Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 07-30-1990 SpecialCITY COUNCIL/PRAC JOINT MEETING MONDAY, JULY 30, 1990 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - Dinner and meeting commences. AGENDA I. PARK STANDARDS The Comprehensive Park Plan sets forth criteria for service area, size, function, and general content of parks (see attached). Should park standards be reviewed and/or modified? If so, how? II. WATER SURFACE ORDINANCE The Council has heard concerns about jet skis at Parkers Lake and a survey has been done with respect to lake usage. Maple Grove has proposed the attached water surface regulations for its lakes and may request Plymouth concurrence with respect to Pike Lake. What regulations, if any, are needed and enforceable for protecting public safety on Parkers Lake and other city lakes? III. WEEDS The Park Maintenance budget contains $5,000 for chemical treatment/removal of Eurasian Water Milfoil and Purple Loosestrife. What should the City's role be in combatting these weeds? Should the City assume responsibility for weeds on all lakes, ponds, and wetlands? Attached are materials from Maple Grove on their program to assist homeowners in combating algae. IV. DREDGING The City has received a requests for the dredging of the Parkers Lake "bay" and Bass Lake Lagoon. Other requests will be received, particularly from those property owners living adjacent to water bodies receiving storm drainage. What role, if any, should the city play? How should it be funded? What lakes, ponds, and wetlands should be eligible? 7:00 p.m. Adjourn. 1. INTRODUCTION From March, 1981 to February, 1982, the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission of Plymouth (PRAC), the Plymouth Park and Recreation Department, and Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc. (consultant) created and carried out a process that resulted in this document, the Plymouth Park System Plan. Much of the research and analysis required to pro- duce the Park System Plan is not included in this docu- ment, but is available at City Center, Park and Recreation Department for those wishing to review it. The following groups were also instrumental in the completion of this plan: Plymouth homeowners associations Plymouth City Council adjacent municipalities Hennepin County Park Reserve District State of Minnesota The Park System Plan is premised upon the "ultimate" pro- jected population for Plymouth --approximately 110,000 persons. As a result, it should be noted that many of the proposed parks and trails (particularly those beyond the MUSA line) may not be acquired or developed until the 1990's or later. The City will attempt to acquire and develop the proposed park lands through the following means: 1) Through land dedication in the course of timely and orderly development, as set forth in the Land Use Guide Plan and municipal ordinances; 2) Through private gift or donation; 3) Through purchase with: a) Federal, State and other grants or funds, or; b) Funds set aside in lieu of land dedication; or; c) Bonds authorized according to statute. In cases where private development is proposed consistent with the City's Capital Improvement Program and development policies, and the City is not able to acquire a proposed park parcel, the development shall not be denied for this purpose alone. The Park & Recreation Advisory Commission endorsed the Plymouth Park System Plan on February 4, 1982. The City Council adopted the Plymouth Park System Plan on February 22, 1982. 1 - 3/10/82 2. PARK STANDARDS The Park System consists of four building blocks -- 1) neighborhood parks, 2) community playfields, 3) city parks and 4) special use parks --all connected by a fifth element --trails. The definition, selection and distribu- tion of these elements are based upon the recreation needs of the citizens of Plymouth and tempered by the landforms, the land use and the transportation system of the City. The definitions and standards for the building blocks of the system are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Size and Function Service area: 1 neighborhood (approximately 1/2 mile radius, though not necessarily circular) Spatial standard: 2.5 to 3.5 developed acres/1,000 ultimate population Size: minimum 5 to 7.5 developed acres; maximum 15 to 21 developed acres; average 6 to 8.5 developed acres Type of use: active and informal Clientele: emphasis on ages 5-15 and parents (primary); ages 65+ (secondary); all others (tertiary) Functional characteristics: primarily recreation and ornamen- tation with some reserve Context Location: adjacent to elementary school or located centrally within a defined neighborhood Access: primarily pedestrian and bicycle Adjacent land use: residential or school (but with no more than two sides being residential) Natural Conditions Resource dependency: resource orientation not required, but desirable Exposure: totally exposed with views into the park from all directions Topography: flat to rolling (steep slopes, poor soils, or water should not be considered as developable acreage) Vegetation: partially wooded 2- 3/10%82 1 Development Timing: begin general site development as early as practical after acquisition Degree of development: low -to -moderate Typical facilities/activities: Active (not lighted) informal playfield - trails play apparatus - shuffleboard sand - horseshoes Passive shaded turf area - park benches picnic tables Support sledding free skating lighted) playcourts utilities: non -potable water, - limited parking only, lighting (for skating) primarily for Nandi- signage capped plant materials - waste receptacles open air shelter Other Comments may be a part of larger park - not required in Indus- may be decentralized within trial neighborhoods neighborhood as long as no one - little or no programming parcel is less than 5 acres COMMUNITY PLAYFIELD Size and Function Service area: 1 community (driving neighborhood) approximately 1 to 1.5 mile radius) Spatial