF,d�x•�.�i �7 �? vet �7 N l�s z,•� ,ter-- �. r - . ..• .�A•��T� ••r I. � � �il•1 iT�. /� Y �. • „ I f' LA r je pc rficN �.-E IL w�LL . , YE Ae,z0 fle eve r -s 3og� T lttilC ce,� s;d „ xlE ; L� I e�C�CS�� Ala c.L �s •, ,' • CITY Of MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND M 55364 (612) 472 -1155 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERSIZED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 3020 HIGHLAND BOULEVARD. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the School District Board Room at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., Mound, Minnesota at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 1990 to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an oversized accessory building to be constructed at 3020 Highland Boulevard, legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Highlands. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given the opportunity to be ',.card. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" October 1, 1990, and mailed to property owners within 350' on October 12, 1990. • �• - .� 'J - r ^..1' .7 .. ���� d" ):. ,, x'.VA STAFF RECOMMENDATION DATE: TO: FROM: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBJECT: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of September 24, 1990 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official �• 90 -935 Douglas & Carol Farmer 3020 Highland Blvd. Lot 7, Block 2, Highlands PID #23- 117 -24 -41 0013 Conditional Use Permit R -I Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 16' x 24' addition to the existing detached garage that would bring the total square footage of the garage floor area to 960 square feet. Any accessory building in excess of 840 square feet requires a C o n d i t i o n a l Use Permit (Zoning Code Section 23.407(3)). COMMENTS The proposed addition and the existing garage conforms to all required s,:tbacks. The applicant's request appears to meet the criteria for a granting of a Conditional Use Permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a 16' x 24' addition to an existing 24' x 24' garage for a total of 960 square feet as shown on the site plan. Th i s case w i l l be heard by the C i ty Counc 11 on October 23, 1990. Property owners within 350 feet of the subject property were notified of this public hearing. 0 • 3Og0 . CITY OF MOUND sEP 12 � CIT1yA MOU ND c6 : 14 gter q -11A0 Case No. q —q Date Filed - - 90 Fee__ X200 _00 _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PLANNING b ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property �`/�� 116 /f 4"1 E Lot S�' L'e n _ Block T om: o Addition he- L tk L S PID No. -;23 Owner's Name a C LAS �Cqv -A FA i . r _ Day Phone De , c Owner's Address - 5G' C, i, LA , \; D 331u M C c ti r) Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address____ Day Phone Existing Use of Property: Zoning District ,e / Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance,_ri tonal use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? a no If yes, list dates) of application, action taken, and provide reso ut on numbers) (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. I 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, maintairing and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature , "'mil' "�!���' ! /!'!tt�`�� Date Q 1 2 /////////////// /////// 111111 111111 1 1IIIII / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /// /////1111/ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: P l a n n i n g Commission Recommendat i on_ Date • Counc i 1 Act ion: Resolution No. Date_____ _ "„ 55 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Page Two Case No. A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is reC3 nested: 1. C o n d i t i o n a l Use ( spgc i fy) : Ctcc essn - a = S 2. Current Zonln% and DesignatiAn.in the future and Use Plan for Mound: R - C. Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the pro- posed development. 2. Estimated cost of the project: ; D. Density (for residential developments only): 1. Number of structures:_ C 2. Dwelling units per structure: a. number per unit type: efficiency_ I bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom ^1 n 3. Lot area per dwe I I i ng un i t: 4. Total lot area: E. E ffects of the Proposed Use: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity. including, but not limited to traffic, noise. light, smoke /odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. - { 1, e, - -- - - _ - - - - -- t�l �Ill�f °nAf- trot M r /,r 30� D �'E1!1tL D p %n. • • a a n 10, 4(04 5�4 tr, CO 1 r I�F 9 po CIN S C A -l e P/ = 3a' �? /;-: y! Lot SPven 6 ) AA ,/�, WIT f ,� I i i II 1� ►I V Y I d s - X2� oll � 0 ti ar'Q� E$L�p='��2� ti. cr .,,•u� RD a 'i 0 E �0 -Q3s ZONING REQUIREMENTS ADDRESS s a Zn 1 C] �1 0�'1 1/ • 1 1 APPLICANT: n y00a V COLM I (,�rme r LOTS ! SLKs _ADDN: ZONE. REQUIRED LOT AREA i (3 , OD 0 EXISTING LOT AREA: REQUI SETBACKS I FRONT ' go LAf,& :5 fl ` 4 LarI SIDE: ��,;.��Qr Z�l•�7 � =�1 b� SIDES REAR: 15 feet LAKESHORE: 50 feet E XISTING a PROPOSED SETBACKS FRONT: 7 ZS � - - to lorckkO_ s SIDE: �[� �oLAlm i = SIDE: �Z norms REARS 2.3Z' s 3 LAKESHORE: f ; DATE:gJ-Ll/ � By: 4voo ,..... , PROPOSED RESOLUTION 0 RESOLUTION #90- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION LOTS 2, 3, a 4, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 167, PID y,4- 117 -24 -44 0002 a 0004, (23:39 b 2345 COMMERCE BLVD.) P&Z CASE ##90 -936 WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of Lots 2, 3. & 4, Auditors Subdivision No. 167, PID #14- 117 -24 -44 0002 & 0004 has been sub- mitted in the manner required for platting of land under City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly ccn- ducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, an app l i cat i on to wa i ve the subd i v i s i on requ i re- ments contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been raviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special cir- • cumstances affecting said property such that the strict applica- tion of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The request of the applicant for a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as follows: PID #14- 117 - 24 -44 0002: Lots 2 and 3, Auditor's Sub- division No. 167, Except That part of Lot Three (3), Auditor's Subdivision No. 167 lying South of a line drawn from a point rn the West line of said Lot 3 dis- tant 17 and 4110 feet North from the Southwest corner thereof; thence Easterly 110 feet along a line which if extended would intersect the East line of said Lot dis- tant 2 and 1/10 feet North from the Southeast corner thereof; thence South 5/10 feet; thence West parallel with the last described East -West line distant 10 feet Proposed Resolution Case No. 90 -936 Page 2 to an intersection with a lire perpendicular to the South line of said Lot from a point distant 100 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof; thence South along the last described line to a point 9 and 246/1000 feet North from the South line thereof; thence Southeasterly 10 feet to center of a 12 inch stone wall of the State Bank of Mound Building; thence Easterly along the center line of said wall, distant 56 `eet to a point 4 and 2110 feet North at right angles from the South line of said Lot; thence continuing Easterly along the center of said Wall to a point in the East line of said Lot, distant I and 6/10 feet North from the Southeast corner thereof. (Abstract) PID #14- 117 - 2 4 -44 On04: Lot 4 except that part thereof lying south of a line drawn from the Southeast corner of said Lot 4 to a point on the West line of said Lot 4 distant 14.82 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof, Auditor's Subdivision Number 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota; • That part of Lot 3. Auditor's Subdivision Number 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 3; thence North along the Easterly line of said Lot, 1.6 feet; thence Westerly to a point 34 feet Westerly from the East line of said Lot and 4.2 feet North of the Soutn line of said Lot 3; thence extending Westerly on a straight line a distance of 56 feet to a point 130 feet distant from the Easterly lot lino of said Lot. 3 and 9.246 feet North of the South line of sa id Lot 3; thence South 9.246 feet to the South line of said lot; thence East along said South line of Lot 3 to point of beginning; according to the plats thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. Subject to the Party Wall Agr^ement of record in Book 1903 of Deeds on Page 26; (as to Lot 4, Auditor's Sub - di.i�.ion Number 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota). AND ALSO, That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167, l y i ng South of a l i n e drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 3, distant 2.l feet North of the • 3047 Proposed Resolution • Case No. 90 -936 Page 3 Southeast corner thereof, to a point on the West line of s a i d Lot 3, distant 1 7.4 feet North of the Sol.-*_hwest corner thereof, except the East 100 feet I`iereof, said 100 feet measured along the aforesaid described line and also, the North 0.5 feet of the West 10.0 feet of the East 100 feet of that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Sub - i %vision 167, lying South of a line drawn from a point ,_i the East line of said Lot 3, distant 2.1 feet north of she Southeast corner thereof to a point on the West line of Lot 3, distant 17.0 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof excepting therefrom that part of Lot 3 described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southeast corner of Lot 3; thence North along the Easterly line of said Lot, 1.6 feet; thence Westerly to a point 34 feet Westerly from the East line of said Lot and 4.2 feet North of the South line of said Lot 3; thence extending Westerly on a straight line a distance of 56 feet to a point 100 feet distant from the easterly line of said Lot 3, and 9.246 feet North of the South line of said Lot 3; thence South 9.246 feet to the South line of said Lot, thence East along the South sine of said Lot 3 to the point of beg 1nnIrig. All according *o the map or plat thereof on file or of record 1n the office of the Register of Deeds 1n and for said County. 2. It is hereby granted to permit 'the subdivision as per the following descriptions (see the attached Exhibit 'A'): Parc A: Lot 2 and that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Sub- division No. 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of the following described line Commenc- ing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence north along the West line of said Lot 3 a distance of 17.4 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting right 90 degrees 08 minutes 14 seconds a distance of 109.00 feet; thence easterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 3 dis- tant I.12 feet north, as measures] along said East line, from the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, and said line there ending. e� Proposed Resolution Case No. 90 -936 Page 4 Parcel 8 : - (hat part L -t 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies Sou herly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence north along the West line of said Lot 3 a distance of 17.4 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting right 90 degrees 08 minutes 14 seconds a distance of 109.00 feet; thence easterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 3 dis- tant 1.1- feet north, as measkircia along said East line, from the Southeast corner of s a i d Lot 3, and s a i d l i n e there ending, anJ that part of Lot 4•, Auditor's Sub- division No. 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which l i e s norther' of a l i n e drawn from the Southeast cor- net sir i d Lot 4, to a point in the West l i n e of s a i d Lot 4 diitanc 14.82 feet north of the Southwest corner thereof. 3. It is r+c- termined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. 4. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant. The ap- p'icant shall have the responsibility For filing this resolution in the o'rIce of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles rf Hennepin County to show com- pliance with the subdivision regulations of the _ity. The aorjlicanc shall also have the responsibility of rjay i ng a l 1 costs for such recording. 5. his lot subdivision is to be filed and record ^d within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. • 3o9R M 1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for State Bank Of Mound t } w �i in Lots 2 and 3. Auditor's Subdivision No, 167 Hennepin County, Minnesota 7A • fff. Af Parcel A I� A' J4/ twin .� Parcel B I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of Scale i" 20' e boundaries of Lot 2 and that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 16J, Nennipen County, Minnesota, which Iles Northerly oY I the following described Date Iron M 8 line' Commencing at the Southwest corner of satd Lot 3; thence north along d ron Marker the West line of said Lot 3 a distance of 17,4 feet to the Pont of Of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting right deg C9 minutes is seconds a distance of 109.00 feet; thence easterly to a point ° (/ lac ° on the East line of Bald Lot 3 distant 1,12 feet north, as measured along M `, i sand East line, from the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, and said line Z ^ 2 there ending and the location of all e.isttng buildings thereon. It does rot Vurpnrt t^ Show any other improvements or encroachments. ��_ ; C 1� • COFFIN A G40NRERG, INC, + r '� - O . Mark S. Gronberg Lic, No. 12557 • pl f ° Surveyors, Engineers and Land Planning Z 17 w rn ID p.l to O ~ y O 1 w O t • O .. v. , ♦; �► ♦ 1; - 1 i Parcel A I� A' J4/ twin .� Parcel B I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of Scale i" 20' e boundaries of Lot 2 and that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 16J, Nennipen County, Minnesota, which Iles Northerly oY I the following described Date Iron M 8 line' Commencing at the Southwest corner of satd Lot 3; thence north along d ron Marker the West line of said Lot 3 a distance of 17,4 feet to the Pont of Of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting right deg C9 minutes is seconds a distance of 109.00 feet; thence easterly to a point ° (/ lac ° on the East line of Bald Lot 3 distant 1,12 feet north, as measured along M `, i sand East line, from the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, and said line Z ^ 2 there ending and the location of all e.isttng buildings thereon. It does rot Vurpnrt t^ Show any other improvements or encroachments. ��_ ; C 1� • COFFIN A G40NRERG, INC, + r '� - O . Mark S. Gronberg Lic, No. 12557 • pl f ° Surveyors, Engineers and Land Planning Z 17 w rn ID p.l to O ~ y O 1 w MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION October 8, 1990 F • 4W Case No. 90 -936: Paul Meisel & Koenig & Schwert, 2339 & 2345 Commerce Blvd., Lots 2, 3, & 4, Auditors Subd. #167, PID #14 -117- 24-44 0002 & 0004. MINOR SUBDIVISION. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicants request for a minor subdivision to correct the dividing property line. Currently, the building on Lot 4 Is encroaching into part of Lot 3. Both parcels will meet the required lot area of 7,500 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivi- sion. • MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Smith, to approve the minor subdivision as requested. Motion carried un- animously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on October 23, 1990. • 31D1 1 ('I V Y ()f Nl( )('. \D STAFF RECOMMENDATION DATE: TO: FROM; CASE NO.: APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBJECT: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of October 8, 1990 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official 90 -936 Paul Meisel, c/o Reed & Pond, Ltd. 2339 8 2345 Commerce Blvd. Lots 2. 3, 8 4, Auditors Subdivision 167, PID #14- 117 -24 -44 0002 & 0004 Minor Subdivision B -I Central Business District The existing building on Lot 4 is encroaching into part of Lot 3 on the subject property. Both parcels, as proposed, will meet the required lot area of 7,500 square feet. RECO MME ND ATION There is a need for a subdivision to correct the dividing property line. Please note letter dated March 2' 1990 from . Bertrand to Roger Reed. Staff recommends approval of the minor •ubddivision request. NOTE T h i s case w i l l be he;jrci by 1-he City Counc i t on October ?3, 1990. The abutt i nq ne i cIhbor s hav, been notified. • CITY OF MOUND • FEES: p u U� Case No. _ 20 9 :�) L R« 331 a3 CITY nF Mnl Win Date F i 1 ed q - 9 O APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVi OF LAND Minor Sub Application $50 Park Ded. Other Delinquent TdA__? yes � no 7 Major Subdivision: Preliminary Plat Final Plat Escrow Deposit Park Dedication $150 $100 $1 , 000 Other (Please type or print the following information.) (attorney) App 1 i cant' s Name _Arthur Pau 1 Me i cp 1 Day Phone 472 -2222 c/o Reed & Pond, Ltd., P.O. Box 9, Applicant's Address MinnPCnta 55364 Arthur Paul Meisel Fee Owner(s) Patriria A Me isel print name _P.O. Box 258_ Mound MN 55364 mailing address • Signature of Fee Owner Koenig & Schwert _ print name 2305 Commerce Blvd Mound MN_ 553 mailing address KOENIG & SCHWERT B Signature of Fee Owner This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Property to be divided: Address /Location 2339 Commerce Boulevard Addition Auditors Subdivision 167 Lot Lot 3 Block _ PID # 14-117-2 4-44-0002/0004 Plat To be di vided as f o l l o w s : 3 `l of proposed subdivision: Ex sting Use of Property: C Zoning District: S- I __ 3/0,5 LAW OFFICES A THOMAS WORST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, PA JAMES D . LARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CNAIG M MERTZ ROGER J FELLOWS WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ A PANINCNSNI• INCLUOING .001[SS10 A, ASSOCIATIONS 1100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 July 9, 1990 Mr. Roger Reed Attorney at Law P.U. Box 9 Mound, MN 55364 -0009 Dear Roger: Re: Property Division TELEPHONE • 16121 .»e - 4ZOO FA% NUMBER 16121 336 2629 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 2, 1990, concerning the Meisel property. It is my understanding you have applied for a subdivision under the Mound Code of ordinances and that the property has been surveyed and we have the new correct descriptions. I believe you are proceeding in the correct manner, and unless something comes up during the process that I am not aware of, it 'looks to me like this is pretty much a procedural matter, and I would recommend the City execute the partial release of mortgage at the conclusion of the subdivision proceeding. Very truly yours, CAP:lh cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney City of Mound • • 3 1 oq 'WEI VED JUL 3 N% REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHORELINE DRIVE P.O. 9 MOUND. MINNESOTA 56384 -0009 PHONE (612) 472.2222 FAX (612) 472.22S4 ROGER W_ REED Rawl Property Law Spoclallat• PAUL L POND civil Trial Specialist- •Cartlllad by the ANmesola State Bar Aatoctatlon July 2, 1990 Mr. Curtis A. Pearson 1100 First Dank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Curt: RICHARD N. INDRITZ SCOTT P. HEINS LINDA ESENTHER KAY L DUNN [pal Ass/stant Enclosed is a copy of a letter I sent to Jan Bertrand March 12, 1990, a copy of the survey and a copy of a proposed Partial Release of Mortgage. These documents have not been located at the City office. At the same time, we are requesting that the legal descriptions on the two tax parcels be adjusted to reflect the actual occupancy of the property. We are asking that the City execute this partial release on its mortgage. Please let me know what I may do to expedite this matter. Very truly yours, REED & POND, LTD. Roger W. Reed RWR:wl1 Enclosures cc: Mr. and Mrs. A. Paul Meisel Mr. Mark Koegler City of Mound 3 to CITY Of MOUND MOUND. MINNESOT OAD 55364 (612) 472 -1155 March 22, 1990 Roger Reed Reed & Pond Ltd. 5424 Shoreline Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Roger: I have been advised by Curt Pearson, City Attorney, that you need to file for a subdivision to correct the dividing line at the former Mound Bank building. Enclosed please find an application for a minor subdivision which needs to be filed with our office by April 18, 1990; your case will then be heard by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1990 and by the City Council on May 22, 1990. If you have further questions or need fuither assistance, please contact our office. Since / o- an Bertrand Building Official JB:pJ 90/39 s • 3 ��� ( �, r1 d ' our ,r dir It t r I r1i d� f'.5 t0 of I ^I �,• 1 I,I , t !' REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHORELINE DRIVE P.O. BOX 9 MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364.0009 PHONE (612) 472 -2222 FAX (612) 472.2254 ROGER W. REED Real Property Law Specialist- PAUL L POND Civil Trial Spedallst• •Cortlllod by tAo Mlnnosota Slate Bar Association March 12, 1990 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attention: Jan Bertrand RICHARD N. INDRrfZ JEFFREY S. REMICK SCOTT P. HEINS KAY L DUNN Legal Assistant Dear Jan: • We are in the process of clarifying the lot line between the former State Bank of Mound building and the Koenig & Schwert building next door. These two buildings have a common wall. I enclose a copy of the Party Wall Agreement dated July 11, 1951, which was recorded October 4, 191, as Document No. 2716972 in Book 1903 of Deeds, Page 26. 1 also enclose a signed modification of this Party Wall Agreement, a survey by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. and a proposed Partial Lease of Mortgage concerning the City of Mound mortgage to Koenig & Schwert. As you can see from the enclosed survey, the legal description as shown in the property identification numbers does not correspond with the actual location of the building. Also, the present property identification number description has a peculiar switchback in it which describes a small portion of the south property to be north of the north property and vice versa. We request the approval of the City in adjusting the lot lines as shown. The parties have executed Quit Claim Deeds as well as the enclosed Modification of Party Wall Agreement Because the City of Mound has a mortgage on the Koenig & Schwert property, we are • 3/07 City of Mound March 12, 1990 . Page 2 requesting the Ci of Mound to execute a partial release which releases a tiny potion of the land described in the mortgage because it is part of the old bank building property. Please let me know if there is any further information or documentation which you require. Very truly yours, REED & tIOND, LTD. Roger W. Reed RWR:szg Enclosutes cc: Mr. William R. Koenig Mr. and Mrs. A. Paul Meisel Marquette Bank Mound i s • 3[Qg AH - -- Y II r- 0 N ZONI REQUIREMENTS 0. • ` ? s t ADDRESS : 13 6. o .Q �. 12 7 v 11 M 9 r APPLICANT: X 11 C� I 4 LOT : BLK AODN : IBC' —7 ZONE: n REQUIRED LOT AREA: l� 4 EXISTING LOT AREA: 7: REQUIRED SETBACKS FRONT- \g � ew? SIDE: , SIDE: , REAR: , LAKESHORE: 50 feet EXISTING 8 PROPOSED SETBACKS / ( FRONT: 1 SIDE: , SIDE: , REAR: , LAKESHORE: , DATE: _/ BY ..a i i i i i i l � � r r4 N V aA 7 N IS 0. • ` ? s t 13 6. o .Q �. 12 7 v 11 M 9 r x 0 rr. •, I — �z �OT 4 't fy 01 S 7: A. THOMAS WURST, P.A CURTIs A PtARSON. P.A JAMts D. LA RlON. P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD. P A CRAIG M MCRT: Roato J FtLtows LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERW' OD & MERTZ A PARTRRftS-P 14 CIVDINO PROrCSSIONAL ASSOC -TIOM• 1100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5402 TCL• *MONt I6121 334 -4800 rAx NuMetR October 15, 1990 16 "• _•_$ Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: arf D or' T : 6 1990 Roger Reed has sent me a copy of his letter of October 12, 1990, addressed to you This matter can be on the Council agenda for October 23, 1990, authoriz l the Mayor and Manager to sign the partial release of mortgage. ere CAP:lh r A. Pearson Ci Attorney • • • �31Io REED & POND, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5424 SHORELINE DRIVE e P.O. BOX f MOUND. MINNESOTA 5584 -0000 PHONE (612) 472 -2222 FAX (612) 472 -2254 ROGER W. REED Real Property Lai Specialist- PAUL L POND CwVI7*d CIr/J Trial Speoalld- •Ca+rtltled by the Minnesota Stale Bar Association October 12, 1990 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attn: Edward J. Shukle, Jr. Dear Ed: RICHARD N. INDRlTZ LINDA ESENTHER STE" G THAI. PA �t� OCT L DUNN KC OC I . J I Lapd I enclose a copy of a letter I received from Curtis A. Pearson • dated July 9, 1990, a copy of the mortgage from Koenig and Schwert to the city recorded as Document No. 4909595 and two copies of the proposed Partial Release of Mortgage. We are requesting the Partial Release along with the minor subdivision under Case 90 - 936 which is on your agenda for October 23. We are requesting two executed copies of the Partial Release because the property is part torrens and part abstract. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Your cooperation is appreciated. very truly yours, REED & POND, LTD. Roger W. Reed RWR:bw Enclosures cc: Paul and Pat Meisel Curtis A. Pearson 311 LAW OFFICES A. TN'.)MAS W URST, P.A. CUPfIS A. PEARSON. P.A Jhwca D LARSON. P.A THOMAS F. UNDCRwOOO, P.A. CRAIG, M MERT2 ROGicw J FELLOWS WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ w ►AwTft CNS n 1NCLVD.wG ►IWI�Sf10NAL AS60C. —GN6 oioo FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 July 9, 1990 Mr. Roger Reed Attorney at Law P.C. Box 9 Mound, MN 55364 -0009 Dear Roger: Re: Property Division TELCrHONC IsaI 336-+aOO FAX NUMSCR (MR) 336-2625 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 2, 1990, concerning the Meisel property. It is my understanding you have applies: for a subdivision under the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the property has been surveyed and we have the new correct descriptions. I believe you are proceeding in the correct manner, and unless something comes up during the process that I am not aware of, it looks to me like this is pretty much a procedural matter, and I would recommend the City execute the partial release of mortgage at the conclusion of the subdivision proceeding. Very truly yours, CAP:lh cc: Mr. Rd Shukle, City Manager Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney City of Mound • L ' C7 aria MORTGAGE 49 0959 cr • TNIE MOIITOAOL Mad. thle yCh derr 01 _ Ju t E 8 . bNwwn Koart Sc' a ert � - — � n Mlneeoot cierterel ra of HQYkkiDii7t —county. State of KLnnlaota Mortgagor, and _ War of Hcxm .,, A corporation under the laws of _ . Mortgages. — — WITNISSETM, Matookor in consideration of a ben end any future advances renewals and extensions from Mongoose does Grant. Mortgage and Convey to Mortgagee, with power of sale. Forever, the (Glow" described real property situated in the County of HeilftAtllfl State of Minnesota, to -win: tree a ttacted Unal) Exempt from Registration Tax Dept- Property Taxation in County Y l ' .0 c,t -� vI- J Which has the street .duress of —• Minnesota. hw$M "Promisee'. TO HAVE AND TO MOLD TMl SAMP. Together with the buildings, improvements and appurtenances thereto belonging to the said Mortgagee. And the said Mongspor does covenant that he Is lawfully seised of sold promises and has good right co soft and Convey the same; G the same am I.ae from ea Incwnorcncas, _ oublect to a fi ru t fr in fAwr of nk the State Ba of ttwd Ln the anhomt of 527, 500 00 and a 9 M4tq, to the .State Bank of heed In the a=mt! of M.500 that the Mongoose sha gtrletly, artoy and poetess the some; and that the Mortgagor win Warrant and Deland the title to the sems Against H lawful claims not hera4tbefors specifically excepted. PROVIDEO NEVIRTHELI /E, That If the said Mortgagor shah pay to the :ad Mortgagoe the sum of IS _1S o0 1 Donors, according to the tams of his promissory note of even date herewith together with interest thereon as provided M the note, or if Interest has been precomputed than together with such Interest, at Its office a1 tknsd li i n p—gotA • This montage ahN stand to security for any end N future advances and/or refinancings up to the amount Mown above. Mongsoa Malt fuMa repay to said Montages at the tines and with Interest es heir rafter specified, as sums advanced In protect- Ing the loan of this mortgage, In payment of tones on old promisee, Insurance premiums covering buildings thereon, principal or In1emN On arty prior glens, expenses herein provided for and sums advanced for any other purpose authoriaoo herein, and shall keep and perform alt the covenants and agreements heroin contained. After complete payment of oil amounts described above and extanelona, renewals and refInartcingo of sold turns this mortgage Is to be released it the Mortgagor's expense Mortgages agrees 10 give Mortgagor a conformed copy of the promissory note referred to above, and a copy of this montage, H the time they are e■• acuted Of within a reasonable time after this mortgage Is recorded. N alt Of arty pan of the Promises Is sold or Vonsfamed by Mongogor without Mortgages's prior written consent, except as haraah r provided, Montages may declare all the sums secured by this mortgage to be Immediately due and payable 'f the pro- coeds of this mortgage we used to finance the purhaet of Mortgagoes primary residence. Mortgagee shall consent to the tubes - gwnt transfer of :he Promises If the existing Mongugor Continues after transfer to be obligated for repayment of the entire remain• Inc Idwteensm The Mortgages shah release the erlatint Mongogor from an obligations under the loan Instruments If the trans - fora (1) meets the standards of creditworthiness nomraft) used by persons in the bualness of making lours. Including but not limited to th7 ability of transferee to make the loan psymews and utlsfectorsy maintain the Premises used as collateral and 121 executes on atraematd In writing with the Manages whereby the tr materee assumes the obngovore of the existing Mortgagor under the loon Instruments. Any etch agreement wilt not affect the priority, validity or enforceability of any ban Instrument. Montages may charge 1 lee not In •seats of one•lonth of one percent of the remaInrmg unpaid principal balance In the avant the ben Is assumed by the transfer" Ind the existing Mortgagor COA Mws after the transfer to be obligated for repayment of the entire aswmed Indoblednem. Motgag a may charge a fee not In sums of One percent of the rem#Kng unpaid principal balance In the event the ramalting Mdobtednese Is mounted by the transferee and the •dating Monjegor is released from ah obligations under the loan Instruments bnA In no event shalt the fee exceed gIEO. •�^�..- .�..-- .,,...,.,..,. And Monpagor does hereby vovenenl and Some with the Mon @V4 '11V lit .%Y, t , x IYow �.Ow due or that may Mnaha become Sane agalmol mid premise• it lent ten days Worn e1Ua;Ps w 0 b arm �n4 p Insured t0 the eel. lefectlon of the Mortgagee, M bulldinga and Improvement. now w , e r'�1}Q et r domope by tin or windelorm, and other haisrda of such typo or types. In such arm a U may be r• Iuired by thrh;arl , In any such comps - fly or oompanlea is may be spproyed by the Matgeg". the 1041, N any, to be psyobN to the Montages, is Its interest may appear at the time of the late, and wit delver laid pointy of pONCIp of Insurance to the MOngages and, except when payment for all such premiums hen theretofore been mods, will promptly pay whom due as pmeniums for such Inwronce. to pay, whom der , both princi- pal Sid Interlat Of N prior fine of Incumbrancas, 11 any, above mentioned and to keep sold pr amlets free and clear of all other prior Ilms - Inc imbrencm, to commit of permit no vraale on and premises and 10 keep them In good repair, to complete forthwith any • Im;wc"mante which may hereafter be under enures of Cenatruction tharron, and to pay any other sxpensoe Incurred by said Mort• gap" by Mason of lttlgation with any third pony for the protection or the No of Ala montage The M—oapa does freer covens t and agree that If any I an fora labor, "O• material Mall be rued for record dyeing the aft Of that m0rigaed . w n of ••shat the premlaee hereby mongaged, the asld Mortgagor wilt, within thtny days ah►r the day of Its hang for rao04111, NC «pay off the $Ad ion and mcwtt Its mbefactlon of record, of wet protect the Montages against an lost or damage grew" out of Ks enforcement, by deposit" with the mortgagoo the amount olaum to be due on sold non, or by furnish. "a bad for lht, Same amount In the form and with the svreges to W approved by the Mortoegoe N the validity of said wan shah " est►bW#d either by agreement of the knot And the Mortgagor or by • 10101 odludlcetion, the Mortgagee may use so much of the money deposited with R. es aroretald. so may be necessary fa the ;wrPON, to ply on and discharge sold lien. resuming any wrptua to the Morteeoor 3�r3 And M M hereby stipulated and agreed that M Casa tow Monpegor shoo neglect or led to help s. -dngs conttnuaey n -ad Or to pay the premiums far insurance. or the tames Of assessment& as horsin stipulated. on MOAgagv arch case does hareby bargain, ale. assign and set over unto the Mongapse, • .» rs^t& and moneys winch, whether baton a aher foreclosure or d.,nng time Po r of redemption until the feel and complete pre rent Of the Hid ton" and said premwms, shoo accrue gnu be Owing for the we ON Occupation of ­4 sad ►mmse• and of the buildings thereon, or of any pan thereof. and lot the purpose eforessd. dump the Ume last aforesaid. the Mortgagor apn.s :tat Mortgagee may rer.elve, COEact and receipt for aI sums due or owing fur such seas and Occupation, at ..e items accrue, and out of the amount 60 collected may pay end discharge ON tines. assessments and pre• m►rms far insurance upon said premises. so far IL t Will ►o Collected by it shoo be sulfa mt for that purpose. paying the overphre, If any. to Mortgagor. In use of flows to pay said lases and assessments. prior hens or incumbrences, expenses, as above specified. Of to name said buildings and deliver the policies as aforesaid. the'MOngagee may pay such taxes. sesessmants, prior hens, expenses and enter- set thereon, Or effect such Insurance, and the sums eo paid shoo bear Interest at the highest rate Permitted by law from the date of such payment aid be impressed es an additional ban upon sold promises and be immedutaly due and payable from the Mortgagor 10 1 and this mortgage shoo from date thereof secure the repayment of such advances with interest. N there Is a default under any of the terms and provisions of this mortgage, of the promisory note secured by this monpape, the Mortgagee has the right to foreclose this mortgage according to Mimesoto Statutes before beginning such foreclosure, the Mortgages woo send a written notice of any dafauh wrier the I area Or Conditions of the promrsory nob a m0npage to the Mortgagor, $filing fcth 11) the nature of the default by the Mongayor and the action required to cure the e Of On the deb he by whkh the default mutt be cured Ithls date must be not lass than 30 days from the date the notice is mailed d of the Mort h dat Ib0 days U this Is a "I mongagel; q) that failure to Cure the default on or before the dab specified in the notice may result N acce*ra- lion of the sums secured by the mtI"1pepe and eels 01 the mortgaged ►remises; 141 that the Mortgagor has the right to reinstate the "+0"19898 after acceleration, 151 that the Mortgagor has the right !0 bring a court action to assts the nonexistence of a default or any other defense of the MOnpapor to acceleration and sale. The Mortgagee does not need to send this notice If this clef" consists Of the Mortgagor •afling the mortgaged properly without the required consent of the Mortgages. The notice will be sent by unified M4111 to the address of the morthaged property at such other address as the Mortgagor may have designated In writing to the Mongapn. Alter the date specified in the notice for ccring the default has expired without cure of the default to immediately upon default N no notice la required) the Mortgagee h hMby authorized and empowered, at its option, to declare the whole unpaid &Mont secured by this mortgage, Immediately dug and payable without further notice to the Mortgagor, and to foreclose this more. 08" by judktel proceedings or to eeI the Premises at public suction, and 10 convey the some to the purchaser, In fee simple, ac. cording to the Statutes in such Case made and provided and put of the monies arising from the oele, to nun tin awns and so Meet awns which *IN then be due u IM urm$ of this mortgage, together Witt maximum attorneys Ness and oo statutory costs and charges for such f4feclosure to the extent permitted by few, NO 20 pay the overphn, if any, to the Mortgagor. The Mortgagor apses to pay and Mor'9090r will be Nab* for any deficiency. Mongegoo or Mortgages's designee may purchase the Premises at any, sale. This mortgage shoo secure payment of d renewals and extensions of the loan and nob evidencing It. This mortgage may secure b"Ilonal Indebtedness In the form of future advances. The mortgage Hen created by this document shah be superior to any IoM Or anewmbrancee or any hind created after the recordation of this mortgag N tins monpape is /probe«:. Mortgagor shoo pay MOngsges's •homey fees and costs to the extent allowed by Minnesota law. The covenants and agreements herein Contained wN bind, and the rights hereunder will belong to the respective ham, oucces110ra, And assignees of the Mortgagor end Mortgagee. Whenever the contest requires. the singular shall include the plural and the mescu&w shoo Include the feminine and IN covenants and agreements of the Mortgagor will be joint and several. Mortgagor waive$ so rights of homestead uampdon In the I'Mmil" Covered by 'his mortgage. This mOrtg09e may W subject to a "cell" prOvili ". Bee the terms of your note. IN TRITIMONY WHIAtoP. The slid Mortgagor has hereunto set his hand the day ale year first above written. Koenig i Sctwert, a Minnesota wi h[ Gw Wrwl PwrtnArshin WITMl1t "1 ` bltt R. q, Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA e$ County of By TM lerapaynp t4tMIM1 wal schnOwle �. dged baron me by tf; L rm e � I_ * ., yb J• �� �c ;No - - d o, Of � 1 p MrMN It :trN THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY 1MI1G ROWIN JCIQ�SW i W= My CamMasion a r r �' 457315 1 Y K. NAY a 2305 OQmmros Blvd «.►tee y N NN MN OpUNTY N � � M ee � e Morbid M! 55361 utobeun I A ^ a ^ • • 0 . Lot 4 except that part thereof lying South of , ine drawn from the Southeast cc ner of said Lot 4 to a point, on the Weit•line of said Lot 4 distant 14.82 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof, Auditor's Subdivision !lumber 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota; That part of Lot 3, - uditor's Subdivision Number 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at tha Southeast corner of Lot 3; thence North along the i Easterly line of said Lot, 1.6 feet; thence Westerly to a „ point 34 feet Westerly from,the East line of said Lot and 4.2 feet North of the Sov th line of said Lot 3; thence , extending 4eeterly on a straight line a distance of 56 feet to a point 100 feet distant -fre.m the Easterly lot line of said Lot 3 and 9.246 feet Nurth of thu South line of said Lot 3; thence South 9.246 feet to the South iii,c ^f said lot; thence East along said South line of Lot 3 to point of begin - ning; according to the plate thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. w Subject to the Party Wall Agre=ement of record in Book 1903 h of Deeds on Page 26; (as to Lot 4, Auditor's Cubdivision ' Number 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota) . AND ALSO, Tha'�. part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. L67, lying South of r_ line dre,wn from a point on the East line of said Lot 3, distant 2.1 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof, to a • point on the West line of said Got 3, distant 17.4 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof, except Oe East 100 feet thereof, said 100 feet measured along the aforesaid described line and also, the North 0.5 feet of the West 10.0 feet of the East 100 feet of that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision 167, lying South of a line drawn from a point on the Eaot line of said Lot 3, distant 2.1 feet north of the Southeast corner thereof to a point on the West line of Lot 3, distao t 17.0 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof excepting there- from that part of Lot 9 described as follower Beginning at a point on the Southeast corner of Lot 3; thence North along the Easterly line of said Lot, 1.6 festt thence Westerly to a point 34 feet Westerly fro- the East line of said Lot and 4.2 feet North of the South line of W d Lot 31 thence extending Westerly on a straight line a distance of 56 feat to a point 100 feet distant from the Easterly line of said Lot 3, and 9.246 feat North of the South line of said Lot 31 thence South 9.246 feat to the South line of said Loi.1 thence East along the South line of said Lot 3 to the point of beginning. All according to the map or plat thereof ;,; file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds 'n and for _aid County. • - �..o.w111o� , r S its 5 5 S 000.00;1 NO FEE REQUIRW a 4905595 "Cl :r:W\'� .iel•IM�I�t: ;Y..� 1964 JUL 23 PM 12: 41 ,.; r: -L4: N I .9909.5 0 13 HECOliI W ON WTH AHSTM(N AND TnFL.I3UNS PHoFERr4 Form No. 53 -M PA RTIAL RELEASE OF MORTGAGE BY CORPO OR PARTNERSHIP PARTIAL RELEASE OF MORTGAGE re served for recording data) DATE: FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; thence north along the West line of said Lot 3 a distance of 17.4 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting right 90 degrees 08 minutes 14 seconds a distance of 109.00 feet; thence easterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 3 distant 1.12 feet north, as measured along said East line, from the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, and said line there ending. is hereby released from the lien of the mortgage, owned by the undersigned, dated July 20, 1984, executed by Koenig & Schwert, a partnership consisting of William R. Koenig and Richard M. Schwert, a Minnesota General Partnership, as Mortgagor, to the City of Mound, a Municipal Corporation, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, as Mortgagee, and filed for record July 23, 1984, Document No. 4909595, in the Office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County, Minnesota. CITY OF MOUND By • Steven C. Smith Its Mayor Edward J. Shukle, Jr. Its City Manager M - 1 - 3111 • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1990, by Steven C. Smith and Edward J. Shukle, Jr., the Mayor and City Manager respectively, of the City of Mound, a Municipal Corporation, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the City of Mound. Notary Public is This instrument was drafted by REED & POND, LTD., 5424 Shoreline Blvd., P.O. Pox 9, Mound, Minnesota 55364 -0009. (612) 472 -2222. 311K - 2 - LAW OFFICES WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ A PARTNERSN P INCLUDING PROrtIIIMONAL ASSOCuTIoN• Iloo FIRST DANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPNONC 16-21 336 4200 FAx NUMBER (612) 336 2625 October 10, 1990 RECT OCT 11 1990 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: Re: Gavin Variance Request Denial The Council directed the staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Roland R. Gavin. Liz Jensen gave me :,er notes from the Planning Commission, and I have prepared the resolution which is enclosed. Please review this and if it is in order, it can be placed on the Council's agenda for October 23. 40 Ver Z - my ours, Cu A. Pearson CAP:lh City Attorney Enclosure • 305 A, THOMAS WURST. PA. CURTIS A PEARSON, P A ,JAMES 0 LARSON. P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG M. MERTZ ROGER J FELLOWS LAW OFFICES WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ A PARTNERSN P INCLUDING PROrtIIIMONAL ASSOCuTIoN• Iloo FIRST DANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPNONC 16-21 336 4200 FAx NUMBER (612) 336 2625 October 10, 1990 RECT OCT 11 1990 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: Re: Gavin Variance Request Denial The Council directed the staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Roland R. Gavin. Liz Jensen gave me :,er notes from the Planning Commission, and I have prepared the resolution which is enclosed. Please review this and if it is in order, it can be placed on the Council's agenda for October 23. 40 Ver Z - my ours, Cu A. Pearson CAP:lh City Attorney Enclosure • 305 RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF ROLAND R. GAVIN FOR A FRONT AND SIDE YARD SET BACK VARIANCE WHEREAS, Section 23.407 of the Mound Code of Ordinances establishes side yard and front yard setbacks for accessory buildings, and WHEREAS, Roland R. Gavin of 5000 Enchanted Road is seeking a variance of seven feet to the required eight foot front yard setback and a one foot variance to the required four foot side yard setback for the construction of a detached garage, and WHEREAS the applicant currently has a two car, tuck -under garage located on the property and his request would result in four garage stalls, and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector and the Planning Commission have inspected t: property and have discussed with the applicant the criteria for granting a variance as set forth in Section 23.506 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, and WHEREAS, the Mound Planning Commission met on October 8, 1990, and unanimously recommended to the City Council that the variance for the proposed garage not be granted for a number of reasons, and WHEREAS, the matter came before the Mound City ouncil on October 9, 1990, and Roland R. Gavin appeared and presented his request to the City Council but did not present any evidence to indicate why his request for a variance should be granted under the criteria established in Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL, as follows: 1. The application of Roland R. Gavin for a variance to construct a garage at 5000 Enchanted R.,ad is hereby denied for the following reasons: a. No exceptional or extraordinary conditions apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same use district, and there are no topographic or other circumstances which justify a hardship variance. b. The applicant already has a two car garage located on the property. c. The applicant gave as a reason for granting the variance the fact that the neighbor's garage is located in essentially the same area. The Planning Commission and the Council have pointed out to the applicant that that garage was built in the 1930s and is non - conforming, and therefore if it were destroyed it could not be rebuilt in the same location. 31 ao d. If the variance were granted, there would only be 3.65 feet between the Gavin's garage and his neighbor's garage, and this presents a fire safety hazard and also creates a maintenance problem as it relates to the properties. e. The applicant has sufficient room so that he could take other courses of action or could attach a garage to the house and meet the zoning code requirements, all of which proves that there is not a hardship. f. The Council finds that the granting of the variance would confer on the applicant special privileges that are denied by the Code of Ordinances to other owners of land in the same residential use district. 2. The granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other properties in the area, since no hardship has been shown on the owner of this property other than economic to justify the issuance of the variance. 3. The Council hereby finds that no showing was made that a hardship exists that the property owner cannot rectify, and that he can correct the problem by using his property in a manner which is consistent 19 with the zoning - irdinance criteria for all other property in the same use district. 4. The Council further finds that if general standards and requirements are waived or relaxed for one property owner, other property owners have the right to expect the same type of treatment or their constitutional rights would be adversely affected by failing to apply the equal protection rules of the constitution for all citizens. 3ia 0 C E R T I F I C A T E O F R E C O G N I T I O N WHEREAS, this year marks the 70th Anniversary of the Minnetonka American Legion Post #398 whi -h was organized and chartered in November, 1920 ; and WHEREAS, the American _ ion was founded as an organization dedicated to the service of God and Country; and WHEREAS, through the years, this organization has demonstrated in many ways its acceptance of a role of responsibility in the economic and social growth of our community, and this long record of accomplishment deserves a public expression of appreciation. NOW, THEREFORE, 1 Steve Smith, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor, do hereby tender this Certificate of Recognition to Minnetonka American Legion Post #398, extending my personal congratulations and also those of the City Council, on this 70th Anniversary; and further, urging all r:itizens to be cognizant of the many contributions of this organization through these many years. 1 • 3 1 0 \ D, • Mc Combs F Roos Associate Inc. 2 sro Awe ^ue Nj-11. Piymputr M lle5ota 5544' Telephone Eng ineers 612 476 -6010 Planners 612 476 -8532 FAX Surveyors October 17 , 1990 1 0 Mr. Edward J. ShuKle, Jr., City Manager REC OCT 18 It City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Island Park Garage Re- Roofing MF'RA #8145 Dear Ed: Enclosed is B&B Sheetmetal & Roofing's Payment Request No. 1 for work completed through October 12, 1990, on the subject project. The amount c;f this payment request is $18,050.50. We have reviewed this request, find that i� 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, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven W. Jantzen u. , A.I.A. 40 SJ:jmj Enclosures 3 !a3 B & B SNEETMETA . & ROOFING, INC. INVOICE 1018 Hwy. 55 East 176 Buffalo, MN 553! 3 (612) 682 -4233 TO: a . Date Oc toh e r 12, 1990 City of Mol -- 5 3a1 Mavjro' P.oae Cust. Order No. WT OC 5 1990 Islan: Dark Garage TEkMS. %r1 :111 day• Arn.ront. not pa ull in 30 da, s an• .uh)- t t„ . Imam e , herac „I I Sv4 per munth lannual percentage rate I N.) 61.00 minimum charge. Description Price Amount "Ou Do' on fslanr' "ar'c Garage. Sales Tax Total Amount Due $18,0" 0 PLEASE PAY BY THIS INVOICE. %0 OTHER STATEMENT N'ILL RESENT 1 � u -�) I I, � The first m.,j,:r deteriorated :..,t (Minnesota ofti;e: (Minnesota Yi: "u decades, the ''!C management, of the LMCD was on environmental problems, reflecting ality problems partly related to discharge of zewage to the upper drainage basin and directly into the lake Control Agency, 1971). Also, through its first two 3blished an impressive Code for lake access and use .ostered a water safety program centered on assurf� APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT A/A DOCUMENT G702 (Instructions on reverse sldel MU ONt Q' VA(A DEDUCTIONS TO (OWNER): City of Mound PROJECT: Island Park Garage APPLICATION NO: 1 Distribution to: $ 5341 Maywood Road Date Approved F OWNER 19,000 Mound, MN 55364 PERIOD TO: 10-12-90 G ARCHITECT Net thane by Change Orders El CONTRACTOR FROM (CONTRACTOR): and VIA (ARCHITECT): ARCHITECT'S E 1RB&B f8 $heetmetaI . 9 E 1 • 5l PROJECT NO: [} (Column F on G703) Bu f a oy MN 1' Total Retainage (Line 5a + 5b or CONTRACT FOR: CONTRACT DATE: S 949.50 CONTRACTOR'S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT onnectlon with the Contract. f or P a y m ent, Do con inu on 18,050.50 (line 4 less Line 5 Total) Sheet, Doc ument GM, is attached. 7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Change Orders approved in previous months by Owner TOTAL ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS Approved this Month 3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line 1± 2) .............. $ Number Date Approved S 19,000 TOTALS Net thane by Change Orders The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor knowledge, Information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payrlent has been completed In accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work for which previous Certificates for Payment were issued and payments received from the Owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due. CONTRACTOR: BbB Sheetmetal and Roofing, Inc. 1018 Hwy. 55 Fast fa1o, MN 55313 BY: - Date: 1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM ....................... S 19,000-00 2 Net change by Change Or lers ..................... S 0 3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line 1± 2) .............. $ 1 9 , 000 - 00 4. TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE ............ S 19,000 (Column G on G703) 5. RETAINAGE: a. _ % of Completed Work S 949.50 (Column D + E on G703) b. _ % of Stored Materia! S (Column F on G703) Total Retainage (Line 5a + 5b or Total in Column I of G703) ..................... S 949.50 6. TOTAL EARNkD LESS RETAINAGF ............ . .. . . . . S 18,050.50 (line 4 less Line 5 Total) 7. LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT (Line 6 from prior Certificate)...... .. $ 8. CURRENT PAYMENT DUE .......................... $ 18,0 0.50 9. BALANCE TO FINISH, PLUS RETAINAGE ............. $ 949.50 (Line 3 less Line 6) State of: County of: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 Notary Public: My Commission expires: AMOUNT CERTIFIED........... ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT c� s 1 T (Attach explanation 1f amount cert,hed differs from the amount applied for) In accordance with the Contract Documents, based on on -site obser"ations and the ARCHITECT: data comprising the above application, the Architect certifies to the Owner that to the best of the Architect's knowledge, information and belief the Work has progressed as B �L'C �`' ,/L - - j ; Date indicated, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Documents, and This Certificate is not negotiable., Th AMOUNT CERTIFIED Is ayable onl to the the Contractor Is entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED. P y Contractor named herein. ts`Suance, payment and acceptance of payment aI e without prejudice to any rights of the Owner or Contractor under this Contract. AIA OOCUININT GM • AM ICA110N ANO CER1111CATE FOR MYMINT • MAY 1901 #0111ON • AIA• • : 14111 441 AIMI6IN1111UTt Of AR(11111CI%. 1715 NIW YORK AWNI11. NW, WA%HINGI(1N. (7( ;1 702.1943 • • CONTINUATION SHEET A/A DOCUMENT G703 Ilnstru(tions on reveres side 1'A(.t u+ V-41t. AIA Document G702, APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT, containing APPLICATION NUMBER: Contractor's signed Certification is attached. APPLICATION DATE. In tabulations below, amounts are stared to the nearest dollar. PERIOD TO. 1 0 - 1 ? - 90 Use Column I on Contracts where variable retainage for line items may apply ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: l A B C D E F C — H - - -- — ` j ITEM ! DESCRIPTION OF WORK SCHEDULED WORK COMPLETED - MATERIALS TOTAL KAIAN( f .-- RETAI'sA(A NO. VALUE PRESENTLY COMPLETED a; ( TO IINfNH FROM PREVIOUS THIS PERIOD APPLICATION STORED AND STORED l (, ID *EI INOT IN ! TO DATE 1) ORE) ID - E +FI Bonds & Permits 542.00 0 542.00 0 542.00 0 7 . 10 Warranty 604.00 0 604.00 0 604.00j1 00 0 X0.20 j Insulation I 3,840.00 0 3,840.001 0 318 00 1100 ! 0 1Q2.00 1 i Carlisle Material 1 4,742.00 0 4,742.00 I 0 4,742.00 100 I 0 237.10 Lumber Work 1 2,400.00 0 2,400.00 0 2,400.001 ) ;)0 i 0 120.00 i +Roof Labor i 1 4,416.00 0 4,416.00 0 4,416.00;100 0 '220.75 ! I ISheetmetal Labor 2,053.00 0 2,053.001 i 0 12,053.00 100 0 102.65 i I j i Trucking b Hoistirta� J 403.00 0 403.00; j I 0 403.00 1100 0 20.15 I I j j , ! 19,000.00 19,000.00 9,000.00 100 0 `949.95 AIA DOCVMENT GM • APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT • MAY 1903 EDITION • AIA- • 0 1901 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS 1715 NEW YORK AVENUE. N W. WASHINGTON. 1) C 2000h G703, -19d3 LAKE: tAlWJE1OIIKA CONSE„VAI ION OISTRICT October clo, 1990 l;" TO FROM: City Administrator Mayor and Council Members Chair Dave Cochran SUBJECT: Response to City of Wayzata's Shoreland Protection Outline of October 12, 1990 AND October edition of the Management Plan Respecting the amount of time and exchanges which have taken place among several cities relating to the Shoreland Protection chapter of the Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka, the attached response is forwarded for your consideration. Reference is made in the second paragraph examples to subcommittee meetings Working Paper and Preliminary Plan. LMCD has the Working Papers as part of the subcommittee review process. The Preliminary Plan is the being covered document distributed in November, 198.9, for the December 2 public review of this, among the eight other chapters presented at that time. • You will notice that much of the commentary relate to the appropriateness of LMCD conducting certain portions of data base development as cont ted to the cities taking these steps. Maintaining the distinction between LMCD jurisdictions and those of the cities is a sensi'ivity which LMCD truly does respect. In order to provide the most current information, taking into account a number of miner clerical adjustments, as well as additions to the Management Plan since the August edition, we are enclosing the copy just received. :tions, most particularly in the Shoreland Protection Chapter IV, and -ndix C, have been noted by BOLD PRINT. Other changes of consequence, ne in the Implementation Chapter VII, have also been so entered. We regret it has not been possible to show the deletions, but there were very few r,xcep ?: to bring the material closer to the correct interpretation. Given the above new materiel, your LMCD Board will be reconsidering the chapters VI, VII, and V1I ano Appendicies A through C at its regular October 24, 1990 meeting. This will be considered at the beginning of the meeting shortly aft 7:30 pm at Tonka Bay City Nall. Thank you for your continued interest and recognition of LMCD's position on this mast, important matter. REVIEW OF WAYZATA' S SIIOREIAND PRO'T'ECTION OUTLINE is review of the October 12, 1990 Wayzata Shoreline Protection Material reveals very serious flaws in the approach. The study outline that tf,ey propose is inappropriate for the LMCD in part and redundant in the remainder. Mr. Licht has .stated that this outline was developed to assist cities in developing their Shoreland ordinance. It would serve that purpose, it. noes not serve the LMCD. Tile redundant portions relate to the study outlines steps for defining goals and policies, Examples are listed below: Page 4, step 1. "Determine the 'Development Capacity'....' In preparation for the s.ticommittee meetings held from December, 1988 to February, 1989 we did t„ajor portions of this and presented tl material to the attendees (14 communities, DNR, Metropolitan Council, and the Watershed District). Much of the material is presented in the Working Paper and the Preliminary Plan. Page 4, step 2. "Establish a Shoreland Development Data Base ". We did that part which was appropriate for the LMCD in the fall of 1988 and used it throughout the four months of the Shoreland Management Subcommittee proceedings. The remaining pars are appropriate only for the individual cities. Page 5, step 3. "Identify the lake use and land use issues...." We also did that in the fall of 1988 and the work appears In the "Shoreland Management Working Paper" and "Shoreland Management Preliminary Plan ". Page 6, step 4 "Develop policies and guidelines...." We have developed specific policies, and this was a•- - complished by the 14 cities, the DNR, Metropolitan Council, Watersheu District and the LMCD in meetings held from December 1988 to February, 1989. All cities were represented, including Wayzata. The participants from Wayzata are no longer in that city's employ. We also performed parts of steps 5 and 6 to the extent that it was appropriate for a lake protection agency without significant jurisdiction ever upland areas. Most of the work suggested is beyond the scope of L7uD -authority and interest. It is our conclusion that the City of Wayzata wants us to go back through the process than we have already completed because they now disagree with the decisions that. were made with all lei cities, the Watershed District, Metropolitan Council and the DNR pa ::Licipating. The parts that are inappropriate would involve the LMCD in land use decisions and policy that would, do grave harm to the District's constituency. That is, the outline calls for t4u IMCD to determine, city by city, what land uses are appropriate, he believe that is r1parly beyond the authority of the U`CD and solely the pur of the individual cities and the Metropolitan Council. Examples from the outA fne are: Page 4, step 1. "Determine the development capacitv...." This involves "pre''imi.nary land use allocations (i.e., low density resid ntial, high density residential, commercial, water- oriented c•0INT.ercinI, IndllscrI. aI) ". 1,ie LMCD should not do that, the individual cities nerd to snake these determinations. If the LMCD attempted this str -1 it woliId likely alienate the cities that now support us in our ('ntr , fit efforts. t Page 5, step 2, par's c and d. "Establish n Shoreland Development data base...." These steps are best completed by the citi as part of the development of their individual shoreland ordinance. Page 7, step 4. "Specific policy areas...." Some policy areas that are listed could not be addressed by the IJ4CD without intruding on the individual city's traditional i�.irisdictions. The LMCD should not put itself in the position of telling the 14 cities what land uses and zoning classes are appropriate within their municipal boundaries. The LMCD should continue to focus its attention on what impact those uses and zoning classes will have on the lake. The LMCD's objective is to protect the lake, not Establish land uses around tl.a lake. Page 9, step 5. "Develop a Regional Lakewiae Development Framework...." This is to develop a generalized plan for the type of development that should be allowed within each city. We did some of that during the subcommittee ;✓nrk -- insofar as it wa- needed and appropriate. Beyond that, we feel this intrudes too much into the individual city's traditional jurisdiction. Our goal of protecting the lake from pollution can be accomplished without this step. Further, the LMCD performli:g this step is sure to alienate most of the cities on the lake. It simply is unnecessary for the IMC.) given its lack of jurisdiction in this area. Page 9, step 6. "Develop an 1...plementation Progtam...." The Shoreland Subco:,:.nittee determined, as the DNR did, that the program should be implemented by the individual cit ;.es that have the sole and exclusive authority in this area. Specific details on how th'; program is implemented within each city need not involve the LMCIU. Once an ordinance is developed that indeed protects the lake, the LMCP need bo concerned only that the ordinance is enforced. • 2 ' The Shoreland Management Chapter and Appendix C Ivis come tit (It �r sharp attack in the past months. A vocal minority of the cif + - oppose the (:h:;; �, primarily because they perceive that adoption of this chapter and appendix will limit • their future options to redevelop their communities. But those arguments are counter to policy set by the State Legislature, rules as implemented by the DNR, and demonstrably detrimental to the water quality of lake Minnetonka. The Shoreland Management Chapter and Appendix C need to be adopted -,,ith only minor change ;or three reasons: 1. Without it, there are no effective environmental controls for the lake; water quality will seriously degrade over the coming )ears. 2. Without it, Che cities will be subject to the same regulations because the DNR will enfot,:° its program; we have made only minor changes in the DNR program. 3. Without it, the LMCD will suffer serious loss of credibility with oth r cities supporting tLe plan, and the other managing agencies. if the shoreland rranabement chapter is not adopted, we wil'. have '_o completely rework the Enviroru.lental Qualit- Chapter, seeking other means of protecting the lakeshore. E:ivironmental protection of the lake is locally dependant upon restrictio. -s on redevelopment within 1,000 feet of the shoreline. Wayzata has taken the lead arguing that our rules are too inflexible. But in fact, our suggest standards and criteria to be used as a gulc;e for developing local sboreland ordinances offer more flexibility than the DNR existing rules and regulations. The DNR has indicated in meetings that r:hey will accept the less restrictive elements of our program as contained in Appendix C. • The October 12 outline distributed by Wayzata repetitively argues that our chapter (and the 9NR's rules) "do not give sufficient attention to the existing development patterns, or the future land use objectives of the individual lakeshore communities." (This same point is reiterated on pages 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). But t.ie I.MCD Board should give -erious consideration to rejecting that ar�::mt�nt. If the State Legislature and the DNR believed that existing development patterns or future land use objectives posed no threats to state I there would he no legislatively mandated Shoreland Management Program. It simply would not be. needed. But the State Legislature has mandated that lakes'.de cities cannot continue development without regard to the adverse effe:ts to the lakes. Under our Shoreland Management Chapter and Appendix, Wayzata and Spring Park can continue to redevelop their downtown areas, maintain their present character, and continue traditional uses within tLe shorelands. Outside of the shorelands, Wayzata can redevelop and expand without these restrictions. But within 1,000 feet of the lake, Wayzata will be precluded from redevelopment inconsistent: with the DNR regulations, whether or not the LMCD Board adopts this chapter. Various cities, especially Spring Park, have sugg..sted various changes in wording and intent, vie have accommodai.ed most of those to assure reasonable flexibility, without allowing unrestrained development that will unquestionably degrade the water quality of the lake. The Chapter before the Board on Wednesday is significantly improved, less restrictive ar mate flexible than the Public Review Draft issued i April. But it still achio. es the reasonable environmental protection r ,oals. RECEIVEt) David J. Arndorfer 0 CT 2 2 1 1T.1 1 J L.NIAt 1) r� RED . OC1 6 QJU S LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LAKE MINNETONKA PREPARED BY e LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITH GUIDANCE FROM THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF David J. Arndorfer, Ph. D. Arndorfer Associates, Inc. Knoxville, Tennessee H'ith the Assistance of Frank Mixa William Kattner Barr Engineering Company THIS PROGRAM WAS FUNDED BY THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 0 OCTOBER, 1990 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Loog -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 in enforcement. The overall objective of the Plan is to be active in both regulation and enforceme -. and to develop the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) inro 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 ana user experience on the lake is to be prote ^ted, difficult decisions will have to be made by all managing entities. Decisions that limit certain rypes of development and specific types of access will not be popular. Pop 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 envircnmental 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 th(- sur.aner. RECREATION MANACEME.NT The ultimi %tc i. gal for recreation management is fourfold: 1) to more effectively mauagp 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 :tperience. The LMCD 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) maintain and improve winter access. vii USER EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION The four major goals for protecting user experience and satisfaction are to: is 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 is more than protecting personal safety. Density of boats on the lake will 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. Accordingl_r, 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 and ordinances. Beyond the two- pronged approach, specific goals are identified to increase and enhance shoreline recreational opportunities. ENVIRONMENTAL 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 beyond the • viii • shoreland within 1,000 feet of the lake to include the entire upper drainage basin. In order to achieve environmental protection goals, the LMCD 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 Watershea 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 L4CD 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 originztz. If and when regional funding is forthcoming, changes are proposed to the LMCD Board of Directors to include four regional agencies as voting members. ix 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 _nge 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 shorcl ands 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 conclu ion that the Minnesota State Legislature intends lake management to be jointly conceived and • implemented. To varying degrees, each state, regional and 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, en }writes 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 as that major actions which have effects extending beyond the purview or dui isdiction 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 I.:ike Minnetonka. Within this context, the Program affirms traditional 1Ora1, regional and state controls and programs. 1 1160 - The lake area is occupied by N'dewakontons, a band of the Dakota. • fie Management Program can be implemented witnouL significant alterat' of traditional authorities of State, regional and local political bodie Instead, • the Program provides guidan,:e on how existing authorities shall be used to control development on and neh- the ln.ke for the next 25 years. That requires implementation through cooperation and communication at an •_nprecedented level. Each organization must formulate, vi re•formuL te, programs and implement policies that are consistent with t�.is Management Program. Without that, the fragmented and uncoordinated policies of the past will continue to generate strife, controversy and conflic,, with major decisions resolved by the courts HISTORICAL BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVE In the last ten years, organizations involved in managing the lake have developed increasingl: divergent management goals fcr the lake. Differences included shoreline uses, natural environmental protection, level and type of recreational use, but the cc 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 rtate an,1 t�eional 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 ninnetonke as a :irst priority lake with inadequate public access. In 198? the Covernor's Task Force. on Lake Minnetonka was formed in response to conflict between state and local interests in locating a new access point on Halstrd's Bay. In 1.985 the lietr:,politan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka was established to further resolve that continuing zonflict. Regional and state interest in access to I ' Minnetonka changed, but the institutional arrangements, intergovernmental relations and funding fir lake management and eccess programs did not change. On one hand, state and regional agencies raised their priority for involvement on Lak• Minnetonka, but local interests, including the LMCD, continued to operate with their traditional goals and objectives. Improved c- operation, coordination and understanding were absent; conflict, misunderstanding and separate priorities were inevitable. Changing state and regional priorities for "ie lake was not enough to change local programs and goals. k�onccmitxrt alteration of institutional arrangements and intergovernmental relations were needed but were not identified and implemented. A different level and source of funding were required but did not develop. The local institutions did not respor.3 the way conditi -3ns required. The result has been misinformation, breakdown in commur, cation, finger pointing, and lywsuits. he outcome was predictable, inevitable and wrong. w CHANGING PRIORITIES From the late 1800s to the latt. 1.970s interest and management of the lake was . concentrated in lc.cal individuals and organizations. Despite advocacy by the 1ACD and other local interests, proposals to form one or more regional pa►ks on the lakeshore in the 1960s and early 1970s did not advance (LMCD Recreational Folic% 1972, Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986), presumably because regional agencies placed their priorities elsewhere. Within this framework of missed opportunities, in 1979 the Metropolitan Access Committee, reflecting changing state objectives (as expressed in the State Compr(hensive Outdoor Recreatio. Plan), listed Lake Minnetonka as a first priority lake with inadequate public access (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979 pp. 4 and 7). Fcr the first time, regional and state agencies expressed interest in managing access to the lake to assure their regional and state objectives. Unfortunately, institutional arrangements and intergovernmental relations were not altered in response to this change in 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 way Hennepin County's primary lead regional agency; the LaKe Minnetonka Conservation District was logizally the lead local agency. But in less than two years it was the 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 (I.MCD) in 1967 was precedent setting in Minnesota. As the State's first lake conservation, or improvement, district much of the impetus and the .mderlying concept o 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 Legi.;lature enacted the Minnesota Lake Improvement District Act (M.S. 378.455 and 373.41 to 378.56) which was obviously modeled after the act which formed the LMCD. Significant differences iie only in the mechanism for funding; Chapter 378 districts are provided more realistic methods to finance their necessary activities. 3 0 IP22 - Will Snelling records sighting Lake Minnetonka. 7 L 7 The first m.,J-r deteriorated ...,t treatment of , :e (Minnesota Pc'..iu decades, the 1"CI management. ;c law enforcemer, controlled str Intergovernmen coordination t, of the LMCD thr:. (Summary of Pl.;;,! During the 1i+ •: relations with of District r(, between local .. 1985). Throiq'., inadequate fun:'l_ constraints no* regional, At this same t various propos lake, but none when less shorei!- the opportunity Metropolitan'. agencies) identl, acquisition. R fully developed the Department o` acquisition of al- to avoid conflic� of the LMCD was on environmental problems, reflecting ality problems partly related to discharge of sewage to the upper drainage basin and directly into the lake Control Agency, 1971). Also, through its first two 3blished an impressive Code for lake access and usr .ostered a water safety program centered on assur g :lent to protect public safety, and generally placed on the lake and its shoreline. [ions centered on fostering local communication and common lake management problems. One tacit objective ese years was to regulate "only as necessary" )reference, 1985). the LMCD was less successful in intergovernmental and state agencies active on the lake, enforcement and management of conflicts both between users and nal interests (Summary of Planning Conference, period, and continuing today, the District received only permitted minimal staff. Given the fiscal .he 1967 legislation, the District focused on local, yips and concerns. .a a was in transition. In the 1960s and 1970s ,ade for large recreational open space sites on the ired. Thus, when boating pressure was lighter, fully developed, regional interests did not seize ring a high level of public access. In 1979 the s Task Force (composed of State and regional a Minnetonka access as a priority goal for shoreline of Lake Minnetonka was effectively r areas in Minnetrista and Mound. Late in 1981 Resources (DNR) announced intentions to begin Doint at King's Point on Halsted's Bay -- too late The City of Mini. t • i the ensuing dig p response was to firm task force addrec. ;i: •d 1) inadequatz- pt 2) densit of tic present 3) conflicts 4) existin:•, 1 aw a 5) enforce - is An important co. . a funding are re( t:o Force (Lake Mir "•a funding have b vi The dispute bet :'-,e the City again •i for. the King's P ked the State's Executive Council to intervene in i the City and the DNR. The Executive Council's ;overnor's) Lake Minnetonka Task Force. That broad issues and concluded: access existed on the lake, firing some peak hours on some parts of the lake hazardous conditions, the lake during peak periods, ;ulations are adequate, and ed by inadequate funding. that adequate and continuing personnel and ement the recommendations of the 1983 Task Fof 1983). No significant changes in trice. of Minnetrista and the DNR continued. In 1985 e State Executive Council over the DNR's plans ite. This time the Council instructed the 4 Metropolitan Council to review access to the lake. The Council formed the Metropolitan C.uncil'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. funding 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 Management Plan for the Lake, and increased expenditures for lake management. 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 ( Stankey and McCool, 1984; Stankey et al., 1985, Stankey et al., 1985a). Ine 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 thin 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 a ;nd the lake. Minnetrista, for example, has developable land remaining. Other communities have no developable land remaining, but are experiencing redevelopment pressures. Our planning efforts, management objectives and implementation programs consider these inherent differences. 5 1850 - Lake Minnetonka is named by Governor Alexander Ramsey from Indian term "pla -e spread over by water" 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 6N monitor and evaluate the degree of success. The contents of this Long -Term Management Program reflect the completion of steps 1 through 3. Implementation includes the Long -Term Monitoring Program which provides guidance for monitoring and evaluating the degree of success (step 4). 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 .%idividual meetings changed. Some agencies sent representatives only %o some meetings. At times, members of the general public participated. Virtually all decisions concerning the content were by consensus. Consensus was also maintained throughout each of the subcommittees. Recognizing the ' el of effort and the time commitment required to develop the entire ..._..,n Program, the Advisory Committee formed subcommittees to address specific topics. Each subcommittee made recommendations to the Aavisory Committee concerning the twelve individual Preliminary Plans that were developed. The subcommittees: 1) identified problems facing Lake Minnetonka and its upland areas, 2) salected 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. 0 6 Thus, the Advisory Conunittee relied on the subcommittees to perform much of the actual planning. Sub, !iittee membership differed from the Advisory Committee in two ways. First., the Advisory Committee tended to be composed of agency rc.y.esentatives that were more policy, not necessarily technically, oriented. Participating organizations were asked to send their most technically qualifies' individuals to subcommittee meetings. Secondly, subconuaittees often had organizations represented that did not serve on the Advisory Committee. These organizations normally had a more focused interest in th• lake and opted to participate only in those areas of direct concern. The active subcommittees !Pte 1. Shoreland Management 2. Onshore Facilities 3. Upland Envirorunental. Protection 4. Public Safety 5. Lake Access 6. Lake Use 7. Fisheries Management 8. Wetlanns Management 9. Water Quality Management 10. Institutional Arrangements 11. Intergovernmental Relations 12. Funding Elected officials, Mayors, public officials, and pulicy 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 legislation. 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 distr 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 orderer' the Metropoli*ln Council to use its powers to study the problems associated with access to the lake (Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986). To implement such directives, Chapter 7 1851 - Treaty opens lake area to settlers, and "wild rice abounded on its shores ". 473.244, Subd. 1 provides for the Council engaging in a continuous program of research anc, study in matters under its authority. Additionally, the Subd. 5 of • the same section gives broad powers to develop long range planning in the metropolitan area (Minnesota Statutes, Ch. 473.244, Sube. 5). Section 473.181 grants the Metropolitan Council specific authority to review 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 r 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 the Metropolitan Council (Ch. 378.41, subd. 1). Howcve r, the LHCD is not a Chapter 378 lake improvement district; the LMCD has separate enabling legislation that does not provide for DNR supervisory and review powers. The sections of Chapter 473 cited in the above paragraphs makes the Metropolitan Council a particularly imp)rtant participant in this planning process. • 0 8 REGIONAL SETTING Lake Minnetonka is located in western Henneoin County and northern Carver Count* on the western edge of the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area. The proximity of this majer me::ropoiltan area contributes to the la!;e's important role as a recreational resource. Lake Minnetonka is the tenth largest lake in Minnesota and the largest lake within the seven- county metropolitan area. The lake is a series of smaller lakes and bays often interconnected by relatively narr ,)w waterways (Frontispiecel. Lake Minnetonk 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 rake is comprised of areas less than 15 feet deep. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The Lake Minnetonka area is accessible by several major federal an'_. ;tale highways. North of the lake is east -west U.S. Highway 1? wh,._;, serves as a major thoroughfare for downtown Minneapolis. The portion of this roadway from downtown Minneapolis to immediately eaat of Lake Minnetonka is currently being up6raded 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 side of the lake State Highway 101 runs north - south. • Numerous county roads provide secondary access to the lake. County Highway 15 runs east -west through a portion of the western half of t`;q 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 Lhe 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 es;:ablishments frequented by boaters. During ice -over periods 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 modified fron "Draft Water :'sources Management Plan, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District" (Euge A. Hickok and Associates, 1987). 9 1852 - First Gray Bay dam is constructed. GEOLOGY The entire surficial geology of the lake area is comprised of glacial drift. This unsorted sand, gravel and clay material was deposited on the ) surface by two glacial lobe movements of the Wisc - )nsin Age. The 1uperior glacial lobe deposits included igneous and metamorphic rocks within the sandy drift material. The more recent Des Moines lobe retreated leaving a sar;dy layer that included limestone and shale. Glacial drift thickness ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet. Lake Minnetonka is located on th% western end 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 Prec&mbrian, Cambrian and Ordovician Eras. Because of the position of the lake relative to this basin, successively older formations come 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 Lonsdale - Lerdal till region includes Halsted Bay and all of Lake Minnetonka that lies north of County Road 15 except 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 -Far ibault Moraine. • The till area is generally composed of unso:: -d clay, silt, sand and boulder materials transported and directly deposited by he glacial lobe. The till region is characterized by a thin 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 Minnetonka's intricate shoreline is characterisLlc of a morainic formation. Lake Minnetonka is entirely within the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The lake receives runoff from the entire upper portion of the watershed. The lake discharges to Minnehaha Creek at the Gray's Bay dam. soils The general soil type is predominantly deep silty or loamy, well- drained and lightly colored. This soil type is moderately fine to moderately course in texture and has moderate transmission and infiltration rates. An area located at the southern shore of Wayzata Bay and Gray's Bay is comprised of a soil typo that is generally deep, sandy, well drained slid lightly colored. It has a high infiltration rate and correspondingly low runoff potential.. An Brea of sandy, well drained, dark colored soils is located adjacent to 0 10 the north shore of Wayzata Bay. This soil type is characterized as having low runoff potential, high infiltration rates and correspondingly high rate of water 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 and occasionally humid. Winters are usually cold and generally dry. Most precipitation comes during the -+arm season. W,iile 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 hay 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 warmesr. month with an average of 71 degrees. The coldest month is January, which averages 9.9 degrees. Annual mean temperature is 43.6 degrees. PreciFitation averages 30.20 inches annually, with most occurring during the stau,wr months. The wettest month is June which averages 4.83 inches of precipitation. February, the driest month, averages .78 inches of - erecipitation. 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. 0 WI LDLI'r'E The abundance and diversity of suitable habitat largely determines the extent of wildlife populations. Continued development within the Lake Mirnetonka area has resulted in significant changes from the original Prairie, forest and aquatic habitats. However, wild.lif. populations can be found in relative abundance within the numerous and varied habitats surrounding the lake. Breeding populations of prairie animals 'nclude white- tailed jackrabbit, Brewer's blackbird, ground squirrel, and prairie horned larks. Hearty wi1-d'.ife populations associated with wooded and brushy habitats can also be found. Species indicative of the habitats include meadow voles, rabbits, deer, shrews, moles, skunks, foxes, mink, weasels, raccoons, hawks and owls. (Baseline Environmental Inventory: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1977). Wetlands and marsh areas are refuge to large numbers of birds. Waterfowl are relAtively abundant and diverse with both migra'_ory and year- arouid species known to inhabit the area. 11 1852 - Minnetonka Mills settleJ and a sawmill is constructed by Simon Stevens. 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 incluO.e: bluegill, black and white crappie, largemouth bass, muskellunge, northern pike, walleye pike, sunfish and perch. Non -game species present include, bullheads and carp. VEGETATION The growth and associated la<<a use changes of the Twin Cities metropolitan area ha-.e affected the vegetation surrounding La'.<e Minnetonka. However, mane 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 tree species. Native non - wetland, non - aquatic vegetation in the Lake Minnetonka area is primarily that of the Maple- Basswaod Community. This community is characterized by basswood, elm, maple and oab.. Understory consists Of shrubs such as hazelnut, chokecherry, Juneberry and elder, ar.d herbaceous plants including hepatica, violet, virginia creeper, climbing bittersweet, sweet cicely and large- flowered beliwort (Baseline Environmental Inventory: Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1977). • • 12 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE The present population of the Lake Minnetonka area communities is presente in • Table 1. The information is based on the 1980 Census of Population, updated by the Metropolitan Council. Populations of Hennepin and Carver counties and th. entire Metropolitan Area 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 X,105 households. Of these, approximately 3,000 have frontage on Lake Minnetonka. These account for approximately 8 percent and 4 percent of the 'households in Hennepin County and the seven county metropolitan area respectively. TABLE 1 Population Estimates Lake Minnetonka Region 13 • 1853 - The City of Excelsior is settled. Population - - - - -- 1988 Percent-------- -- 1980 1988 Hennepin Metropolitan Study Area Communities Census Estimate County Area Deephaven 3,716 3,714 .37 .17 Excelsior 2,523 2,574 .26 .12 • Greenwood 653 656 .07 .03 Minnetonka 38,63 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 W:.. 3,621 3,711 .37 .17 Woodland 526 496 .05 .02 Total 80,952 89,165 8.86 4.'5 Other N_,inepin County 864,288 916,655 91.14 1.66 Other Carver County 35,621 42,784 - .94 Other Metropolitan Area 1,904901 2,111156 �.15 SOURCE: Metropolitan Council, 1988 13 • 1853 - The City of Excelsior is settled. TABLE 2 Household Estimates • Total Other Hennepin County Other Carver County Other Metropolitan Area 27,463 34,105 339,021 382,686 11,584 14,977 693,894 819,067 8.18 4.00 91.82 44.85 1.76 96.00 SO Metropolitan Council, 1988 POPUTATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS Table 3 presents 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 Hennepin County. For comparison purposes, the service area is divided into four separate parts. The first are the 14 lakeshore communities. Next are the 15 first tier communities that abut lakeshore communities in Carver or Hennepin Counties. The remaining portions of Hennepin and Carver counties present the rest of the primary service area. The last part includes the remaining five counties in the metropolitan area. Table 3 forecasts that both population and the number of households in both the lakeshore and first tier communities are expected to increase at a rate nearly double that of the other parts of Hennepin and Carver Counties. TFe rate of growth is also slightly more than projected for the other five metropolitan counties. 14 Households- - - - - -- 1988 Percent-------- -- 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 Other Hennepin County Other Carver County Other Metropolitan Area 27,463 34,105 339,021 382,686 11,584 14,977 693,894 819,067 8.18 4.00 91.82 44.85 1.76 96.00 SO Metropolitan Council, 1988 POPUTATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS Table 3 presents 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 Hennepin County. For comparison purposes, the service area is divided into four separate parts. The first are the 14 lakeshore communities. Next are the 15 first tier communities that abut lakeshore communities in Carver or Hennepin Counties. The remaining portions of Hennepin and Carver counties present the rest of the primary service area. The last part includes the remaining five counties in the metropolitan area. Table 3 forecasts that both population and the number of households in both the lakeshore and first tier communities are expected to increase at a rate nearly double that of the other parts of Hennepin and Carver Counties. TFe rate of growth is also slightly more than projected for the other five metropolitan counties. 14 TABLE 3 Forecasts of Population and Households Lake Minnetonka Service Area 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 perce . per vear. As households increase, so will the number of households seeking access to the l „t:e. I and Use The Lake Minnetonka arch is a typical suburban setting with single family housing the prirmiry land use. Shoreline commercial developments are concentrated alone; mr +tor transportation routes, especially in Excelsior, Wayzata, Sprin., Pa ,— and Mound. Three: areas of industrial or • manufacturint; zor;iny ok-cur within 2,000 feet of the lake in Excelsior, Spring Park and M,�und. Shorelind use is primarily residential, intersper- with conu:,ercial, recreational and one area of manufacturing. As with several othtr suhunc:an areas— the Lake Minnetonka area is experiencinf -, rapid i,rc�wth. The natural beauty and water resources of the area mal the are a an location. Urban g_owth is projected to (�c�ntinue in c}.��reland areas (Minn —sota State Planning Agency, Land ur:t dLit a h"i "t f I lam aeri, +1 pi,ot <,E;raphs) . ih'`A -- Trapper dies on "Starvation Point', later named Orono Point, then Bracketts Point. Population Percent Households Percent Communiti 1988 2000 Change 1988 1990 Change LakeshorE 86 760 93620 7.91 33544 37330 11.29 First Tier 221 -1 55 243620 9.86 90148 101665 12.78 First Tier Couri*ie:; '3'657 747880 1.39 341059 361815 6.09 Other Metro 1'•.rea 115; ±149 1224880 6.13 388421 43C190 10.75 So1rrce; Metropolitan Council, 1986 and 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 perce . per vear. As households increase, so will the number of households seeking access to the l „t:e. I and Use The Lake Minnetonka arch is a typical suburban setting with single family housing the prirmiry land use. Shoreline commercial developments are concentrated alone; mr +tor transportation routes, especially in Excelsior, Wayzata, Sprin., Pa ,— and Mound. Three: areas of industrial or • manufacturint; zor;iny ok-cur within 2,000 feet of the lake in Excelsior, Spring Park and M,�und. Shorelind use is primarily residential, intersper- with conu:,ercial, recreational and one area of manufacturing. As with several othtr suhunc:an areas— the Lake Minnetonka area is experiencinf -, rapid i,rc�wth. The natural beauty and water resources of the area mal the are a an location. Urban g_owth is projected to (�c�ntinue in c}.��reland areas (Minn —sota State Planning Agency, Land ur:t dLit a h"i "t f I lam aeri, +1 pi,ot <,E;raphs) . ih'`A -- Trapper dies on "Starvation Point', later named Orono Point, then Bracketts Point. CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 10 -23 -90 #3 �g.�'�`.�a z, ua�... t %0 1 9 0 9 II. RECREATION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE The ultimate goal for recreation management is fourfold: 1) to more effectively manage access growth, [) 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 LMCD does not encourage increased summer use, but it will more effectively control 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 whenever possible. 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 support by 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 17 • 1855 - Sail boats and rowboats appear on the lake in numbers. other use capacity concepts and found them of little use for Lake Minnetonka. Boat density standards seem to vary with population density and the amount of • freshwater resource available. That is, states with few water bodies seem to set low (few acres per boat) density standards; others with abundan• eater resources seem to set high (many acres per boat) density standards. Accordingly, no "capacity" for Lake Minnetonka is established or identified. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In 1972 the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District adopted the IACD 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 summer and winter. Since 1947, the DNR has held the responsibility for providing public boating access to lakes in Minnesota. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan places high priority on the development of public access sites. In the 1.10s, the DNR began 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 System, 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 improving access to metro area lakes" (Metropolitan Access Committee, 1979, p. 2). In 1979 the Metropolitan Access Committee adopted an access standard for 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 boat per 20 acres of water surface" for metropolitan lakes (1979, p. 4). Development guidelines for implementing that policy incluOe "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 b) the Metropolitan Council's Task Force (Metropolitan Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka, 1986, p. 3). Therefore, state and regional agency programs require 700 car /trailer parking spaces for Lake Minnetonka. Studies sponsored by the DNR and 1,MCD 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. 0 18 AUTHORITY Appendix A contains a more comprehensive discussion of authority for recreation* management. There are parallel authorities over access that involve the DNR, Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, LiCD and she 14 lakeshore communities. All of these organizations have the authority to acquire, construct, operate, and maintain public boat access to the lake. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park Distri ^t 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 IMCD, 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 L4CD have the most comprehensive authority, but the LMCD and Hennepin 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 ro enforce its rules. It contracts with 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. LAKE ACCESS AND USE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Future recreational access and use management utilizes controls that are progressively more restrictive as boat density on the lake continues to increase. The program does not establish an upper limit for the number 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. 19 1857 - Rail service brings passengers to Wayzata for steamboat rides. 0 Ine 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 heavily used resources. Implicit in the argument is that this displacement will occur at an acceptable point, keeping formal 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 some 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 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 problems can be identified. Appropriate management strategies can be implemented within the framework of this Long -Term Management Program. • The IACD 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 tire, 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 20 TABLE 4 Change in Boat Storage on Lake Minnetonka 1974 -1987 • 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 multiple 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. 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 tc the immediate family of a landowner in the city. The stated policy of the LMCD is to "Preserve and promote Lake Minnetonka as a recreation and natural resource for all the citizens of the state" (LMCD 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 ramps. 21 1859 - The sail boat White Swan capsizes off Big Island with the first recorded loss of lives on the lake. 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 +81.17 Marinas 1433 1716 1743 + 310 +21.53 Homeowner Associations 231 395 453 + 222 +96.10 Yacht Clubs 213 229 239 + 26 +12.21 Apartments 242 216 245 + 3 + 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 multiple 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. 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 tc the immediate family of a landowner in the city. The stated policy of the LMCD is to "Preserve and promote Lake Minnetonka as a recreation and natural resource for all the citizens of the state" (LMCD 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 ramps. 21 1859 - The sail boat White Swan capsizes off Big Island with the first recorded loss of lives on the lake. 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 Forest Lake in northern Washington 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 and 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 STANDARDS In considering management options for Lake Minnetonka, i necessary to examine the density standards that other agencies and ort izations have adopted, then examine their implications for this lake. ,.- data on density standards are not particularly useful because there is such a range In the standards. • Table S presents a summary of standards that have been applied to various water bodies managed by a range of Federal. State and local agencies. The standards fall inti two groups: single standards and individual boating activity standards. Agencies that have adopted a single standard include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the States of California, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the Province of Manitoba. Examination of the single standards seems to justify two conclusions: 1. The greater the population of the state, the lower the acres allocated per boat, and 2. The more acres of inland water available, the greater the acres allocated per boat. That does not help managers a great deal since Lake Minnetonka is neither an average lake nor is it used by average sized watercraft. Nor do standards for individual boating activities provide a great deal of guidance for Lake Minnetonka. Standards for anchored fishing range from 0.2 acres per boat to 8.0 acres per boat. The standard for waterskiing varies similarly between S and 40 acres. In actuality, Lake Minnetonka serves a variety of boating markets. Individual bays are alternatively and concurrently used by: • 22 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. TABLE 5 Summary of Boat Dens;t Standards In Acres Pe: Boat Modified from: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1987: Lake Development. 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 the 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 Minnes(.:a Department of Natural Resources ;DNR) has published guidance for determining the usable portion of a lake for 23 1859 - Charles Galpin's 50' sioewheeler steamboat, the G • Ramsey, takes its first passengers aboard at Wayzata Single Anchored 10 hp Sail Water - Agency Standard Fishing or Less Boatinb skiing Army Corps of Engineers 1 California 1 Minnesota 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 - Pennsylvania 5.0 3.0 2.6 - Modified from: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1987: Lake Development. 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 the 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 Minnes(.:a Department of Natural Resources ;DNR) has published guidance for determining the usable portion of a lake for 23 1859 - Charles Galpin's 50' sioewheeler steamboat, the G • Ramsey, takes its first passengers aboard at Wayzata planning purposes (DNR, 1987, Lake Development. p. 21). The method suggests subtracting the following areas from the gross lake surface: a) a 60 -meter band around the shore, b) a 120 .*ter band in front of 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 LMCD has established regulations that provide for a 150 -foot buffer zone rather than the 180 -foot zone (.0 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 boating. Table 6 presents those computations by bay, expressed as "usable acres". Accounting for the extra distances in front of marinas, beaches, access points, and hazards 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 1 acre per boat. Active boats, in Table 7, means that the boat is away from its dock 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 lake but anchored or otherwise dead in the water, at a transient dock (bar, restaurants), or rafted at one of the popular anchorages. Table 8 presents the change in the density of active boats by bay for the 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 problems with that assumption, but only to a limited degree. 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 toints (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 on one with a heavy concentration of boats. Anglers go to known places of success. C 24 1860 - The Governor Ramsey boards its first passengers at Wayzata. TABLE 6 Derivation of Usable Acres o Water Surface Lake Minnetonka, 1989 Area Ac : -s of Shoreline Buffer Usable Number Description. Water 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 20.00 .60 10.91 9.09 12 Black Lake 76.00 3 `0 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 ILO 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 3r, Gray's Bay 180.00 3.20 58.18 121.82 23 Stubb's Bay 195.00 2.50 45.45 14-9.55 1-� 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 330.00 4.40 80.00 250.00 7 Phelp's Bay 345.00 3.70 67.27 277.73 20 West Crystal Bay 325.00 2.50 45.45 279.55 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 545.00 7.30 132.73 412.27 17 West Arm 514.00 3.90 70.91 443.09 5 South Vpper Lake 722.00 6.60 120.00 602.00 28 Brown's Bay 696.00 3.50 63.64 632.36 29 Wavza:a Bay 778.00 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 978.00 4.40 80.00 898.00 42 Lower I3ke Nor,': 2,090.00 5.50 100.00 1,990.00 To.al 14.0•,3.00 125.30 2,270.00 11,773.00 25 • 1860 - The Governor Ramsey boards its first passengers at Wayzata. • • e TABLE 7 Change in Potential Active Boats and Boat Density for Alternative Density Standards Acres Existing Density Growth to: 8.00 Acres per Boat 7.00 Acres per Boat 6.00 Acres per Boat 5.00 Acres per Boat 4.00 Acres per Boat 3.00 Acres per Boat 2.00 Acres per Boat 1.00 Acres per Boat Change in Active Active Boats Boats 1453 Total Usable Acres Acres Per Boat Per Boat 14043 11773 9.66 8.10 1472 19 9.54 8.00 1682 229 8.35 7.00 1962 509 7.16 6.00 2355 902 5.96 5.00 2943 1490 4.77 4.00 3924 2471 3.58 3.00 5887 4434 2.39 2.00 11773 10320 1.19 1.00 If the assumption were not 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 distributes the new active boats in proportion to their present distribution. In all probability that will not happen, at least beyond a certain point. When conditions become too crowded, then certain markets may leave the lake (sailing seems most susceptible). When one bay becomes too crowded, another nearby bay with similar attractions may be core heavily used. With this shortcoming noted, Table 8 still represents the best distribution of new boats on the lake that the available data and literature permit. LONG -TERM RECREATION MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK The recreational use of the surface 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 as a general boating lake. Specifically, the IMCD and other agencies responsible for managing 26 TABLE 8 Effect of Various Density Standards on Lake Minnetoi -ca Active Boat Density • Acres Per Active Boat Area Acres of Usable Existing By Incremental Density Levels Number Description Hater Acres Density C.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 13 Faerald Lake 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Libb's Say 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Seton Lake 4% 4 .15 .15 .13 .11 .09 .07 19 Coffee Cove 57 24 .20 .19 .17 .14 .12 .1C 38 Echo Day 15 6 .39 .37 .33 .26 23 .19 39 Big Island Passage 36 21 .61 .58 51 ! 44 .36 .29 36 Excelsior Bay 90 68 .89 .85 .75 .64 .53 .43 12 Black Lake 76 18 1.09 1.04 .91 .78 .65 .5[ 33 Bay St. Louis 20 9 1.20 1.14 { 1.00 .86 .71 .57 40 Veteran's Bay 82 62 1.91 1.82 1.59 1.36 1.14 .91 34 Carson's Bay 116 67 3.:3 2.98 2.61 2.24 1.86 1.49 18 Forest Lake 62 49 4.21 4.01 3.51 3.01 2.5C 2 24 Maxwell Bay 300 233 4.36 4.16 3.64 3.12 2.60 2.08 27 Tanager Lake 51 31 { 4.92 4.31 3.69 3.06 2.46 32 Robinson's Bay 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 Grey's Bay 180 122 4.50 3.75 3 41 Lower Lake South 978 898 { 4.83 4.02 3.22 20 West Crystal Bay 325 280 I 4,95 4.13 3.30 3 Cook's Bay 343 303 4.43 3.54 10 Old Channel Bay 106 82 ; 4 76 3.81 22 North Arm 319 234 4.02 6 S ithtown Be-! 110 88 { 4.19 2 Priest's Bay 144 105 4.25 23 Stubb's Bay 195 150 4 69 5 South Upper Lake 722 602 4 79 Number of Bays With Less than 0.5 acres /boat 5 5 5 6 6 7 Less than 1.0 acres/boat 7 7 9 9 9 IG Less than 5.0 acres /boat i3 15 10 20 22 27 Usable Acres of Lake Surface Less then 0.5 acres /boat 34 34 55 55 123 Less than 1.0 acres /boat 123 i23 150 150 150 212 Less than 5.0 acres /boat 56: 62 1 1 879 2;73 2564 3743 Percent of the Lake's 'Usable S,r:ace Leas than 0.5 acres /boat 2y 29 29 47 47 1 04 Less than 1.0 acres,'boat °4 ^,a 27 27 ,27 80 Less than 5.0 scres,`boat 4.77 27 7 4' ;8 1 i 2; 78 3L 80 Total New Active Boats Added ... 22+ 55"+ 552 Total Active Boats ;a' ;a ;fp not 235: 2543 1862 - Settlers flee to Fort Snelling during the Sioux Uprising. recreational resources shall continue to manage recreational access and use of the lake to: 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 or, certain types of access, and restricting certain access and use temporally and spacially. • 28 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. The I14CD 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 or less restrictive management practices are appropriate. 2. The management of recreational boating access on Lake Minnetonka shall be based on density of use. As de;::;ity 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 patterns 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 be faster or slower than indicated. That is why achievement of actual densities trigger regulatory changes. Growth 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 provide the highest possible recreational experience and to maintain, the lake's role as a g oral boating lake. To implement this objective, the following management practices shall he 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 1,iw a policy of no further use of outlots for non-riparian landowner access on lands previously developed. 8 -4 Develop a policy restricting outlot use at new suhdivi ,icx:s subject to the 1:50 rule, a length -width limitation, one sir;, group dock for all landowners, and subject �o other 29 . 1862 - During the Sioux Uprising, forts are built in ixcElsior and long Lake; Wayzata Post Office is close'. restrictions imposed by the 1XCD. 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 fur her 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 L:ie 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 30 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 -4 Review the rules governing riparian ' 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 epportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian 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 :owth on al. Corms of access. 5 -4 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 conflicts between competing groups, encourage open and free access to all residents of the market area, and provide a safe, satisfactory and aesthetically pleasinv.t experience on the lake. The UtCD has the legislative mandate to c:,ntrol boating and growth of boating on the lake. Since growth is inevitable, management of use and access is mandatory. 3. The 114CD shall adopt comprehensive ordinances, including zoning, to implement its access controls. The purpose of this objective is to better categorize the I-MCD access rules and _egulations into an ordinance that links boat storage with existing municipal zoning. This gives the LMCD the same tool that riparian municipalities use to control changes ir land use. In this case, the !MC!) 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 IMCD procedurfs that is readiiy l 1869 - A grist mill is opened by the Minnetonka Milling Company. 0 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 shall meet with ee 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 I11CD 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\ 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 tc recover service costs. • 32 S. The IMCD 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 be reduced. ',When there are 700 car /trailer parking spaced provided in formal parking lots, then on- street car /trailer parking shall be eliminated. The Metropolitan Access Committee composed of the DNR, DIED and Metropolitan Council staff have adopted a policy o. providing public 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 spaces. That number was also agreed to during previous Task Forces addressing access to Lake Minnetonka. Given those policies, which the ager:ies involved are fully capable of implementing under their own statutory authority, this objective recognizes that level of access and goes one step farther. In order for growth tc take place with minimal disruption to a ^cess 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 increase 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 partnershi 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 legal battles minimized. The inter- agency study for implementing the trailered boat access plan should he jointly sponsored by all of the major managing agencies and should include municipal representation. Small lots serving anglers shall provide access to as many hays as possible. This study shall also address the issue of pricing boat ramp access to the lake. 6. The IMCD shall use existing authority to regulate parking, hard cover and sanitary facilities at any facility that requires a multiple dock license. The MCD traditionally has used this authority at most marinas. The practice should no,a be extended to any facility requesting a multiple dock license. Attention should be focused on any component of the si plan that has the potential to impact the water quality, lakeshore aesthetics, and lake use. From a functional stancjp�,int, 1, :� :ncovTier associations are marin..- operated for the convenience of a spacial public and not for profit. Yacht Clubs function as marinas, but are not for profit. 1812 - Tap Hill Griggs Company (J.J. Hill) buys the S standing timber on the north shore for logging. Apartments have group docks that differ little from some of the smaller profit - making marinas on the lake. All of multiple dock facilities have one important factor in common: they generate the same concentrated impacts to the lake as a commercial marina. It is inconsistent that on -shore facilities at marinas should be subjected to UlCD review, but multiple dock on -shore facilities not. 7. The IMCD shall develop regulations for multiple docks that establish specific criteria for determining the dock use area under high, normal and low water conditions. The purpose of this objective is to establish criteria that permit the optimum use of the lake's surface. Present regulations of the 1HCD encourage lateral expansion of marinas (where allowed by local municipal 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 ksummer) and motor vehicles (winter) increases. Further protection may be required to protect visitors partic?.pating in low impact uses, such as: Summer Winter canoeing cross - country skiing paddle boating ice sk,.ting fishing hiking /walking for pleasure 0 34 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 I14CD 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 public lands for winter access to the maximum possible sxtent and to produce a map of winter access for use by the general rublic. 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 utilizing all public lands is to offer every opportunity for minimizing trespass on private property and to 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 nrcviding regulators with the formation necessary to enforcement agencies. That is not the case with :e houses on Lake Minnetonka. Too high a percentage of ice houses on the 'ake do not fully comply with identification regulations of the DNR. The DNR and Water Patrol shall maintain a continuing effort to improve compliance with _ce house licensing and marking. The enforcement officers will then use existing regulatory authority to assure litter is removed from the ice surface on a regular and timely basis. Should these efforts fail for the LMCD, '_hen there are three steps to implementar ioi:: I. Obtain agreement from the DNR to implement a record keeping program tha, meets the needs of regulatory or enforcement 35 1876 - Fishing, sail and rowboat rentals are established in Wayzata. • 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. • • 36 III. USER EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION PERSPECTIVE 9 Enhancing user experience and satisfaction on the lake is more than protecting personal - afety_ Minimizing personal injury and property damage, responding to drownings 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 conditions will require the LMCD 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 because of its limited personnel. 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 a?.med 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 law enforcement agency (Water 13trol) . Budget for the Water Patrol is ultimately funded by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Hennepin County Board. The DNR accounts for roughly 40 percent and the 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 fn view of internal Sheriff Department priorities and county -wide priorities. The DNR ultimately determines the formul. for distributing boating safety funds to itioividual counties throughout the state. The result is that four public bodies affect the level of Water Patrol activity on the lake. This Mar;agemenL, Program seeks to provide morf• local cont:roI and to assure opt imam funding for this lake. 37 r 1881 - The Minneapolis Canoe Club is founded in Excelsior. The second concern is that there will be increased competition for the patrol hours within Hennepin County. The Sheriff's Water Patrol is responsible for . providing for user safety on all recreational water bodies in the county. In the future, it is likely that more water bodies will 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 ana, indeed, to provide for more patrol hours. Accordingly, this Management Program calls for the I14CD 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 conditions, 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 is most 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 regv.lating liquor licenses on charter boats operating nn the lake. In addition, the LMCD enabling legislation gives the District "operation, main'-enance 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. An interagency agreement gives the Hennepin County Sheriff authority over that part of Carver County in Smithtown Bay The Hennepin and Carver County Sheriff's Patrol Division also has enforcement authority over adjacent upland areas around the shore of the lake. 0 38 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 i-,al rules and regulations. Three officers are assigned to southwestern Hennepin County. Two of these have assigned s.reas that include Lake Minnetonka and smaller nearby lakes. The third officer does not regularly patrol lake Minnetonka, but does assist periodically. Additionally, as with the Water Patrol, grant money has provided opportunity to supplement normal patrols in 1988 and 1989 with officers working o•.ertime 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 DN personnel 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 Ccunty Sheriff, there are nine other organizations that can enforce certain laws, ordinances or regulations. These include: Suburban Hennepin Regional 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 Minnet nka Minnetrista - City of Minnetrista Mound - City of Mound Orono - Cities of Orono, Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park South Lake - Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay Wayzata - City of Wayzata These aepartments may enforce local ordinances but do not have the authority to enforce IJ4CD rules and regulations on the lake. The Suburban Hennepin Park District rangers have authority only ( those lands .,dm'nistered by the Park District. In addition to these organizations, there is another state agency that has the potential of affecting law enforcement on the lake and its shoreline. The Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training licenses peacf- officers, part time peace officers and constables employed in Minnesota. In any effort for the LNCD to form i's own law e.nforce:rent bo:i the P.0-S T. Board will be involved. 1881 - The first electrified boat, the City of St. Louis, • a 1000 passenger sidewheeler, is built in Wayzata. 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, data from surveys indicate that users have a positive attitudes toward the courtesy and perfcrmance of the Water Patrol. The users feel that the Water Patrol is doing a good job, but the users express the desire for more patrol hours. To have more patrol hours requires additional funds. Users were asked about unsafe situations encountered during their last boating trip on the lake. More than 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. 3. 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 expe :ted for a heavily used lake. More than one -half of all boaters in each class are encountering high wakes, alcohol abuse, right -of -way problems, excessive 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, boaters on the lake feel that there are enough rules, but those rules need to be better enforced. The major issues facing management of Lake Minnetonka with respect to user experience and satisfaction is finding a mechanism to increase patrol hours and determining the number of patrols that are needed during peak hours. Winter surveys were conducted between December, 1988 and April, 1989. In general, the pattern of responses parallels the findings of summer 40 attitudes. Three groups 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 and below 76 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 42.0 and 29.1 percent of the users surveyed and the level of equipment is considered to be too low by between 27.2 and 16.0 percent. This pattern of responses is similar to those for summer use. While out on the lake, the primary problem encountered is litter. Between 75.4 and 54.9 percent of the respondents feel that the litter problem primarily arises from persons engaged in ice fishing. Ice fishing and snowmobiling is believed to be jointly responsible for the litter problem by between 92.4 and 78.0 percent of the respondents. Unlike summer, only between 9.1 and 4.0 percent of the respondents indicate that the number of unsafe 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 i s 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 increased. 4. Emphasis should 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 point_; shoula he considered. N 1882 - The Hotel Lafayette is buil! on the Lafayette Club site 0 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES • i. Managing entities shall vork 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, funding sources need to be more stable than they have in the past. More stable and consistent procedures allows long -germ planning which directly affects personnel assignments. 2. The level of staff and the number of patrol boats on Lake Minnetonka shall be tied to boat density. As boat density increases on Lake Minnetonka, the number of patrol hours on the lake need to increase. An important purpose of the additional patrols is to maintain the quality of the recreational experience on the lake. Ultimately, the goal is for 24 -hour coverage seven days per week. But in the short 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, Saturdays and Sundays, with the fourth either Thursday or Monday, depending upon the Water Patrol's judgement and experience. The purpose of the increased patrols is to increase: • 1) general visibility on the lake, 2) enforcement of ordinances aimed at public comfort and enjoyment, and 3) proactive enforcement. The LMCD shall contract with the Sheriff's Water Patrol for the additional patrol hours. Funding shall be the property tax levy discussed under "Management Structure ". 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 at the time of contracting. 3. The LMCD shall take a leadership role in a county -vide boating education 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 surveys have completed a boating safety course. At the same time, additional survey data indicate that observance . of rules -of -the -road is lacking. Emphasis on enforcement needs to be only 42 one part of a program to enhance compliance with safe boatin, practices. Boating safety programs are presently encouraged by the Po%,er Squadron, sailing clubs and the DNR. 0 The percent of Lake Minnetonka boaters completing a boating education course is in line with the average for the metropolitan region and the southern part of the state. Only the northern part of the state has a lower average. However, in view of the density of boa, s, the per,:entage of boaters desiring more enforcement and the complaints that boater. do not know the rules of the road, improved boater education would alleviate soil;, problems on the lake. The objective requires a multi - pronged approach which includes: I. Meeting with organizations t•rith common interests to establish priorities and program design. 2. Expand distribution of educational materials around the lake. 3. Assistance in development of informational programs. 4. Expansion of participation in boating education 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 Community education /service programs of school districts I* 43 0 1882 - Minnetonka Yacht Club is formed and is the oldest yacht club west of the Hudson River. , k. t* aL .wY "�p p s r p5. 4. The LMCD shall work with tha sumps^ apaq , convicted persons of major infraatfs boating safety course. For this to work, the following must be available prior to contact miff th Chief Judge: 1. Regularly scheduled courses 2. Courses with a mixture of voluntary and compulsory attendenee 3. A shorter version of the course than the traditional power' squadron offering Presently, boating safety courses are available only certain time 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 , F!k 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 Patrol shall provide the latest technology for noise measurement in each patrol boat on Lake Minnetonka. This ineludes;� having trained staff on each patrol. Similar provision should be made fcr winter as appropriate for winter equipment and cold weather operation. 2. The LMCD should revise their present ordinance to impose a 71 decibel limit after 11 pm and before 7:00 an summer and winter. 3. Work with the Hennepin County Chief Judge to obtain increased._ fines along with a doubling of the fines for noise violations at night. 6. The use of personal watercraft, hovercraft and similar devises shall be limited by ordinance. x Personal watercraft shall be limited to the same hours of operation as waterskiing. Restriction of other devises shall be determined by the IM. The LMCD shall work with industry trade groups, the DNR, Water Patrol and other interested organizations to encourage, education, self regulation and solutions to other problems associated with the use of these types of craft. 7. Responsible agencies shall improve coordination of special events on the lake. t The LMCD shall sponsor semi - annual meetings to coordinate special events on the lake. The purpose of the meeting is to resolve problems that have arisen or may arise from scheduling such events. Participants at the meeting should be: Presently, the radio frequency used by the Water Patrol is fog 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 and will continue. As these changes are implemented locally, all law enforcement departments shall work to assure the most direct and efficient communication possible. 45 5 1882 - Excelsior Yacht Club is formed. � eu t , 1XCD dater Patrol t ' Suburban Hennepin Parks Lidividual Public Safety Departments (Applicants notified and attending) E C The Um, 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. `�. Twice each the LMCD shall host ;` year, 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 y 3. Allocation of resources to Lake Minnetonka 1 4. Coordination and communication between the LMCD, Water Patrol and local Public Safety Departments E; 5. Improvement of reporting between laa enforcement agencies active on and around the lake 6. Mailing lists for notification of special events and other issues 9. The I1lCD shall work with the Hennepin County Sheriff, the Water Patrol ' and local Public Safety Departments to assure direct communication using z� the latest technology available to the various departments. Presently, the radio frequency used by the Water Patrol is fog 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 and will continue. As these changes are implemented locally, all law enforcement departments shall work to assure the most direct and efficient communication possible. 45 5 1882 - Excelsior Yacht Club is formed. � eu t , J IV. SHORELANO 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 District recognizes that the cities surrounding the lake are faced with differing circumstances and land use perspectives. These cities have been given the authority to adopt land use plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations subject to the requirements of state law. The District recognizes that these are regulatory prerogatives of the cities and not of the LMCD. The LKCD does not seek to preempt that authority or to superseded local zoning ordinances. Rather, the District seeks to facilitate and to assist in compliance by the cities with statutory requirements and to act as a liaison between the cities and the DNB. To that end the District has proposed a draft shoreland ordinance as the basis for consideration by the cities. However, the District recognizes that the actual shoreland ordinances adopted by the cities will differ to accommodate concerns of a purely local character. Some lakeshore cities have their historic central business district partially or wholly within the shoreland zone as defined by DNR regulations. The LMCD recognizes that there needs to be flexibility in the shoreland ordinances to preserve these historical uses. The District believes that, subject to DNR approval and appropriate environmental protections for the lake, such historical uses within the shoreland zone should be allowed to redevelop. Differences in use, density and building heights will have to be worked out with the D[i.R during the time the city's ordinaace is developed. The overall strategy utilizes a two -part approach to minimizing the adverse effects of development. The first part 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. 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 47 1886 - J.J. Hill's 3,000 passenger Belle of Min netonka begins operations on the lake. objectives. That requires greater commitment by the IMCD in order to assure that all involved organizptions 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 since the District does not seek expanded authority above elevation 929.4 feet (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 Cif teria is to protect: 1) the lake from pollution, 2) the natural environment of the lake and the communities, 3) the local tax base, 4) aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake surface, 5) public health, and 6) public safety. The Department of Natural Resource's Shoreland Management Program and the Watershed District's regulations provide the basic environmental protection for the lake. Without them the water quality of the lake cannot be assured. MANAGEMENT AREAS Shoreland Management concerns three inter- related areas: 1) controlling development aid 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 ragionally attractive and neighborhood parks, vistas, lookouts, fishing piers, picnic areas and swimming beaches, present another set of problems to be minimized. Shoreland Pr.:,tection 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 rise of the lake and the shoreline. 0 48 N 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 est,:blish policy, standards and criteria; Implementation and enforcement customarily relies on local efforts. 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 that 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 laka's recreational experience, to protect upper basin wetlands, and to maximize water quality in the lake. 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 49 1 . on the lake in the next 25 years is environmentally, socially and m;.nagerially acceptable. To date, management of the lake's resources has not been comprehensive and has not been by consensus. The result has been 0. h2j compromise and dispute, sometimes pitting local interests against regional or state agencies. The challenge facing the communities on Lake Minnetonka is to use the state- mandated shoreland 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 ize of 10,000 square feet. At least one lakeshore community is presently developed at 6,000 square feet with some undeveloped 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 standard), these smaller lots fall into compliance. This trade -off is allowed under the DNR regulations when areas falling below the DNR minimum standards are offset by areas that are more restrictive. The Management Program offers the opportunity for one community on the lake to be developed at smaller lot sizes as long as another community has more restrictive standards. Thus, the agreements reached do not encourage smaller lots, but the agreements do allow them to continue to be used within a more restricted regulatory framework. 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 subcommittee deliberations, it is imperative that some municipalities remain more restrictive. Recreational use of the lake creates additional concerns for shoreland protection. Such use creates pressures for on -shore developments within shorelands. Businesses and certain residential uses 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 expanded regional demand for water - oriented recreation, the best place to do so is on its shoreline. During peak use hours there is an average of one boat for every 8 acres of usable water on a summer weekend day. However, the busiest day recorded on the lake had 2256 active boats during peak hours which is one boat for 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, then, to examine increased use of its shoreline to meet the expanding regional demand for water - oriented recreation. Regional 50 i opportunities for picnicking and swimming are presently limited on the lake. Development of the lake shore is largely limited to neighborhood parks and the Excelsior Commons. Picnicking and swimming opportunities have been developed largely to serve resident neighborhoods. Orly the Excelsior Commons has the capacity to serve a significant regional population. LONG -TERM SHORELAND PROTECTION The uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely affects aesthetics, both from the shore and from the lake. Uncontrolled use also adversely affects the public health, 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 declared in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 105, 115, 116, 394, 396 and 462, and Minnesota Rules, sections 6120.2500 to 6120.3900, minimum standards and criteria are established for the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka. The standards and criteria are 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. The intent of the cities, agencies and organizations involved in the development of the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka is to encourage and enhance efforts by local government with jurisdiction over land use and . zoning to control development and redevelopment of the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka. Goals and objectives as well as the Standards and Criteria contained in this Shoreland Protection Plan that address shoreland management issues are to be interpreted as minimum standards. Nothing in these standards and criteria shall be construed as prohibiting or discouraging a local government from adopting and enforcing controls that are more restrictive. Individual municipalities are 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 has 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 facili— in its entirety. 2. the inclusion, siting and number c,:. recreational and ancillary facilities in such 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. 51 1889 - The first state statute is P assed to prevent pollution of Lake Minnetonka. 4. encouraging and supporting county and regional funding for acquisition, operation and maintenance of regionally attr "ctive 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 destinations for boaters to decrease the density of moving boats on the lake during peak periods. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has legislative authority over shoreline use and over shoreline public lands. The stated LHCD policy includes encouraging management of local parks locally and regionally attractive parks regionally. 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 that removes their boats from the lake temporarily, particularly 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 such 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 recreational value, c) creating conflicts between other traditional uses, and d) enhancing traditional uses of the lake by the general public and private 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 public 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. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 1. Managing entities shall facilitate, encourage and enhance local government efforts to adopt shoreland management rules and regulations that follow the standards and criteria that are contained 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. 52 The LMCD shall contact each lake 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 IMCD 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 area surrounding 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, the L(CD shall influence case -by -case proposals through negotiation. This can be done directly with the developers, the cities involved as well as with the Metropolitan Council. 3. The IMCD shall counsel with lake cities in reviewing and commenting on the following variance applications: a) building height variances anywhere in lakeshore communities, and • b) all variances for riparian parcels on Lake Minnetonka. The participating organizations felt that the IMCD should take an active role in assuring that lakeshore communities consistently enforced the shoreland regulations adopted under the Standards and Criteria with respect to structure height. Since variances are the mechanism that developers use to exceed structure limits, the IMCD shall develop agreements with local communities to review variance applications. The LiCD shall notify the city of its position on the variance. Thereafter, the city shall notify the L1CD of the decision of its Plan Commission and its Council. In order to implement this process, the LICD needs the staff and capability to rapidly respond to such applications. 53 . 1889 - Minnetonka and Excelsior Yacht Clubs merge and build the Lighthouse Island Club. 'g E 4. The UICD shall take an active role in the development of pt ° public shoreline recreational facility that is potentially of lsl significance. The LKCD 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 cooper& t rtith implementing agencies to assure the interests of all users of Lake Minnetonka are considered during the plan process as well as dutte operations. Farther, the LlCD shall facilitate cooperation and coordinate involvement between regional agencies and local communities while maintaining its role as advocate for the resource. As plans are evolved for future perks of regional attraction. the L shall be involved from the beginning in decisions about facilities provided and their location. The basis for this involvement is their aoltidol*le authority over such facilities. 5. The LICD shall maintain its policy of not amming or eparat sbstel e recreational facilities but shall continue to fester � ` facilitate coordination for better located and dm, oiled am-a recreational opportunities. Presently, municipalities, Hennepin County, Suburban Negmepin Jegional ftrk District and the Department of Natural Resources actively 1iltna+r pubie lands on the lake. There does not appear to be reason for L to undertake responsibility in this area. LlCD resources shall ba allocated more toward its traditional areas of operation. 6. The goal for parking at boat access points shall be to p sufficient formal parking in the vicinity of major &team poor 11iti Ch utilizes remote parking facilities. facilitates bamdie+rppsd a es11. $04 minimizes on- street parking, lake frontage, tatter gwlity ofi�+a�at�1, arhlt #io intrusions and minimizes 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 hardcovrr limitation of 25 percent of the lot area all but precludes continuing the existing practice of building access point parking immediately adjacent to the lake. finder the water quality, wetland protection and shoreland management objectives, such parking areas shall be removed from the lakeshore as opportunity arises. New parking areas shall be subject to the shoreland management, water quality and wetland protections afforded in this Lots - Tors Nanagenent Program. On- street parking causes congestion on city and county streets, disrupts neighborhoods, interferes with traffic flow and inconveniences users of access points. A better arrangement is to use remote parking, with shuttles as required. The level of existing shoreline development poses difficult trade -offs; expansion of parking lots displaces existing 54 traditional uses. As new parking areas are developed, an operating plan shall be developed which includes the conditions under which the ramp and/or parking lots may be closed. 0 t iihile these factors present difficulties to implementing a solution to the parking situation, the best course is to manage boat access more like the National Park Service. Popular 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 provid3 guidance for developing an optimum parking arrangement for like Minnetonka. 7. Operation, maintenance and law enforcement responsibility for shoreline neigbborbood parks shall remain with the owning municipality. Shore -based recreation represents an important, but sometimes overlooked, part of the sammer use of Lake Minnetonka. On the lake at the present time these 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 attract visitors from outside of the local community. Noerenberg Park and the Excelsior Commons are examples. i. hater- oriented shoreline recreational facilities serving a regional population shall have regional funding. Presently there are plans for developing a regional park in Minnetrista with significant public lands on Big, Wawatasso, and Wild Goose Chase Islands. Present LMCD policy is to encourage development of additional Intermediate or regional parks. Funding of parks serving a county -wide or regional population shall be at the regional level. basically, this is consistent with existing policy in the seven county metropolitan area. Through the Metropolitan Council's Parks and Open Space program an extensive set of regional parks have been developed that are under the management of county recreation agencies. This objective is consistent with existing regional practice. 9. Managing entities shall support enhancement of shoreline recreational opportunities serving the regional population. This is consistent with LMCD stated policy and represents no change from the presen The 1972 policy states that such areas are needed in only one or two locations on the lake. The number of regional parks needed on the lake is not specified; future studies should determine the number and size of parks. 55 1893 - The sloop naw , the first scow -type boat designed to sail "over" the water, wins national honors. �J • • • Given the present plans for a park public parcels on big Island, it is on consolidation and development in implemented. further demand studies acquisitions and construction. n Minnetrista and the existence of large now preferable to focus resources and effort these areas. After existing plans are can establish the need for further It is logical to adopt a position enhancing shoreline recreational use. Use of the shoreline to develop attractive destinations for 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. for conflicts. 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 rafting or beaching is heavily used by boaters during peak hours. Development 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 10. Managing entities shall encourage further public development and appropriate acquisition on big Island. Present use of big Island could be acquisition and development. It is to serve a regional population with Island represents the largest block be developed to its optimum extent. improved if there is additional preferable to develop the future park regional management and funding. Sig of public lauds and the resource shall The board of Governors for the Veteran's Camp on the island remain concerned that this management objective could be interpreted 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 continue 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. Effectively, this means that the proposed park in Hinnetrista, Wild Goose Chase Island, Wawatasso Island, big Island, Noerenberg Park, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right -of -way and future acquisitions shall be consolidated into a single cohesive recreation resource with unified and coordinated management. Funding shall be given priority to assure timely implementation. 56 12. A plan for fishing access shall be developed for the lake using fishing piers and provision for formal parking areas. Fishing can be enhanced on the lake and conflicts with boating reduced 40 through the construction of fishing piers on the lake. Fishing piers can be positioned so that the activity is ralocated away -rom the shoreline at narrow channels to adjacent parts of the open lake. This maintains traditional uses in essentially the same location while improving the recreational experience of both groups. The State of Minnesota has a program which funds construction of fishing piers on public property. The LMCD shall work with Hennepin County and local municipalities to obtain these funds insofar as available. Further, the LMCD shall use its regulatory function for marina modifications to include fishing piers as a high priority amenity where appropriate and as local conditions hnd municipal regulation permit. While improving car /trailer parking, provision shall be included for shore fishing utilizing a site design that minimize 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 remote parking with public transportation to the lake shore. 57 0 1897 - The elevation of Gray's Bay Darr is set at 929.4 by state statute. 15 . The IMCD shall coordinate placement and ser Ul" Of containers at all summer and winter access points an the lab dot vehicles. Winter users of the lake strongly feel that litter is the primary probler. In addition to increasing enforcement, users need an opportunity to properly dispose of their garbage. Various institutional barriers preclude garbage collection on the lake, so trash containers shall be provided at the shoreline at all appropriate access points on the lake. 58 The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has been involved in assuring environmental protection of the lake since its inception. After its formation in 1967, the L4CD 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 municipal 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 was fully realized by 1986 when the last wastewater plant within the lake's watershed was phased out. 59 1901 - There are 29 steamboats and 51 motor launches on the lake. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERSPECTIVE Thy challenge facing resource managers protecting the natural enviro -.Ment In and near Lake 'netonka 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 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka to include the entire upper drainage basin. Water quality in 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 Watershed and the Department of Fatural 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 and sometimes to modify their regulations in order to provide the requisite level of protection. Without that protection and mitigation, Lake Minnetonka water quality -- =0 with it the quality of the recreational experience -- will decline. So vanaggent program for environmental protection is integrally related to shoreland protection programs. Most of the Standards and Criteria for die shoreland ordinances are needed in order to protect water quality, ANthatics and the quality of the recreational experience. Without adoption and consistent enforcement by all 14 lakeshore communities, these water 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 modified regulatory programs. The role of the LMCD must be to improve its regulatory programs and to provide overview 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 environmental protection of the lake since its inception. After its formation in 1967, the L4CD 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 municipal 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 was fully realized by 1986 when the last wastewater plant within the lake's watershed was phased out. 59 1901 - There are 29 steamboats and 51 motor launches on the lake. MANAGEMENT AREAS . Water Quality management objectives call for improved monitoring, maintaining recreation and sport fishing, minimizing the effects of non -point source 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 District. Implementation of the water quality objectives rely on interagency agreements, modification of agency objectives, improved enforcement, improved intergovernmental relations, and consistent cooperation and communication. Wetlands protection focuses on improved regulation both in the lake and in the upper watershed. Protection, both above and below 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 and 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 LMCD (Chapter 907, Laws of 1967, as amended) gives LMCD authority to manage lake water quality. Specifically, the District has been granted the following powers related to water qualit.. management: • to undertake research to determine the condition and developuent 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 comprehens!ve 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 treatmt of pollur'_ci problems and demonstration programs related to them Besides the iM;:'t', four other agencies have the potential to affect water quality on the late. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was founded at almost the same times as the LMCD. The Watershed District has independent taxing authorit,, power to implement projects and power to regulate the entire water,!ht-; of the lake and creek. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estat:l .`rs water quality standards and performance of on -site . sewage treatmt!rl _vstems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 60 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have permit programs that directly affect the water quality of the lake. Regulation of wetlands below the 929.4 contour is implicit in the LMCD'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 1MCD's authority is limited to those areas below the 929.4 contour. Accordingly, implementation of important parts of this program must rely on action by other organizations. Fisheries are largely the purview of the DNR under Minnesota statutes. The DNR has the responsibility to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife in the state. Further, Chapter 97A.045 directs the Commissioner of the DNR to manage fish and wildlife to ensure recreational opportunities for anglers and hunters. The LMCD traditionally has not been active in fisheries management; its regulatory efforts have focused on managing fishing tournaments. The potential exists for the LMCD to take a more active role in this area. PLANNING CONTEXT WATER QUALITY Generally, the various bays of Lake Minnetonka have exhibited improved water quality since the diversion of wastewater treatment plant effluents out of the watershed of the lake. Measurements demonstrate improved summer water quality conditions. The quality is now adequate to support most recreational uses of the lake. Exceptions to this are Halsted's Bay, Crystal Bay, Tanager Lake and West Arm. The lack of improvement in these bays is probably due to internal phosphorus loading from lake sediments and high loadings from non -point source pollution. The major threat to the wager quality of the lake is the development and redevelopment of the watershed of the lake. Additional phosphorus loading appears unavoidable. Detention ponds can reduce, but will not eliminate, this impact. Because of that, eventually, in -lake treatment methods may be needed to maintain water quality for recreational purposes. Additionally, lesser sources of phosphorus loading include excessive and improper use of phosphorus fertilizers, disturbance of highly erodible areas, filling of wetland and poor agricultural practices in the basin. The aquatic weed Eurasian Watermilfoil has become established in all parts of Lake Minnetonka and represents a threat to traditional recreational use patterns on the lake. The weed may also cause depletion of dissolved oxygen in the lake during periods when the plants die and decompose. 61 1905 - The 65 -acre Big Island Amusement Park is opened and serviced from Excelsior by "Yellow Jacket" street ca boats. 0 Generally speaking, the institutional framework necessary for effective water quality management exists, but current standards and criteria do not • afford sufficient protection for 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 wetlands have undergone intense development over the years. As pressure increases for additional lake access and redevelopment of low density residential and commercial districts, the pressure to alter wetland areas will also 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 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, b 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 wetlar_d 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 to eradicate the plant on their land and the responsibility of the DNR 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 1XCD shall track ongoing research and the potential for improved control methods. FISHERIES The primary objective of fisheries management is the 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 pcpulations of fish in the lake. Potential impacts on the fisheries of Lake Minnetonka are primarily related q loss or degradation of fish habitat. Some of the potential threats to .ash habitat include: - filling or alteration of wetlands or the lake - development and redevelopment of lake shoreline - degradation of water quality 0 62 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 shoreland 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 county metropolitan area. The lake is rated as the finest bass lake in Minnesota, the diversity of aquatic habitat in the lake supports an abundance of fish species. More major bass tournaments are conducted on the lake than on any other lake in Minnesota. The exceptional quality of the lake and its proximity to the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area makes it imperative that the lake be managed in such a manner as to protect 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 -TERM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM 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 LMCD shall use its regulatory authority, to the fullest extent allowed by law, to: 63 1906 - Minneapolis Street Railway connects to the streetcar boats serving Big Island. 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 wetlands. h) encourage a scientific approach to wetland management for water quality benefits through appropriate sedimentation and detention practices. i) assist the DNR fisheries management program by aiding in local regulation of lake use and habitat protection. J) serve as an advocate for the lake resource during formulation of DNR fisheries programs. 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 management and protection of wetlands in the upper basin; and the DNR should continue the lead in managing fisheries on the lake. • 64 MANASEMENT 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 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 LMCD 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 quality problems, including blooms of potentially toxic algae, arc 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 50 ug /l will be 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 by wastewater treatment plant effluents. Internal phosphorus loads derived from the sediments of Langdon Lake, French Lake, Tanager Lake, and Peavey Lake are significant sources of phosphorus reaching Like Minnetonka. The Watershed District plans to address these problems shall be supported by other managing entities. 65 1913 - Song "By the Maters of Lake Minnetonka" by Thurlow Lieuranz is popula world wide. 3. Minimize the impacts of non -point pollution on the quality of Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries, by controlling urban and agricultural storwater runoff and erosion, and other appropriate management practices. The IMCD shall work 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 Shoreland Rules. b. Manage stormwater runoff according to the regional detention basin concept recommended by the U.S. EPA Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). c. On -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 detention 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 approved stormwater management plan. Where detention ponds cannot 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 (Walker, 1989) or other comparable model. f. Permit requirements for each constn detention pond should include a Maintenance Plan and provisions for access to perform maintenance. These items should be i ^corporated into the Section 509 Water Management Plan of the Watershed District as requirements for modification of local ordinances under Minnesota Statutes 473.878, Subd. 4(g). The LMCD shall petition the Watershed District that it modify its Rule B to specify these criteria, and that these requirements be applied to the entire Lake Minnetonka watershed, not just shorelands. The LMCD shall also encourage the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District and the Hennepin Conservation District to identify critical non -point sources of pollution from agricultural land within the Lake Minnetonka watershed. The LMCD shall support the adoption of best management practices by area farmers. 10 0 66 4. Minimize the impacts of fertilizers and pesticides contained in watershed runoff on the quality of Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore communities shall adopt restrictions on the use of fertilizers and pesticides by the Shoreland Management Regulations of the DNR. The LMCD shall work with these communities to adopt comprehensive lawn fertilizer ordinances and to provide adequate staff for control of both commercial applicators and homeowners. Shoreland Ordinances shall incorporate requirements that bare ground areas be vegetated, and that vegetative matter not be placed on impervious surfaces or in natural drainageways since it appears that urban good housekeeping is a significant factor in determining phosphorus export from the watershed. The LMCD shall work with the Watershed District and constituent communities to enforce these same requirements throughout the Lake Minnetonka Watershed. 5. Minimize the pollutants reaching Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries via septic tank leachate and residues from past treatment practices. The Shoreland Ordinances adopted by the 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 new Shoreland Management Regulations of the DNR and the Shoreland Management Standards and Criteria contained in Appendix C. 6. Protect receiving water quality from the detrimental effects of serious erosion, either during or after construction of residential and co®ercial developments, and to ensure that runoff from the developed site is of good quality. Erosion and sedimentation control plans, meeting the criteria established by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, shall be required on all developments in the watershed. The lakeshore communities shall require that stormwater runoff be managed according V - 1 management objective 3, above. The maximum impervious coverage shall be limited to 25 percent of the area. 7. Reduce the spread of noxious aquatic weeds, including Eurasian watermilfoil, and to manage effectively the water quality problems their presence in Lake Minnetonka creates. The LMCD shall continue to work cooperatively with other resource management agencies to control the spread of Eurasian watermilfoil and other noxious aquatic weeds. 67 1928 - The first Greyhound buses are built at the Minnetonka Boat Works. 0 8. Minimize the adverse water quality impacts of dredging actvl,s on the quality of public waters. The lXCD shall endorse Rule E of the Watershed District. The :1sCti shall then enact its own wetland ordinance in order to assure minimal disruption of these essential resources. The LMCD, along with the DNR Division of Waters and the Minnebsba Creek Watershed District, are drafting an interagency policy resolution to establish uniform navigational dredging access criteria for Lake Minnetonka. A draft policy has been developed and will be discussed further with the agencies. Opportunities for public input are also being planned. 9. Improve protection of wetlands lying within the 929.4 contour of Lake Minnetonka through regulation. The LMCD shall undertake a detailed inventory of wetlands below 929.4 on Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD shall then enact a wetlands ordinance which restricts the amount of dredging that may be conducted. Included should be a no- net -loss policy. A further purpose of the ordinance is to preserve wetland values. To ensure inspection and enforcement of dredsing and filling regulations governing activities within the lake, the ii& shall encourage funding of adequate staff for inspection of permits issusd by the DNR or the Watershed District. Should outside funding not be available, the L4CD shall fund such inspection and enforcement activities. • The LMCD shall amend its regulatory programs to recognize that :docks constructed across wetlands may have an adverse impact on the functional. and aesthetic values of wetlands. In addition to its own ordinance, the IllCD 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 of protection of wetlands above the 929.4 contour through regulation. The LMCD shall encourage all lakeshore and upper basin eommities to formulate or amend their wetland ordinances as needed to include minimum performance standards, a comprehensive wetland definition and sap, and provisions for mitigation of wetland degraded. The DNR area hydrologist should be consulted in development of the wetland ordinances. The Watershed 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 or to adopt the National Wetland Inventory Maps. 0 68 The LHCD 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 target fish species (e.g., largemouth bass, northern pike and bluegill). The study should use accepted standard techniques for such detailed studies. This information should be compiled on a map delineating critical habitat at a scale of at least 1:2400. Ordinances shall be adopted by the LMCD that protect the critical habitat from disruption. 14. Improve monitoring of fish populations and fish harvest rates. Montoring fish populations allows diagnoses of imbalances in fish populations end determination 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. 69 1930 - Minnetonka Boat Works produces its first power boats, 36' -38' launches. { 11. Encourage protection of wetlands above the 929.4 contour through acquisition. The LHCD 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 supported by tax base revenues for wetland acquistion and in addition to other existing funding sources. 12. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality improvement, flood control, wildlife habitat and aesthetics. The LMCD 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 LtiCD 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 establish;nent of buffer areas. The LHCD 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 target fish species (e.g., largemouth bass, northern pike and bluegill). The study should use accepted standard techniques for such detailed studies. This information should be compiled on a map delineating critical habitat at a scale of at least 1:2400. Ordinances shall be adopted by the LMCD that protect the critical habitat from disruption. 14. Improve monitoring of fish populations and fish harvest rates. Montoring fish populations allows diagnoses of imbalances in fish populations end determination 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. 69 1930 - Minnetonka Boat Works produces its first power boats, 36' -38' launches. 15. Improve local regulation of fishing tournaments for the purpose of reducing mortality of fish caught and to mdnimize the impact of increasing fishing pressure on the resource and other users. All tournaments for bass, valleys, 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, valleys and muskellunge tournaments 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 shall consider individual and cumulative effects on the resource, other users and landowners. 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 114CD 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 techniques in and around dense mats of aquatic vegetation. • 0 70 VI. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE S The management program forges a new working partnership between the municipalities, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, and the DNR. An important role of the LMCD will be to keep that partnership fun.tioning and to maintain consensus with respect to management priorities and programs. This management structure builds on strengths and does not create a new layer of government with addition to the existing 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 I14CD does this by being the foremost advocate for the lake, not by direct funding. In this way, traditional authorises and programs are maintained and enhanced when warranted. In the late 19 70s, regional and state agencies shifted their priorities to place more emphasis on public access to the lake. That change in priorities, without accompanying 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 statc 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 1•.g -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 Lu 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. 71 1937 - The lake reaches a low level of 922.7. • • K Existing means of funding LNCD activities are to continue, but the tax*$ levied are to be independent of local levy limits and approvals. Ad" 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 nature of the lake resource and its regional use requires a more equitable tax base. In 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 existing 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 implement 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 lakeshors development. Proper management of Lake Minnetonka depends on a working partnership between: IXCD , Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Hennepin Conservation District • Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and Individual municipalities. These organizations offer such to the lake. The DNR and Metropolitan council have regulatory programs, review authority, funding mechanisms, and technical expertise of direct benefit. The Suburban Hetmepin 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 fine 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. AUTHORITY A detailed discussion of authorip is contained in Appendix A. The discussion that follows focuses on funding -- the most important aspect for this part of the Management Program. • 72 LAKE NINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT The LNCD was established under the Laws of 1967, Chapter 907 as amended 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 tanicipality shall bear more than 20 percent of the total expense, and such portion shall r..,t be less than $200 per year." 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 f - mation of lake improvement districts within one or more counties of the sta e. Established by the County board(s) or the Commissioner of the DNR, the district has powers nearly identical to the U@CD. However, financing the district's activities is quite different from that of the LMCD. Chapter 378.52 provides that financing may use any of the following . tethods, singly or in combination: 0 (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 L{CD 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 L{CD legislation was used 73 1939 - Glen Miller's Orchestra plays "Minnetonka Moon" on the lake. as the model for the later county district. The legislature used a very different means of funding lake improvement districts from that used for the LMCD. The development of the Comprehensive Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka is an opportune time to update LMCD funding. Without altering the funding available to the District, the Long -Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka cannot be implemented. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE PROGRAM PERSPECTIVE A primary objective of the Management Program is to determine the framework for implementation. But without a change in the way the LMCD is funded, this program cannot be implemented. When funding changes, so shall the membership of the LMCD Board. Change in the working relationships between 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 state -wide legislative mandates 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. i But the 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 shorelind 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, arid redevelopment pressures on the remainder of the shoreline, require greater expenditure of public funds for m „nagement 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, Ehoreland is 74 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 broaeer 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 programs. 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. TABLE 9 Computation of Visitor Origin by Type of Access Lake Minnetonka * Includes beats from cities in Cartier County. Source: Surveys conducted on Lake Minnetonka between 1984 and 1989. 75 1944 - Minnetonka Boat Works supplies outboard powered assault boats for the crossing of the Rhine. 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 beats from cities in Cartier County. Source: Surveys conducted on Lake Minnetonka between 1984 and 1989. 75 1944 - Minnetonka Boat Works supplies outboard powered assault boats for the crossing of the Rhine. These data indicate that more than ninety -one 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 some other metropolitan counties be subject to an extremely small tax to pay for the cost of operations on this lake. FUTURE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND FUNDING Implementation of this Management Program is particularly dependent upon a close relationship between the LMCD, the 14 lakeshore cities, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Without a close, working partnership the environmental and shoreland protection goals cannot be achieved. The cities and the Watershed District more than all other managing entities control day -to -day enforcement and implementation of regulatory controls over development and shoreland redevelopment. Proposals to alter the LMCD Board and the method by which it is funded 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 reasons, 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 lake programs contribute to their operation costs. This means that the area of f.ne levy should be expanded so that revenues are split according to a formula based on visitor origin. Present 76 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 time by these agencies, with the levy adjusted (after public hearing) to reflect changes in user patterns. Other counties 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 their 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 appointed by the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed . District. Tne 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 re: a. elected public officials, or b. paid staff. It is prudent to continue to trust lake management to the same type of interested citizens that have served for more than twenty years. While there has been controversy and dispute over access to the lake, those problems are not related to the type of Director *hat has served on the LMCD Board. It is advantageous to continue this tradition on the LMC0 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 perspective. For more than 20 years voting records of individual board members have not traditionally been subjected to review by vote ^s in the 14 communities. Changes in board membership most often reflected changes in administrations or in director 77 1946 - The Greater Tonka Council is organized. 0 willingness to serve. Appointment of directors to the LMCD Board continues a process that has worked well throughout its history. In addition, appointment assures the LMCD Board remains close to the 14 cities 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 county and regional seats on the Board. MANAGEMENT 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 LMCD 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 needed. Instead, programs are established to protect lakes generally; protection of individuals requires other regional or local agency action. That is the situation on Lake Minnetonka. The DNR, PCA and Watershed District have various programs, but lack the funds or staff to always 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 all dredging operations are monitored. For water quality it means that there is not an adequate sampling program. Water quality sampling is left to the Watershed 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 a- ailable funds. The local agencies have been no better funded. The Watershed District does not conduct a water 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. 78 Funding for District regulatory activities shall be by: 1. continuing user fees to maximum extent allowed by law, 2. obtaining legislative approval for a Lake Minnetonka boat sticker (license) for each boat operated on the lake or, alternatively, another innovative funding source, 3. aggressively seeking grants from regional, state and Federal agencies, 4. the existing tax levy, but it shall be outside of the cities' tax limitations, and 5. expanding 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 user 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 managemer_t plan. If a boat sticker is not acceptable, thE, alternative innovative, 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 to locate, apply for and obtain as many grants as possible. Both the previous Task Forces on Lake Minnetonka recommended that the existing tax levy be made independent of local levy limits. Accordingly, when the legislative package is prepared to implement components of this Management 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 split in revenues shall be reviewed 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 generated in the 14 lakeshore communities. Hennepin County households, exclusive of these 14 communities, 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: 79 • 1951 - Nigh water level of 931.43 is reached on the lake. 0 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 those who use the lake, distributing the cost of regulatory programs directly to these users. This is actually contained in Objective 2, but is included here to assure proper weight is given to this important source of revenue. The LMCD presently uses a series of service fees to fund a portion of their programs. That practice will simply continue while calling for a review to assure they cover existing costs. 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 /noorings, 4) parking fees at ramps and parks, and 5) temporary dock inspections. 5. The Regional Park and Open Space Capital Improvement 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 funded regionally. This makes available, subject to established priority setting processes, regional capital improvement funds administered by the Metropolitan Council. The funds shall be provided through one of the existing implementing agencies for improvements owned and operated by that agency. 6. Managing agencies active on Lake Minnetonka shall cooperate to obtain legislative approval for a metropolitan boat license; revenues from such a program shall be divided between participating lake management agencies. This is the first preference for additional funds for Take Minnetonka programs. T'ne emphasis shall be on innovative financing techniques. The DNR is presently opposed to special boat licenses. Perhaps that opposition could be the reason for obtaining another innovative method for financing local lake management activities. Such innovative methods would be best if not dependent upon State Legislature appropriations. 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. 1 a• 80 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 obtain regional funding after which the 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 Park District and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district all have regulatory programs that directly affect the environmental quality of the lake and it recreational use. The view 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 expanded regional representation while expanding the tax base. 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, in order to maintain the continuity of Board members with their knowledge and expertise in lake matters, 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 81 1953 - The Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol is organized. is 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 IXCD 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 avorn in. 4. An Executive Committee, with specified powers should be formed. 14. The I14CD should enter into an interagency agreemat with the DNR and the Hennepin County Attorney to provide prosecution sarvIces for citations Issued by DNR Conservation Officers. Working with the DNR, the L4CD shall seek an Attorney General's opinion as to the conditions under which the 1MCD may provide prosecuting ser%ices to the DNR or the Hennepin County Attorney. If legal barriers exist, the LMCD, County Attorney and the DNR shall work to have then 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 IXCD 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 IMCD 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 IMCD has lacked a technical staff that could maintain an aggressive and utilitarian program. When research on take issues has been required, it primarily relied on other government agencie private consultants or other organizations to conduct the studies. It has participated in or wholly funded studies. The ,.thority to implement this is presently adequate. However, the IXCD 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. :M K] 82 12. The IMCD 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 a €regiments, objectives and goals. Review of plans or proposals has been limited by inadequate staff. Authority need not be expanded, but the LMCD role needs to be enhanced an clarified in specific areas through interagency agreements. Again, professional staff capable of handling the work load and technical aoina-, need to be provided. Funds to accomplish this need to be located. 13. T h e IMCD Shall Continue it.; Communication, Lobby and Fuh l i c Information Activities. This simply continues the existing LMCD roles in these areal, whiff placing increased emphasis by: a. Fostering and channelling discussions on issues afft-•cr_inF, :t;e lake. b. Presenting lake management issues to legislative, regi<�t }al and county delegations and committees. c. Serving as a focus for public information and public involvement. d. Providing a unified approach to resource managemen Several important contributions have been made over the yeai in providing information to the public, as well as establishing, and InaintainiTIg communication. Lobbying activities have been limited bY inadequate staff, mostly relying mostly on volunteers. With proper funding, the activities can be perforwed by staff. • • 83 0 �. 1 VII. IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE O The Long -Term Management irogram for Lake Minnetonk ovides a 25 -year guide for maintaining, and enhancing where possible, -ne 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 managing 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 LMGD 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. I.`. the environmental quality and user experience on the lake is to be protected, difficult decisions will have to be made by L11 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 UCD 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. Wher the legislative program is achieved, significant new funds wi'' ., available. At that point, the LMCD Board needs to change the fundament.,, way that it operates. Presently, Directors, when meeting in cotamittees, perform functions t►armally reserved for professional staff. With the limited available funds, the LMCD has no other option. But when funds rre available, then the LMCD Board may decrease its staff "unction 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 mans.aement objectives into four areas: Legislative Program Research Frogram Regulatory Program IntergovernmenLal Coordinat`.on Program Further, the timing of the action by the managing entities is divided into six categories: General Activities Year One Activities 85 • 1953 - The Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol is organized. 0 • • Year Two Activities Year Three Activities Periodic Activities Density -Based Activities f 'd 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 to change rather than introcution of new programs. The programs for Years One through Three reflect the staff and funding limitations of the present LMCD. Periodic activities are recurring research studies. Density -based activities are triggered by the number of acres per boat during peak periods. GENERAL ACTIVITIES The following general activities either confirm or re- orient existing programs of managing entities. At times the LMCD is to take action exclusively. At other times the IMCD 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 monitors 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) utilizes remote parking; 2) facilitates handicapped access; 3) minimizes on- street parking, lakefrontage, water quality effects, and aesthetic intrusions; and 4) minimizes 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 rover and sanitary facilities during implementation of the multiple dock licensing program. 8. Enhance litter clean -up programs. These seven action items shall be implemented continuously as the Board considers these issues in its daily lake operations. 86 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 anchorage opportunities, particularly through public acquisition of riparian property. 5. Encourage coordinated development, management, policing and regional funding of all public lands of regional attraction. 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. S. Maintain the LMCD policy of not owning or operating shoreline recreational facilities 9. Continue to foster 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 comercial 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 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 after construction of residential and commercial developments, e) runoff from the developed sites, and f) the number of boats on the lake. 23. Reduce the spread of noxious aquatic weeds, including Eurasian watermil.foil, and to manage effectively the water quality problems 87 1960 - The LMCD concept Is proposed by a lake group, Including the Mayor of Shorewood. their presence in Lake Minnetonka creates. 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 tht- e should bs incorporated into the LMCD Code or into its lobbying and coordination programs. YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM The legislative program needs to be initiated in the first year following adoption of the plan. However, the program will not be presented to the State Legislature until the third year follwing adoption. Goals of the plan are to be achieved with intergovernmental agreements with the 14 lake communities and other involved government agencies. If the goals are not achieved, then the Board should consider seeking legislative approval for needed support. If the L GD determines it must seek legislative approval to expand its funding base, the L4CD 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 During the first year following adoption, the LMCD shall undertake four studies. It is anticipated that the District can complete the following using existing 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. Improve protection of wetlands lying within the 929.4 contour of Lake Minnetonka through study, mapping and regulation. Each of these involve either obtaining or setting aside funds for the study, developing the Scnpe of Work, making staff assignments or hiring consultants, and monitoring progress of the study. • 88 In order to undertake research projects for subsequent years, the LMCD shall explore funding options and seek regional, state or Federal funds for undertaking studies: • 1. Fishing access plan. 2. Launched boat access plan. At the same time, regional, state or Federal funds should continuously be sought for: 1. Water quality monitoring and analysis, 2. Lake eutrophication studies, 3. Non -point source pollution, and 4. Exotic aquatic plant control. REGULATORY PROGRAM In addition to implementing management objectives affecting managing entities regulatory policies, the L4CD needs to act on ten specific management objectives by the third year. 1. Recognize there ultimately will be 350 additional (to 700) 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, 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. 89 • 1965 - Legislation forming the LHCD is introduced. 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 Plar, 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 erosion, and other appropriate management practices. d. Minimize the impacts of fertilizers and pesticides contained in watershad runoff on the quality of Lake Minnetonka. e. Minimize the pollutants reaching Lake Minnetonka and its tributaries via septic tank leachate and residues from past treatment practices. f. Protec* the lake from the detrimental effects of construction. g. Maintain or restore the water quality of Lake Minnetonka to allow continued use of the lake for primary contact recreation and bass -pan sport£ishing. h. Encourage management of wetlands for water quality improvement, fled 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 wate milfoil, and to effectively manage 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 red— P she aesthetic impaLC of high -rise development, the LMCD shall encour )verning councils of nearby communities to exhibit restraint in appr ig variances and conditional use permits for buildings that will be visible from the lake's surface and shoreline. 7. The LMCD shall coordinate placement and servicing of adequate trash containers at all summer and winter access points on the lake that are used by vehicles. 90 YEAR TWO ACTIVITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM 0 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 I14CD; three require the assistance of recreation professionals. Studies implemented by the ' 4 CD available resources include: 1. Develop a program for implementing Density 7.0 restrictions. 2. Study means of limiting boat wakes. 3. Review the Bylaws of the LMCD. Outside agency or consultant assistance is required to complete these studies: 1. Develop a launched boat access plan, including siting and funding, in cooperation with the members 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 I4CD 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. 91 • 1970 - The study "A Program to Prevent the Pollution of Lake Minnetonka" is completed. YEAR THREE ACTIVITIES 0 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1. Coordinate a legislative program to obtain state boat operator licensing. 2. Managing agencies active on Lske Minnetonka shall cooperate to obtain legislative approval for a lake or metropolitan boat license, or other alternative innovative funding sources. RESEARCH PROGRAM In the third year after implementation, the LtCD 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 researching the impacts of exotic plant species on fish populations and the impact of aquatic vegetation harvesting on fish populations. 4. Identify, map and optimize winter access to the lake. 5. 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 LiCD 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 IMCD 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. 3. If, at the end of three years, intergovernmental agreements are not achieved, the LMCD shall request legislative change for these allowances. 92 PERIODIC ACTIVITIES RESEARCH PROGRAM • Two on -going research projects shall be conducted by regional and stare 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. 3. Wat ^_r quality monitoring. The Metropolitan Council Task Force recommended that routine recreational monitoring be .jointly funded. The DNR, Metropolitan Council, Suburban Hennepin Parks, and the LMCD shall be the primary participants. As part of the first recreation monitoring study, the DNR's offer for assisting in a study of crowding shall be accepted. Fish population studies shall be conducted by the DNR in accordance with their existing policy. Funding shall be by the State as part of their on -going fisheries research study. 11-e LMCD shall conduct such studies only if the state consistently is unable to provide adequate monitoring. REGULATORY PROGRAM 1. Review buffer zonss 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. Fix municipal access at existing levels. 2. Link further access growth in any form with increased law enforcement presence on the lake. 93 40 1970 - The first 114CD ordinance is passed; it regulates docks. • 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. Determine 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. T3 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 the following day 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 grandfathering at municipal and homeowner associations docks. 3. Review the frontage -foot rules to determine if a more restrictive one is needed. 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. • 94 C. LAKE MINNETONKA SHORELAND STANDARDS AND CRITERIA ' STANDARDS AND CRITERIA . A. Land Use Zoning Districts that are implemented within Lake Minnetonka share) ends must fit one of the following districts 1) Spacial Protection District. Description: wetlands; wet soils; steep slopes: flooding; inadequate drainage; •ever• erosion potential; presence of historic sites, biological or natural characteristics; or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the community. 2) Lake Minnetonka Residential District. Description: low density, sinal• 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 uses with minimal impacts on residential uses are allowed if properly managed under conditional uses procedures. s) 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. 5) Water-Oriented Commercial District. Description: Provide for existing or future commercial usms adjacert 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, particclarly commercial, land uses. Commercial planned unit development are allowed in this district if handled as conditional uses. The intent of the Standards and Criteria is that there will be no new or expanded commercial areas added than already exist. New lakeshore commercial activity shall be limited to water- oriented activities, to the fullest extent possible. B. Allowable uses within each Zc.ring District within Lake Minnetonka shorelands are: (Individual local goverrmants may prohibit one or more of those listed). 1) Special Protection District. Use Statue Forest management Permitted Sensitive resource management Permitted Agriculture Permitted Parks and historic sites Conditional use Residential Conditional use C -1 • ' 2) Lake Minnetonka Residential District. Water - oriented commercial Permitted Use Status Commercial Single family residential Permitted Conditional use Public and semi-public Conditional use Parks and historic sites Parks and historic sites Conditional use Single - family residential PUD at same density Conditional use 3) One to Four Unit Residential District. hrmitted Use Status Single-family Permitted Duplex Permitted Triplex Permitted Nod Tormitted Forest management Permitted Fublic and semi - public Conditional use Parka and historic sites Conditional use Residential PUD at aims density Conditional use a) five to Twelve Unit Residential District. Use Status Single family Permitted Duplex Permitted Triplex ?emitted Quad Permitted Six to twelve unit residential Permitted forest management Permitted Water-oriented commercial Permitted Residential PUD at aims density Commercial PUD Permitted Permitted Public and semi-public Conditional use Parka end historic sites, Conditional use S) Water-Orisnted Commercial District. Use Status Water - oriented commercial Permitted Forest management Permitted Commercial Conditional use Commercial PUD Conditional use Public and semi-public Conditional use Parks and historic sites Conditional use 6) General Use District. (Used only to avoid non -conforming land uses. So now areas are to be developed.) Use Status Commercial Permitted Water - oriented commercial Permitted Forest management Permitted Health care facilities Permitted Institutional hrmitted Commercial PUD Conditional use Residential PUD Conditional use Public and ■esi- public Conditional use Parka and historic sites Conditional use C -2 r C. Minims: lot sits shall not decrease on the Lakeshore. The standards and criteria below are designed to pressure cities to increase, not decrease lot sixes wherever the present nsi6hborhood standards falls below 15,000 square feet. Individual local governments say be _tire restrictive, all must soma&• to these values with deviations no lower than 60 percent of thu values shown. The single-family minims lot standard is 15,000 square feet, except that Excelsior, Mounri and Spring Park may have 10,000 square feet. The exception for those three lakeshore coaxminitias is provided in recognition of the extensive development that has already occurred there. Hc�a ar, th�•se three communities are expected to stove toward the 15,000 square foot standard as redevelopment cccurs 1) Limits an lot area, minimum width and setback are; 2) Setbacks on all severed lots shall be 50 feet. For unsewered lots the settaak she:! he 75 feet. D. Guest Cottages (6120.3300 subp. 2 C) must meet the local communit. standards Eased en restricting use to abort -term visits by guests and family as a conditional use subject t, the limits imposed by B and C suvre (Individual local governments may be more restrictive or may prrrvi •,. se by household hired help). L. Bluff impact zones (6120.3300 subp 3 C). Structures and accessory facilities, axr.ap stairways and landings must not be placed within bluff impact songs. F. All accessory structures (6120.3300 subp. 3 2) oust most or exceed structure sot'cacc star,iarls G. Hater-oriented accessory structures or facilities, other than docks, ire prohibit*! C-3 Mirimim Minimum District Arts Width (sq. ft.) (ft.) Special Protection Disttitt Residential Shoreline 15,000 75 Shoreland 10,000 75 Lake Minnetonka Residential District Single family Shoreline 15,000 75 Shoreland 10,000 75 One to Four Unit Residential District (Shoreline and Shoreland) Single family 15,000 75 Du plex 16,000 100 Triplex 30,000 150 Quad 40,000 200 Five to Twelve Unit Residential District (Shoreline and Shoreland) Single family 15,000 75 Duplex 16,000 100 Triplex 30,000 150 Quad 40,000 200 Six to twelve units 15,000 /unit 250 General Jse District Residential PUD 15,000 /unit 2 2) Setbacks on all severed lots shall be 50 feet. For unsewered lots the settaak she:! he 75 feet. D. Guest Cottages (6120.3300 subp. 2 C) must meet the local communit. standards Eased en restricting use to abort -term visits by guests and family as a conditional use subject t, the limits imposed by B and C suvre (Individual local governments may be more restrictive or may prrrvi •,. se by household hired help). L. Bluff impact zones (6120.3300 subp 3 C). Structures and accessory facilities, axr.ap stairways and landings must not be placed within bluff impact songs. F. All accessory structures (6120.3300 subp. 3 2) oust most or exceed structure sot'cacc star,iarls G. Hater-oriented accessory structures or facilities, other than docks, ire prohibit*! C-3 ~ B. 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. iben determined necessary, conditions scut be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of pubic waters, assuming umser, leaf-on vegetation. I. Stairways, lifts and landings (6120.3300 subp. 3 I) are preferred to major topographic alterations and must meat the following design requirments: 1) stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. 2) required stairway landings smut not exceed four feet in width and 32 square 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) mat be located in the most inconspicuous portion of the lot, as viewed from the water surface, whenever practical. J. Decks (6120.3300 subp. 3 J) must most the setback standards of the local government. K. Building heights are limited u follows: 1) In Residential Districts and McNr-Oriented Commercial Districts and for Y sidentia, structures In other districts, building height is limned to three levels visible from the lake or 35 feat, whichever is lower. 2) Commercial structures in a General Ur,s District shall not exceed 40 feat in height. 3) Building height is to be measured according to the procedures in the Uniform Building Cods, except that the lowest point for measurement shall be the pre-axisting starvation at the time that let is purchased. Topographic changes after purchase shall not be considered in detemining building height. ii Variances on building height are not permitted. exceptions that my 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 antennas L. Use of fertiliser and pesticides (6120.3300 Subp. ♦ A(3)) in the shoreland management district must be dons in such a way as to sinimise runoff into the shore Impact sons or public water by the use of earth, vegetation, or both. M. Outlots crested 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 imposed by the LMCD or the local community, whichever is the mat restrictive. 2) The lot must be suitable for development under the requirements of the applicable toning district. 3) Must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision. 1) Must most the requirements of the local subdivision ordinance. • C R. Manufacturing and industrial uses are probibited on parcel: riparian to Lake Minnetonka. r Industrial and manufacturing uses in the shorelands of 1.Ae MinnaLonks are limited to districts already developed for such purposes sa of tb adop'alon date of this Management Plan. 0. Planned Unit Developments 1) Use of the Planned Unit Development process by lakeshore commmittes stall be limited to determin ;ng the optimum sits layout acr structures and facilities. It shell not be used as a method for granting vaiia.ces to marterm structure height o: the minimum setback, lot .:ea end width requirements. 2) Residen ',ial PUN must not exceed the maximum height restriction for its zoning district. 3) The d@aign criteria for tesidential and coa®ercial PUDs shall be established by local ordinance, except that the following paragraphs, or ones even more restrictive, shall be included in any local ordinance: "!valuation of suitability of the entire site Must include cc-sideration of aesthetics, land slope, wgter depth, vegetation, soils depth to arc mdwater and bedrock, or other relevant ftctors." `Share recreatiou facilities, to the extent ellowed, and includ.ng but not limited to swimming areas, docks. and watercraft mooring areas and launching rampK must be centralised and located in area suitable for them. the —u tee: of spaces provided for continuous beaching, maorisug, or dockiu of watercraft must not es.ead the number pertsitted under applicable LMCD or local community rules and regulations, vW chover is more restrictive. Launch ;ng ram facilities, including a small dock fcr loading and unloodir,R equipment, may be provided for uis , y occupants of dwelling units if consistent with LICP and local community rules and regulations.' P. Ali variance to structuie height and all variances applied for riparian parcels on Lake Minnetonka shall be submitted to the LMCD for review and comment. 0 Q. t'egotation removal shall be 4overned by the shoreland ordinance. The provisions of 6120.3300 subp. a met be included in the ordinance, but radified to reflect the following: 1) Clear cutting of vegetation on riparian parcels iy prohitited. 2) Row val of living trees larger than 6 inches in diameter may be permit only. 3) :elective cutting of other trees and underbrush shall be al.owed as long as rufficiant cnver is left to scrser. motor vehicles, dwellings, and other structures who viewed from the lake 4) Review of proposrd site development plans under this and other applicable ordinances st specifically review the plans for rres3rving as much natural vegetation as practical within. 40 foot of the 10s. 3) bar@ ground areas m..st ba vosotst@d, and vaEotative matter must not b• placed nt, impervious surfaces or in natural drainag@ways. R Grading and filling 1 51 2 2C.3300 Subp 4 B; must be limAed by the shoreland ordinance. rho piovision :)f 612r,3300 subp. ♦ B muit be incl�d d in the ordinance srcoo, as modified to reflect the following: 1) Restrictions pl.cod an grading and fill.ng within wetlands ;Types S, 6, 7, ar.d C) :oust be mitisat.od to ;r@vont decrease !- the '.un-tiona: calves of watlands. C -S • ~ 2) The wildlife habitat and runoff water quality enhancement Zunctional values of a wetland #k :Ald be quantitatively determined by analysis eo, according to methods praeribed b, the O.S. fish and Wildlife Service (1660) and Driscoll at al. (1966), respectively. (These an discussed in the Water Quality Management Working Paper.) • c S. Is order to protect the general welfare and cafety of the boating public, lights shall be eoutr , Nlled by the shorsland ordinance. The following provisions are added to or acidify those contained in 6120.3300 subp. 3 so as to apply tc all portions of riparian property regardless of the permitted As*: 1) So light source on shoreline property may be direct- towards the lake. 2) No light source m shoreline property shall axes d 0.3 candles at the ordinary high water mark, 3) Ltgbts located on dock and other allowed structures will be permitted by the U&M. T. The agricultural use standards (6120.3300 Subp 7 A through D) for sheraland uses mst be incorporated into the shoreland ordinance of cities with agricultural leads within their corporate limits. S. The storewater management standards (6120.3300 Subp 11 A through S) must be incorporated into the shoreland menapmsat ordinance except that the following must also be included: 1) U.S. SPA eritaris (NAP) are to be ragAted for stormwater detention basins (as discussed in the Mater Quality Mar.gssrant Working Paper). 2) Impervious surface coverage of lots should not exceed 25 percent of the lot area without an approved stormster monagnsout plan. 3) Permit requiresentr for each constructed detention pond shall include a Maintenance Plan and provisions for access to perform maintenance. T. fbe sewage treatment provisions (6120.3400 Subp. 3) must be included in the sboreland ordinance. W. The erosion control and stormwater runoff from PUDs must be included in the sboreland management ordinsocas except that these more restrictive provisions must be added: 1) runoff not be managed according to the recommendations contained in itas U, above. 2) Maximum impervious coverage of PUDs ' be limited to only 25 percent. Y. The following subparts of Chapter 6120.2500 ft. are not listed in the Shoreland Management Standards and Criteria for Lake Mimetonka. The first section lists those subparts that are to be negotiated between the individual communities ar4 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 Sboreland Management Ordinance. Individual Communities: 6120.3300 Subp. 3 L through F. Proximity to unplatted eausteries and significant historic sites; proximity to roads and highways. 6120.3300 Sub #. 5. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas. 5120.3300 Subp. 6 forest management standards. 6120.3300 Subp. 9 Extractive use standards. 6120.3300 Subp. 12. Mining of metallic minerals and poet. 6120.3400 Subp. 2. Water supply. 6120.350.) Subdivision provisions. 6120.3600 Planned unit development not addressed in Appendix A. 6120.3900 Administration not addressed in Appendix A. C -6 e Y. Implic t in the Standards and Criterir,: ~ ALL other subpart& and subdivisions not specifically mentioned above are implicit to the standards and criteria contained in Appendix A. These include, but are not limited to: 6120.3300 Subp. 2. Residential lot site. 6120.3300 Subp. 2a. Lot area and with standards for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residen!.!al development; lake classes. 6124.3300 Subp. 3. Other parts not listed above. 6120.3300 Subp. 1. Other parts not listed above. 6120.3300 Subp. 10. Standards for commercial, industrial, public and semi- public uses. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of the Standards and Criteria, certain terms or words used shall be interpreted u follows: the word "shall" is mandatory, not pormiasive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally. ACCUM Si STRUCTM or FACILLM: • ^• but. 4 IT is; - mrament subordinate to a principal use which, because of the nature of its we *aSOnable -. located at or greater than normal structure setbacks. UNF: a topographic feature such as a pill, 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 fast above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; a. the grade of the slope from the too of the bluff to a point 23 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 slops of lass than 16 percent over a distance for SO feat or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. BUTIUM: a structure designed and used ,solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. SSILDIM LIM: - lino parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. CaMMOCIAL FiMMED MIT D9YELOFN3=: are typically uses that provide transient, shore-term lodging spaces, roams, or parcels and their operations are essentially eervice-oriented. For example, hotel /motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service oriented sctivtties are commercial planned unit developments. CDlONClAL M: the principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental or trade of products, goods, and services. COI6fMICM: the co ®issionor of the Department of Natural Resources. 0MI'IUL USE: a use as this term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, 301. OM: a hortsontal, omenclosed platform with or withnut attached railings, seats, trellises, or other fosts.res, attached or functionally related to a principal use or sits and at any point extending more then three feet above ground. 0 C -) DUPLEX, 211PLFY UD QD: a dwelling .cructure on a single lot, having two, three, and four units respectively, being attached by common walls and each unit equipped with separate sleeping, cooking, • eating, living, and sanitation facilities. DAELL ti'. SM: -% designated location for residential use by one •r more persons using temporary or movable shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites. DWILL N UBTT: any structure or portion of a structure, or other shelter designed as shore- or long-term living quarters f -jr one or more persons, including rental or timeshare accommodations such as motel, hotel, and resort rooms and cabins. EKTRACTM WE: use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals, other nonmetallic minerals, and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statute &, sections 93.44 to 93.51. FAT LAW CCOVERSIf1: the clear cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use other tbar reestablishment of s subsequent forest stand. GUEST COTTA&: a structure used as a dwelling unit that ay contain sleeping paces and kitcher and bathroom facilities in addition to those provided in the primary dwelling unit on a lot. RARDSOP: the some as V st term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, 394. BBIGB'T OF BUILDIM: Building height is to be assured according to the procedures in the Uniform Building Code, except that the lowest point for measurement shall be the pre-existing elevation at the time that lot 4 1 purchased. Topographic changes after purchase shall not be considered in determining building height. ` \ IMDUSIRM DER: the use of land or buildinse for the production, manufacture, warabousing, storage, or transfer of goods, products, commodities, or other wholesale items. WENSM TBGETMOR CLEAR= 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 "one and separated from other parcels or portion* by said description for the purpuse of sale, lease, or separation. LOT Ulurs: the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. MDFXXdYCN the sews as that term is defined or described in Minnesota Statutes, 394. d.DIRABT SIGN MATER LIM: the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water Laval which has boon maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, eossaonly 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 yank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowage&, the ordin.ry high water level is the operstia elevation of the nor -sal summer pool. !LAMB MIT DLPELOMNY: a type of developwnt characterised by a unified site design for a number of mwelli-4 units or dwelling sites in a parcel, whether for sale, rent, or lease, and also usually involving clustering of these units or sites to provide areas of common open space, density • increases, aid a ads of structure types and land uses. These devO opmebt may be organised and operated as conocminium, tima-shers condominiums, cooperatives, full fah ownership, commercial C -B 1 enterprises, or any combination of these, or cluster subdivisions of dwelling units, residential condominiums, townhouses, apartment buildings, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, resorts, hotels, motels, and conversions of st^uctures and land uses to these uses. PUMJC VATRRS: any waters as delined in Minnesota Statutes, 105.37, subdivisions 14 and 15. She official determination of the site and physical limits of drainage areas of rivers and streams shall be made by the commissioner. RRSIDRSTM PLAN= UNIT DZMDPNW: a use where the nature of residency is non-transient and the mayor or primary focus of the development is not service - oriented. For example, residential apartments, manufactured home parks, time -share _ondaminiums, townhouse&, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be considered as residential planned unit developments. MOU -NXIC Dom: the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to same persons outside the regula_ constituency of the organization. b1WSITIW 113GURM MRAGRMOT: the preservation and managament of areas unsuitable for development in their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expensive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special protection. SETAKZ: the minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. SDWZ TRPUNW STSTEM: a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in chapter 7080. SDRDQ STSUM; pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other constructions, • devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial west* or other wastes to a point of ultiwte disposal. SO= ZIPACZ SORE: land located between the ordinary high V-'07 level of a public water and ■ line parallel to it at ■ setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. SWRE1LAW: land located within 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake. SICKVICART RISTORIC SITES: any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meats the criteria for eligibility to t' Notiunal Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites. - .s determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statuteu, section 307.08. A historic site meats these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to moot the qualifications for listing aftet review by the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries ■r* automatically considered to be a significant historic s'te. STEEP SIDPE: land where agricultural activity or development is either not recoasnonded or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as sapped 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, ateep slopes art lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distancer of 50 Lett or Mort, that are not bluffs. C-o s STDWMU: any building or appurtenance, including decks, except aerial or underground utility lines, such as sower, electric, telephone, telegraph, gas lines, towers, poles, and other supporting facilities. S91 XMION: land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, of lease, including planned unit development. SWACZ -MTL4 MIZNM ALL MZ: the use of the land for co ®erciel purposes, where access to and use of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants with transient docking facilities are examples of such use. 2M fl! TS MO": the low point of a 50 -foot segment with an average slope exceeding lg percent. VARIAN Z: the same as that taro is defined or described in Minnesota Statutes, 394. VATIZ -MIZEM ACCLSKW STRUCTM or 1ACILITl: 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 feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal s:tueture setback. Lxamples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pulp houses, and detached docks. WLAW: a surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States fish and Wildlife Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), which is hereby incorporated by reference, is available through the Minit.ex interlibrary loam system, and is not subject to frequent change. u • C-10 etc m 4- 11 CITY OF WAYZATA NK! kll.F STRFFT, NAYZiT�, MINN. 5 PHONE 4' -0234 Rb- - � OCT 15 --,J TO: Mayors, Lake Minnetonka Communities RE: LMCD Plan DATE: October 12, 1990 The City of Wayzata is sponsoring a community official's meeting at 5:00 P.M. oar October 16, 1990 at the Wayzata City Council Chambers to discuss the LMCD Management Plan and specifically matters dealing with shoreland management and • regulations. Based upon comments which have been received from the 13 Lake communities, as well as our own City's concerns, we have drafted a revision to the shoreland protection section of the LMCD document. We believe that this will serve as a starting point for discussions which will achieve required modifications to the present LMCD material. In the draft statement which is attached, we have first summarized concerns and subsequently discussed shoreland management goals which are now contained in the LMCD document. This is followed by a re- statement and revision of the "program" for shoreland management and how it is to be realized. We believe these changes accomplish: 1. The LMCD assuming a generalized lakewide planning and coordination role. 2. The detailed shoreland planning plus regulatory responsibilities being retained by the 14 local units of government. (The present Appendix C is to be deleted.) 3. A clarification of the work necessary to complete the shoreland planning and zoning efforts required by the DNR. • • Mayors, LMCD Communities Page 2 October 12, 1990 4. The minimizing of time and expenses related to plan and ordinance formulation and adoption plus administration and implementation. 5. The elimination of additional or duplicate responsibilities. We respectfully request your review of this draft statement and invite you to the community meeting next Tuesday evening for a discussion of the matter. Respectfully yours, CITY OF W YZATA Allan Orsen City Manager cc: Eugene Strommen - LMCD John L. Stine - DNR, Metro Region RECD OCT 15 1990 10,'12;90 Ur- L IiG T E= M D AGEXE!:T La ne _.., =r.tcd. :l.e creEent , 1r,.., _r= _• ~ _ 1 a^ .' 3 :__..:,_rg _ cce :s and into ,r- _1�..5 ar.4 1. ^' lad e tar. -! 5 and C : s rns, t a 'K -.- faC :..?1 ta xis frc:� __n to 7.cke rr� ?_�r.t or This i5 a :e faCtCr c!: e:t1Cn t0 the p } . , ` :.� - S a res' -lit, a en _ ti�_1 Fe :.rected to t ".e stag =.'d ' _i :•e of the doc',:ment and t ;e 2--2finiticn ^ rO�� ra :l : %er a S oYe1and x ana gam ert :: l`,_ hake mi :etonka can ke achieved. • Fr the regional cers r reland rccti� : ? 2 to a be supplied by t.,e L:1 ='J, the = _f t Shcr_agemsnt =tan ::ak- for I�innetcn S".-'reland - istric ;herein referred to as the 'Shcrelan, Plana is the establish,::ant of a deve_cpnen.t framework, and guidelines that car_y cut the intent of the Minnesota Cepartrnent of Natural Re.ources State -ride Standards for " ::ar.acerrient of Shoreland Areas" This must, to accc7pi_shed o n the tasis and ,,itnin th` context of recognizing and a_ccirncdating the unique existing •:_tan de%elspn,sr.t character of the individual lakeshore cc~,n,uniti plus providing cpportunity fcr continued development and rer.e.' ,•al within an acceptable framework. The regional Shcreland Plan is therefore a ba sic management to_l from which an c'rerall percpecti :e of Lake :• :ifi.n,etcn: - a can a 4°Chie'�ed and frc;h which local City based plans and regulations can Ire formulated. 'tiithin this context, the present draft of the LMCD Shoreland i:ar.agen _n� "Program" has raised constituent cor%nunity concerns, specifically in regard to the follo'.,.ing items: T - :x andi•, o r w : nd regulations r . g its authority t e•:zew s. ere a g anz' develo prsn,t variances :within the shoreland management are4. This " dog" function is seen as an unnecessary j�gl:_at of tim and expense of gc':ernmental agency -cns a'-ready reing per for m_d and fjrthermore, if an ar 'r =' c -isle .'plan" is prepared and establ_Shed there Will t li*_:!e if any nerd for extra prccessina. • nct fcc-zs vpc. t '^an 'h° L!-:1C:) r C.,-; per E- ;e : t r' '. a t r t a t s h I t C �-a aa c 3 '-: e C°_ r -2 -C 3 t h �:O at the g level t re--arj, t 'c : . C C t t t y a f f e t t ra ft .4 1.7: - e __" - .. r a l l ne s S r t i V e the exis: n- t r e f ::%munit ies, -e.- h c h t c r e the r, i n o:T.in u n e S h av e i a C I.- e c a U S e the I C 0 Plan S n t r C - a j a criteria __ standards for S%*aj.uat -;-,g a F'-.zre1a7,4 C rd in z- n c a IS i v e n th s i '-- a t i :,, n cities teen reluctant to support the LXCD S'norelanej !•'anaga-:7ent Plan development standards which are tailored to address urban land use intensities with rules fc-r flexibility and detailed in terms of standards and criteria. Cn the basis cf %•.-hat needs to be accD.;.pl----hed plus the concerns ,,:hick ha-,-e been raised, the following raterial rl a planning p:ocess for the accompliehment of a Sho;eland ::an6gement Plan for Take Minnetonka at Toth the regional and c.=.munity level, it also defines roles and raespcnsibilities c f t h - invol-.ed -arties and particir,ants. r SHCRELA-M) XP-'ZAGEMENT GORLS The presa,"It draft of the L. Shcrel -- n d p 1: c n Chacter r forth generalized gcal statements which serve as foundation for a Shc-reland :-'anager—ant Plan. These goals are to protect: 1. The lake from pollution. There is a strong ccrssnsus among the lakesIncre ccmmunitie3 that Lake !!i.- * - .et:n l ka is a •alLia-ble natural amnenity that should be prezerved. The c .; t. i g- s h a v e e%;:SSSe4 a willingness to participate in achieving this goal E 0 1 0 0 t it a:. t.., r, w n ti (D to w m . • ;t• r• T. In y 71 n on 11 H t V :: l) (1. I r )--- : ) 1 , > x :7 rt 1-- •- Ii• (r . t. , I t' rt t� rt O tu r r• K O :S O 7 r: (t, '• Q F•'3 'I W ?7 f?. O C_ to W X m _7 C_ rl rt -4" I--In 1-• It) rr rt to ii N :-* t ►-- :1 tD rk '• I: IT Ito A• m , l r• ►t r t 11 F ,P I). -: rt - i :7 Q• w ID I) to n. C No r•tri t N fY 1-• 11) W ri IU 1--- 11, it ► -. r'. ({. i � IU 1( 1n t 1 t o r - of) ; l f i K r3 to ttf In IS :4 t+, 1: ►�• C+ II tr 1• -!( tl . . n 1 -- I • t_ .7 t). I- � i It it. • I A ►... r1 t: t I • d. id • '. `: : 1D :.t Us to T rt to u. ID r :3 IA 0 U N '� aq It (V (D r* ('1 1 1 1). : t It$ 1n I ) I - t 1 1 1 1 i+• • , : 7 111 - 3 )' :r r• w r' if r• r - 11 `r }•. (b Ito I-• Ito 0 :3 1 1 t 1.: t t ) : t •) 1 I— IV • ill 0. 10 of O m 1-• rf tw ,:1• rt (n ;3 4`1 !-+ O Il <• •• o f I, :) 4L 0.r I) •1 : l to i7 ) /. tl• r r t : , :7 :3 rt (b :3 w 1-• (D (Co r• 7r V to n :3 •' N ID ►t 1 -- I w . �­- () t- it. X :I 10 : * , , to t- 1 ft to CL in oo (10 r lb (D r FI U 1e (D (11 Ito U) m : ) tt. rl C1. 1 •- t,.: I Ito r t. t( L_,. tD rail (n `G 1-- N !X N H r ,3 �: - rt r► S7 If1 tY f t t', ;-' I) II' :. , r I • w (u ti aO ct •: o •: o rt (F :3 J 0) t1 ft ::t` U :: t: tt t 1 I>" •, 10 (t) :3 :-: I,' .: Lt.: r t • :3' ►-- _) (D tw to ON 'T X rt : rr 1'r (V 4) 1 . I- h• : )' }( /' it 1). In blr Ii• 1. 1 .. It. I ' • Ll. ' Y ►-• w ID t.- M- CU rt N (D 1 O :3 ct : ► It W •: ill •.: ) •t:t ► -• :) In . - In .. , / . 1'. U. /D fA N n ft �' r• ': J' (n :.3 rt 1-- `.r :3 111 1 U. r r t I,! I) rt Lu IIt . r1 :J` : 1 /U .• Ip t: tt 11 • C't1 7 r to to w n r• ::' In tL? 7 w it$ t D L1 IV :1 I - w I'• I • r-u) Ir s i ( r) it tt) :t t•- w _Z N hJ fq :.t it O CA I..) ('1 '•• Lo rt i s t - ) to rt I-• rl it. rt :) , •- CL 1 r, to -: 'l f) t't (D Y• /-tt K * - i O, r•rI (O IU 0 its I) ill A> t : :) ' 1 : r lir W it a: : ; :t' ( ►•' iD r't 1 - 1 u• W Of 1L (.3 K 10 ID :3 1'S t) :3 lot I t I►. t). :; r , t Ill 1t. : l + - : • . t. 1 I ► Y K l) r• r• : ' o rt r :3 t-- • t to f. m O n t) x• 410 A, ) -- r , ) , t , . I o to t 1 t - I 1 , (n n :T• r - -I to t( n 0 to (I U r to c :s• f) ;3 W ) t 1 -' 04 , :) (• / •• u. IV �) in :3 w IA Ia. (t1 O rt M ►t fL ► - • r{ r• '� ll I • I : / t . t t :) :s (,. to . I tU r• 2 In it 1-- 1L :7 `Y ItI m K ([► C3' t() ct I0 1L At 1) to 0 :t tr7 Ll l ot iD ft 1-- W LZ. r t rt ;r t: 1-- to I 1 :3 It) :: I : t t' I {J. hJ 11+ It r., ,•t .) (, :t 't N rt rit (D w r• O •rlV 11 to 1) I t IS ► - :) it • :, (I It ,+ It) at N :4 tltt rt 1?.__Jk :3 .1 1-- It r• n 11) It C)• fit :.t (l (n G) :1 :3 +. lip .I. �t O [: N t� A. Cr In Oil p. IA ct n Q 1 -• , 0 $--h It V• X I ti In :7 to _, w (1 '1 rt IA (a m W tD L: rt :r no ►-• n :T K '; f(► so i) I— rn r- I) I( . -- it ( I (n .- In 1 I -) L: tO rt N 1--• r• to u) r• tb :.3 W O � It, rr1 • tD lip t)I : J' 1 • :3 1 - ►to __r rc3 t9 u t O -1 � n •* � K to It- L). to t* _) u) =t r,' =1 rr 4.1 1 '1. 1a I •- m t -• 7 1•1110 N rt W no w : r () b rr to 11 tD n •1 () o -• r•w C: iu I-• i : Ito 'I t 10) Il, I - : r rt rt r f► % (D 1--I -T %U t 10 () 1-- Ito W tj' ra 1[ Ll . Y N. : ) t) I — I-. 4t it ttl : ) ( ) f . 0­ ► n O rr 1 - •• 1L ID Ii O. Ili • IA tt~ IA t-, 'T r t al) I t rr fro I 1 f .. I , ( I I '1 A 11 in A :3 N (7 d '•' to m "All (U :3 ►t :) :I rt 1-• r• ••)•.t =? )_• :r ut.1t AI u) 4, Y rt f) ► -• 1 - 0 0 7 Al c: It, o "t h '' t0 LL :1 '•: : 1 lot lip ' T Il 1.- :3 N :I .t• lb fa u, 1 • 1D ►-- ID O N I CL w Jt -� :3 O 1-• (lr In 1 1 l n r Ib {n n fro / • : 1 a•) ... CJ.K) I 1 • : 1 1 • I •• U• '. fs It c: ft IV r" (n It) Tt Ii i- •:i't(► fl 1( 11r ,f :1 :s 1r t � .t) .I Itr 1. -tt to ti. •s ;)'r,. lt) '•; t,w ► / ). lu (, G/ L3 n ZA ► -• 't 00 G '1 (11 4 t) V to lit It1 /S ) + to R J to • J: R) t - : fV 1 •• (to It/ tT m I K :] AI f1 I l 0 I W ID 11-• t.1 • X r t. C. rr 1'• In /t I. - W to 1: 0 t• a:-1 tD U two r) 'i ► ) n• I . In O :T" lo. t"r 7 :3 �* r• 4- lt) t1 r3 (T :3 no - 3• ' 1 IT ( r lJ f r • (h r) 4'. 11) Ito f.+ 'r) IA It M w ill CL 1-- CL tp rt r- f) a7 :.] Y+ r: N C) to () %P I: , 1 th tI I - I t. 'i rt o 1 -rt t tV rU L: tt> Cl f 11 :3 O fir" O 5 :1 rt .' rl N ct K :) :3 Ito :tt.; •• rt rt i : i tt, 1 t : ) Al 1I• •r 1 --1 t., I( i ) n tt 'rt 1--to l7 tt II :x of :T In rt Cr :Y .y IV ( t 1), co 1 : to ; .10 r t , ) (it -1 r- u) G '3 fv U c) j rn .r to to N 1D J r I • Ito f t . It. . I rl :1 . + .0 ; t . +. t u• .•, c7 IA v C) N '1 L: In o w ':) I-- rt rt 40 C• 0111) :- rt rt tU I.3. 11 3 'd I) . -I 10 1.- r I -r : r .b t •.; :) :3 I I• - :3 :x0 'r•(I )k w N rr N (A tL. - ►• •r( :r (.L r)'r'. 1'•••. rt to I) O In 1 7) :s - t t. it r :3 ID tip (0 1-- r• C; N c •w :1 tt,) r• W Our ;1 IL ; 1 IV no ')- - t ° ) ('' r)' — � to :3 (A K rt V1 (D t-- (T a O .3 F rt to t: • J ' . . ► .. 0 1 1 -. r* IL tow C. to r. (p ►-. ,•D qI fi) t -• t)o or •: 3 ]: •: I t) t) rr 1 • I•. •, tsI :) •: 3 (D tT -+ IA n w «) (D Mc- ►� }•. N• ilk n :r t. to OL (v Cr a- 1) 1tt 1 -•R N I. -• t). n 'r (1 :1 to Nu) O t. :; •* A• U. p) 11) U• :: •. r• tU H, 11. 1 1 • I•• I:, (A 1 ( , t - ,--- r• nl O 1 - r• IT ID 7C' - (A r• m r• Y• t; '7 1-• 1: Ili :I k- - I - t : ,) :) 1,. tot to A )''I 4 4. 1., to r• I t N•r) . r• ►'•tD /- to Y w T ,) tTK D (n C `< tw ! N U Ii. t: t 1t• R rt :1 fit t -• to to r+ - rn R, It ' i c: n 1-- rr 19 rt r• 9­ _3 In (D In O :3 at 1 rt• N rt Ili `( I -• IV Us t]. tY -1 1' . • •• :Y In ,t t1► 1• I-•- In T tT At n t - 3 ► r* O 1-- D �' '% UT T (1 n rt c) cn V. Lip 4 fro r) : r In . ( Ib .?, • ) rf Ii) r 1 . t C? Q r• N :3 � :r o iD to 1 1 rt 1 w O W Qt w m w :1 rr N ct Or 3 fA - O 1 - to o f (TV •- IN, to .T :i :) G• '. tL -) rA ; ct (to lD ta. 1 f ,. :3 1 t W :3 (D tta U to a IA (D - tl 0. to :r 1 I't K :1 r+ :3 1-- ti, 0 0 0 ,(.. P•'r f 11• fP 1: IL tJ' In r• li) t0 1~• n r< r -ID It LL 0 10 is) (FI 11+ 1.1 Im- I t W I.- In Ir �♦ :3 '1 W GI ra. 10 rD t1 n 4H 1' tL ro r• � '9 + ! l tZ K 10 U. C: 10 In t7 R1 t3 r •- l0 Y- 101 t ). M I^ (A rt It) 4D :3 :t rt _3' K r• :3 [2.rtO0 (It10 rn RI It N 111 0. rU rt It :1 L-d n 10 In ►•• I-- [L Co ; m Y• cu 1 st' 1)0):3 - •17 c) !n 1 t (D III as K ti 111-T t' Ii X [b (b M so •ri n 1) 1 Cr _t t4, rl I: I II t -• In r , .1 :t .t ill ►- I-- f' 4••- :) rn (: -� 1•j ti C u to tU Q f✓ a to Ct. () q+ ..) (r 10 C) tL N it'(' tY :1 _1 rf IQ ••1 17 rn . -w Ci ► -- /, to It rn to O (U r• Q t*f K to (1 tb 3 Q, +) it N - I t cr U w O .3 :1 In Y• :t r7' Il :t tJ. r • �T l/l t1. 10 - ` ku A 0 M IT1 0 X IO v, ►.• It 1D rn IV 1t r• 1-+ < u7 In to r IN lY ti O K C R1 m t>' 'Tl w h ct m R ti roro K 1 to K) d1 ;t UI rt tie /t f7 tb t1 =? 1 d r N {: In •1 1() IV rf h H 10 ID O r't r ID t- � /0 r w �4 rt" 0. ;t, m -1 M •Y w RI 1 r :r rt no 11 •• ; U (1 411 IU r1 ! • to , ll V17 fib /F) Ilr fl 1•. $1. 4►1 rt•TI ill 11 R► ►1 111 : N 10 : S •t7 W r tt rt Q to rt ID ►� :3' (D r•� rt (to Y• •: rt r* Y• :3 n 111 as In rt ::r t /t (D so [: I.- as r) ►T1 CL i s n rt :3 It 10 to r' ► •• N O '' /r) t..r• Id W K u) (D 1-• 0 10 0 0 1.- :3 t0 10 rt It3 rt rt x W tD F I -• Y• rt (L to T (n In 5• :s w it rt t0 Sx rt fib I••K(D rf ;3 C I' % IU 4Q r t (0 :3 Y 1 ' I-+ rt M••• •). (1t n (D r As 't1 :3 r ). -) 1n to IV ill r• (n I -- • t r t (T) C) ► (t r -• K Ill •rl 1-' 1T) rr .; ► - C) (n 10 tt. N ID - 1 :3 UI •r) t). W CL r t ID W tt U1 CL U. ID ct -) r Ire rt r- CL N rt (D Or tD 0 In CD :3 • ' O► t0 t2 in ►t tD ter - (D I-- so I0 W Y• 0, N 7 %• •�, ti '3 n U.) CL Im ff 11 Ir CL CL r f:: f1. :r G+ (D n •Y ul (D N rt _% (1► 1 ; a 10 N :7 :3 tir ri+ In t 1... 1 91) 1 •.1 a t r I / to it 111 In L.:ti• I rII 't ft K :3 N - =F G+ n Y• I't rt - :u (D :.3 I- 10 it s n In . 3 rt :3 :3 in ri W rt Y- In CL (D 11 - v tD rl L]. to it o ` W 1 1) 1 0 - -1 m h R) IT3 1 - 0 It rt r to t tb as I-• o r• Y• r O O ::1 :3 N no �j w r• It � F.,... •3 =.i r• (D =5 a (D `•: n ::'ti W rt O Zn O r• 1- •C K ►+1 K w 1[; to n I-� IA 1'• :71 w tL rt 10 rt I-• CL - -1 m ~r .]. J .r Y w m G(n 0 n oX'rt N r•r: 1 - - M to It rf rn 1 1 1 l' tt •C (D M rt •-Z =i fa+ Y• :Y Y• 1 ty I� tD 3 : t0 tv m :3 U. n. (D rt 0.0 01I1) :3 :3 t.. to [b I- I-+ :Y " :3 rt 0 0 W :-3 rt I-• L •T7 /7 no o W - 3 N 10 IF 1� .•� us r1 :3 Y .1 - m t] ►i ? Fy 0— w to :3 •rt U, if) G :J ql n Q •-• U I'S .• 7 Y• rt It n K r7 (L r- (0 Y• c)`< K A I- tY to O: •-• o m n to ,- :� , 0 1. . rn r1 fy 1, • 1 - 1 •' N• t.• r 1:• d. r t rn 1• 1 :Y Y U, • I I• /U tU 1 .. I -• IU t .'11 I •., ,j. I I. J. 4 , :.l tie I:1 to IU rl In of In 1'4: :r: tit : 1 1 • I.•. lb ►�. 1„ :r Ill 1 r) tip /t 110 1 tv • • :T 1- Its 1 7} I'' Iy 1) :) •.-• rf no •) r •• 1 4) %LI [). in ► 4 rr [L ll r-+tt fr fL I.. 1 .- tip t I) ► 1: t ff. f I/r 1 4) N t. In .1, (1..: n. • nt, 11 rl 1 • lir :1 :1• it •1 U' - rq rI 1i, N :V 41, 111 1'r IJ r N [. t. • t .. .3 0• rr /U no rl, • IL LL 00 1 �r= 5- (A ( 1 1.1 f J c, hl 1`) ►-a Ih U) (U _� t r 1 •, 10 I D (A it ilk l) %1 0. 1 to 1t +• +• +- '' ♦-- !r .V 3•. .1 t1 w 1-•411 ill i t ll l WO II. jZ Q, It It : r 1 — !11 11• ,t 1•i1. 111 I,' ,> -. IFI IF! • + C I. I I to I - . 1 11 N• 10 1 10 I r) 16 on I t' .et. tD �•• ; r t0 (, rt 1•+ t) I) 1i ft I..tl :T tit U.) f I • fL ►+1 I). fit rt -F 4) Y• it N - r- (l `1 us Ib N ,p !I - :1 :1 it :1 (A. !i, •rs ti - I ur n m ►). C- (A L1 411k 4t) 10 fit Y 11► 41 :) (44 no •.: I - . rt '1 :1 1H r) ri 1).') 1: ►� ,t :: tI L•. I : • , to Ift It IL ;1 lb ,► 1( I�.0 1��1 47 it. n) H, rt )r i! -I(1 I% rT In n1 �1 n• t t: In 4, r 4 if, t .I ;t r1 .! , t 1 ,.SI r us :{ IV r u, r: •, I•• 'r1 rn n• • � 1., In '. F t. , 0 1. . rn r1 fy 1, • 1 - 1 •' N• t.• r 1:• d. r t rn 1• 1 :Y Y U, • I I• /U tU 1 .. I -• IU t .'11 I •., ,j. I I. J. 4 , :.l tie I:1 to IU rl In of In 1'4: :r: tit : 1 1 • I.•. lb ►�. 1„ :r Ill 1 r) tip /t 110 1 tv • • :T 1- Its 1 7} I'' Iy 1) :) •.-• rf no •) r •• 1 4) %LI [). in ► 4 rr [L ll r-+tt fr fL I.. 1 .- tip t I) ► 1: t ff. f I/r 1 4) N t. In .1, (1..: n. • nt, 11 rl 1 • lir :1 :1• it •1 U' - rq rI 1i, N :V 41, 111 1'r IJ r N [. t. • t .. .3 0• rr /U no rl, • IL LL 00 1 �r= 5- (A ( 1 1.1 f J c, hl 1`) ►-a Ih U) 9 if) 0 0 0 Q' t 11 -J 4 t 0 (is r j 11 A L) • : t, a 4, A; In — -.1 -4 111 —4 4- 0 14 "L; 'I' E 10 L) o (fj tie W 1,.4 to ' F0 L: Ail fl) t_ -4 •n -:1 'k.4 Up " T W T1 (it lu -4 $-1 C) A:.) ul 0 L. k. :- Z I A is 'n •d (11 Q1 1 rat 1-4 IT I W is I f fj u k) -4 A :It (1, ILI P A .- I q] IL 4 - a 4 L t. at I _, I S I 0, , k tip -4 - (3- 0 $4 4G on . 4 N I. S. 0­1 -(1 S4 :. .-, It A A f: 0 - 4 4 I J -I1 1 " ­ 1 4.1 too ­4 tit .-I C (.1 CU -1, ilk 41) in S: vi J, US - 11 k) t 4L.) 'XI ,I (I (' t. 0 A J •. (-I US E-L. 1 41 4J In Vo I, ITS -14 4) die 40 1 _4 (P A-4 _4 C. a) "4 0 r-4 $4 Ij Orn (11 1.4 - W, -44 44 ( 4, A ilk -11 14� I on - •u 41 Cj 1. 0 t. s. 1 " 41 00 (ti r1 I : •• i . !, oil III q) q I!, L: (Lt • I -* k: AS :) Q) 04 w T •qI k 0 I_ I I I-.- I t14 Lt i -- 4,j to L# " IV ,1: A :7 'f ­4 tie __1 in TJ 0 (U (j (11 u 01 .11 4 T In .-I 1 411 US S7_ Q f) f: >I q) - tj ­A -(-' 0 K7 4' S-: it 4 k: 4.) S.: to 14.4 144 oil CTV 1,4 &1 %) ­4 Ila A % ­41 _4 -1 t4 1-4 0 (t7 -n C, 1.4 0 -4 up (i> V: 41) 1-4 ( X: Pj GI IJI 1.4 - 3 0, 44 4J - A j: Ul cr d-) '44 ;• 'i) Lot ryl (A t: TIP 10 4j 10; C Ts 0) CA 41 4) tp of C g_: -A CIO •f: 0 wd 0 it m MS �l --I (k: I'l ­41 di su 4U# tit Cl IV (1) foil #tj OJ X_ AD ill • 'to V: ..4 f" 0 L7 P) (1) 1. SO j at Iiiii o L : ctl ill tit >1 177. up C* $is 4 1 j.4 (1) cis (t1 x (U US I,­1 T) 41) Al 0 in 77 a' 0 C oil Us L. too 1 I t-I old c fit X 0 0 C IJ �it C .... ILI if) ri all . 0 -1 a) .1: 43 go 4) W 71 0 u orj 43 tip 11. 41 (1► r -I I • -1 LL to " (1) C" S• () (b US 0­4 0 (.0 IV: 4 .1b , : -. I L: on Up W ♦j U 4) 4_ in • to f oil • rs. 14 IA .1 -k 41 • - 1 11 aj t: •,I •I ill U) ­4 A: 'up LJ W ­ Q L: 91 41 (v (1) f: U. du IV 17 Us if) 0 1- T •• 1 0 ILL) U s — :,; C It) 4 • to al t: it t -Tj 1.4 r >1 tv LP ­4 1 4 A .1: 0 0 44 10 C tj --1-4 •.# 1 .' • ►I s [VID iL Xi so TO -9: :14 a, N 1. 4- 41 Al I ; ;' -,I T ui 41 -4 .. I tie -4 5 -4 41 (J .-I 'to (_j off 0 14 :1 u) C. 41 a; cl u W-4 0­41 43 0 LA. :. ., :1 I CIS w a' ) 0 C) ad •4 0 X_ li-I A V4 0 IU . (J 'o du 0 0 (-4 r- -( - 0 > E-4 A. 144 -0 9 if) 0 0 0 ,tl .t. .. ./ .p al tl/ r•. .. ft. t [ .. r r .y 01 t in - 1 -• W S to • + 11 t: -, 111 ; rp C.. Ir IU ryI •' •I 1Ct - 10 to op it . i f1 , .. •t .'I I III 111 I it 11 (7 ' -I II J: 1' LI ,i1 dl •1+ 71 .1/ t 11 T1 . 1 [: r1 t: •It 1: r11 1 N . v 1 Q) 4.1 its ( + I + C! Ut t 7. t!1 I. . . 1 �) to (10 411 ON I •rl .p t• [' 11 on It. 13 til VI t 1 r 11 Ill . 111 ,p .. .0 U, ; t.• l , 1 ., • S . I'1 . 1 f I t t 1 l : too r`J 1 11 (. no - 1 .-1 1. (iI t: III ' I I 1 (I U; I: J r" t7. tt• 1 U. t1 tot : 1 ; IU • • "L t 1 :' r ,1 .. I I .t 1 LJ • L. :1 •) it t - 1 1 I 1.• Ut nl 111 • '• 1 � H 1 . I t tip •+ I l) 11 1 U) t L t : ) : •r1 i s 1S is /) ri171 fit 11 •11 •+ '1t •�. qt It .1 rt s1 ;+ 1tt )) . I .�: r1 :)1 i •n C ... -1 N N tp .11 •.1 in I I t r U1 r l yJ t '11 111 01 ♦ iIl ... t: 1.1 t;t .I 1.) t 0 ,...1 •y! t_i 01 Ito 411. -1 kf 1 I 1 t" III ,l : t t. Ou L4 11t • t I 1 •.. 1 . - / 1 1 ul 1 •, too 14 '.1 rit .I 11 is II! t (I tU ; t 1 r t,. I .. t 1: t t •.7 ft! C .1•. -Inc - 1•..el.'t1 i Ur 1 . • `•. Itt • t •H 1 1 - .., ) el •rt '. it 'i Q) 1 a+ it 11. 41 ' It G1 S I C t tit . . .tj .+ on . U) t: 'P u. ✓ ut 1!1 3 It ^' I1. ;�� Nln.lul TS f: 11. U oil .•I t : at N 44 t . 7 - C: Ili •.tt of U Is. . 11 t 3 ,1 •-1 Qf to A 1, T7 E (It l: : S 4 "Ci Up -'-{ 111 -_I t••/ RJ U) -1 11 r) Q) In Ill QI 11 . -r 1)1 ( 1 11 .t . t' : 1 . 11 • -1 ul of ( U UI • Vi Vl ell 1;1 0t tJ T1 / 1 () 1: ( . i( QI 1 C►. a3 Vf . 0 11. IU 1) - I IU to LJ. &I O t: - -/ v1 • -1 U N { 41 C) r+ 1) Tt Clt •.1 to (It 1 rt is -.I /t) N J J.-A Itt tilt Up.,: 117 :�• N • yJ `1 11 (n aJ U to) _r. C: Cl ILI Ill - cJ L: N C_ C t X41 ► (1 O () - t L) +n -t 4- 4' 11 1 fll - t 1 1 I t O 1: M al .r. - -1 UI 11) 41, W L: yl C) 1 : 1 N V '(t - -1 )•r 11 •• i Y .-t P IJI Iv 1U ", -1 nr Tl I!1 H 4 at d • Q) 1 i .fS of .-1 y.) i6- • us a: QI nl .-+ /U t: a ro r t, >J t1 [: R) --I .L:. -t T, r. • I . L 1 1 up u al is W is r[ .It 0 r3 • -1 i -1 -1 tU ll JJ CJ (I .,1 ti. ♦) Al 1 ) [ : lot i In :.I C: 1 s In tl C: rJ QI a t t:) (to I , r Qt - _l fU -j v) A IJ 01--1 W .-.1 t: 1 (1 +) ' 1 t-: CI 1I t i .n RI y O L1. to) it too 14-1 (1 N y1 :7 . -I :.. ,, to no y J M •rl ": 1 •rc VI r (tt 1U .t2 1l >: t : U1 y oil 41) >) tJ 73 QI .--I yl >. 111 It I 0t J •1 �. µ1 IV - -1 1 1 1 t J.'r ' N cu . , •U N -1 .. tit jl rr r- -� +i 0 ,c v 41 LI nt u0. at a) VI L aJ N C: ra LI 14 L: V u y> th 2 t. >: 0 Ll (1 4. l N r$I + -I 0.S .I Qt O r 1 Ul Q) yJ "f 41 (lt JJ v Itt t0 ,C: >y 4 to 41 In •.1 IC) 0) 41 yJ t4 -1 C: -I n +r --I (.• N C 1-4 :3 a-' .4 Of F; C: to •'Lt t:: Ll M r1 •--I U U tU m .3 U :' O Cn v •-I rn . 1 ti: Y T1 TU Q1 ru 1J t, U CIt >: I(t 11 >lt -r"� Iil Vol 0 1 Q) fP Cl - 4 ti tZI 2t qt ?� An >. r.1 t {'1J•.1 111 0141 L) N r I - I I)$ Ul r-1 QI C I ✓ C: 4t ) --I to U U IU LI r( 0 S: CIULa+ v •, t1 � y' ,t1 .. c 12• ri t 1 L. aI Q: I,1 t1r 't't 1: ul LU �, {1 11, Ill .-4 41 -- [ /. •� n rI1 y (1 r' 1 It 1 . I nl -1 t 'JI t t rI Ut ul L 1 J_: U T) ([ •N C1 t: 41 I ..1 11 •-1 .11 .-I (114.1 ►J W O U -I . 1 I;I • 1 I 1 1:1 QI >) t to Cl t: t 1. 't 1 .,I w I 4/ (1 nl Q1"I .n • t I t ♦1 1: l2 is I�t 12; '0 Ql !f nt 11 •.. tl �t ' 1: - •S J: t : .t; t;) .-t ill 1-•1 to ty A. '(t L(1 0 0 0