standard: 2.5 developed ac./1,000 population (ultimate) Size: minimum 20 developed acres; maximum 65 developed acres Type of use: intensive, active, formal, programmed Clientele: primary emphasis on ages 8-50 Functional characteristics: almost entirely recreation 3- 3/10/82 Context Location: - proximity to secondary schools is desirable central location in community is not necessary on collector or minor arterial roadways Access: pedestrian/bicycle, automobile, and public transpor- tation Adjacent land use: non-residential is preferred; buffering is desirable if adjacent to residential Natural Conditions Resource dependency: non -resource oriented Exposure: exposed with views into the site from at least one direction Topography: flat and well -drained conditions are mandatory Vegetation: required only as esthetic consideration or buffering Development Timing: begin development when service population reaches 3,000 Degree of development: high Typical facilities/activities: Active (all lighted) baseball - soccer - basketball softball - field hockey - tennis football - hockey - pleasure skating Passive spectator seating and seating areas Support parking -- dependent on actual - waste receptacles facilities, generally between - some plant materials 3 to 7 spaces/acre - signage structure with restrooms and - full utilities concessions - some storage facilities Other comments not generally associated with other park types or areas not required in industrial neighborhoods, but may be located there heavily programmed activities by schools, City & leagues 4- 3/10/82 Z r T T V n A n V Size and Function Service area: 4 to 5 parks throughout the City (flexible, but approximately 2-3 mile radius) Spatial standard: not applicable Size: minimum 20 acres or large enough to encompass special natural features; no average or maximum size Type of use: extensive, active and passive, educational, some programming Clientele: all ages Functional characteristics: primarily reserve, conservation and ornamentation with some recreation and culture Context Location: - where resource exists (particularly water bodies) dispersed throughout city limited roadway frontage is desirable located near collector or minor arterial roadways Access: pedestrian/bicycle, automobile and public transportation Adjacent land use: immaterial Natural Conditions Resource dependency: strictly resource oriented Exposure:" immaterial Topography: varied, may be steep and/or include wetlands, floodplains, water bodies Vegetation: varied and of significance and interest Development Timing: acquisition should occur as soon as resource is iden- tified and funds made available --development timing is less critical Degree of development: low -to -moderate 5- 3/10/82 do T" .vi. n TM avg. To AVE. 10 TM Ave r ek Fig.1 Neighborhood And Community Boundaries Legend: Cownunity Boundary m m s, s, Neighborhood Boundary meeeistiosso MUSA Line Park System Plan Plymouth, Minnesota O Im V2 1 Scale (In Mlles) Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc. s 1 Typcial facilities/activities: Active recreation trails meadow games area Passive nature trails - park benches nature study - picnic tables Support swimming beach boating fishing park center with restrooms - storage building parking -- dependent on actual - path lighting facilities, generally between - signage 3 to 5 spaces/acre - waste receptacles full utilities Other comments may incorporate neighborhood park within its boundaries not required in industrial neighborhoods programmed activities provided by City and Schools, presuming that resource is of sufficient quality to warrant nature -orientation SPECIAL USE PARKS Resource dependent preservation open space - size and location varies historical/cultural with resource and resource ponding areas protection needs City-wide arboretum City Center sports center/arena public golf course amphitheater Linkages parkways trails M i n i p a r k s vestpocket parks totlots ornamental parks large scale sites, generally from 30 acres (arboretum) to 110-150 acres (golf course) or more, serving entire City throughout entire City; size less important than width and routing parcels usually of less than 5 acres with very small service areas SM 3/10/82 6 All of the aforementioned types of special use parks represent legitimate means of providing recreation and/or preservation - 1 open space; however, with the exception of trails, they do not truly form the basis for a park system, but rather meet special or miscellaneous needs. In terms of functional characteristics, these park types primarily represent con- servation, though all other aspects are usually represented. With respect to miniparks in particular, the City will generally not accept as dedication parcels of land of less than five acres. The burdens of maintenance of numerous small, developed parcels will exceed the benefits derived from their presence. Such parks are more properly the responsibility of homeowners associations or neighborhood groups since the service area is so small. Other than the general guidelines listed above, no stan- dards exist, per se, for most of these parks. Some, such as the City Center, a public golf course, an arboretum, or a sports arena, are of city-wide significance and thus have an effective standard of one per city. Others, such as ponding areas and miniparks would have much smaller service areas. 7- 3/10/82 u M APLE GJ -o ve 760:00 Rev. 1988 ) Section 760 - Lake Use Regulations Added, Ord. No. 83-27, Sec. 1; Amended, Ord. No. 88-14, Sec. 1) Section 760:00. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the terms defined in this Section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Subd. 1. "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Natural Resources of Minnesota acting directly or through his authorized agents. Subd. 2. "Council" means the City Council of the City of Maple Grove. Subd. 3. "Counter -clockwise" travel means to keep the nearest shore to one's right when facing in the direction of movement. Subd. 4. "Cross Bar" means that portion of any "L" shaped or "T" shaped seasonal dock or permanent dock which is approximately parallel in alignment to the abutting shoreline or abutting ordinary high water mark. Subd. 5. "Diving Tower" means a floating or a non -floating structure designed for diving purposes and which projects over the surface or surrounding waters by more than five (5) feet. Subd. 6. "Dock" means any wharf, pier or other structure constructed or maintained in, on, or over the water, whether floating or not, including all L's", "T's" or posts which may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. Subd. 7. "Dock Set -Back Zone" means that portion of any lake lying within one hundred (100) feet of the ordinary high water mark and which is bounded by a line inside of, parallel to, and ten (10) feet distant from each of the two (2) extended side lot lines of any lakeshore site, as measured at right angles to said extended side lot lines. Subd. 8. "Habitable Watercraft" means any motorized and non -motorized watercraft with an enclosure intended for human habitation or overnight shelter either attached to or as an integral part of the watercraft. a) Evidence of habitability of such enclosures shall include, but not limited to, any one or more of the following: 1) Berths or horizontal surfaces usable for the placement of bedding; 2) Windows, hatches or portholes; 3) A head or other sanitary facility; 4) Facilities for cooking. I 760:00, Subd. 9 Rev. 1989) b) Explicitly excluded from this definition are watercraft with folding fabric shelters and no other structures suitable for human habitation, watercraft with cuddy shelters or stowage areas under the decking and no other structure suitable for human habitation, aircraft on the water, and motorized vehicles operated on the ice in the winter. Subd. 9. "Lake" means the following bodies of water lying wholly or partially within the corporate limits of the City of Maple Grove and all parts, bays and channels thereof: Cedar Island Lake, Eagle Lake, Fish Lake, Rice Lake, Edward Lake, and Weaver. Lake. (Amended, Ord. No. 89-18, Sec. 1) Subd. 10. "Lakeshore Site" means any lot, parcel or other tract of land legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles and which abuts any lake. Subd. 11. "Mooring" means any buoy, post, boat lift, structure or device which is in, on, above, or below lake waters and to which a watercraft may be attached. Subd. 12. "Motorboat" means any watercraft propelled in any respect by machinery, including watercraft. temporarily equipped with a detachable motor. Subd. 13. "Operate" means to navigate or otherwise use a watercraft. Subd. 14. "Ordinary High Water Mark" means a delineation of the highest level of lake waters that has been maintained for such a sufficient period as to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. Subd. 15. "Overnight" means any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. of any day. Subd. 16. "Owner" in the case of a watercraft means a person, other than a lien holder, having the property in or title to a watercraft; the term includes a person entitled to the use or possession of such craft, subject to an interest in another person reserved or created by agreement and securing payment or performance of any obligation. "Owner" in the case of a lakeshore site means any natural person who is one of the following: a) The record holder of a fee simple interest, or b) The holder of a contract for deed vendee's interest, or c) The holder of a possessory leasehold interest, in the whole of any lakeshore site, including authorized guests, and immediate family members of such person. 760:00, Subd. 17 Rev. 1989) Subd. 17. "Slow -No Wake" means operation of a watercraft at the slowest possible speed necessary to maintain steerage and in no case greater than five 5) miles per hour. Subd. 18. "Structure" shall mean anything which is built, constructed, or erected; an edifice or building of any kind; or any piece of work artificially built up and/or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether temporary or permanent in character. Subd. 19. "Swimming Area" means an area immediately adjacent to the shoreline which is marked in accordance with the applicable regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and which is utilized solely for recreational swimming. Subd. 20. "Swimming Raft" means a small floating structure no more than one hundred (100) square feet in area designed and used exclusively for sunbathing and for rest from swimming. Subd. 21. "This ordinance" shall mean Section 760 - Lake Use Regulations. Subd. 22. "Watercraft" means any contrivance used or designed for navigation on water other than the following: a) A duck boat during the duck hunting season, b) A rice boat during the harvest season, or c) A seaplane. Subd. 23. "Water Obstacle" means any ski jump, slalom course, diving tower or other structure in or upon the water of any lake, except any dock, swimming raft, watercraft, or fish house. (Amended, Ord. No. 89-18, Sec. 1) 760:05 Rev. 1988) Section 760:05. Structure Regulations. Subd. 1. Unless otherwise permitted in this ordinance, no dock, mooring, or other structure shall be so located•as to do any one of the following: a) obstruct the navigation of any lake; b) obstruct reasonable use or access to any other dock, mooring or other structure authorized under this ordinance; c) present a potential safety hazard; d) be detrimental to fish or wildlife habitat or protected vegetation. Subd. 2. No dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width and seventy-five (75) feet in length as measured from the water's edge. The width (but not the length) of the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the computation of length described in the preceding sentence. a) The cross -bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. b) The end segment of a dock may be of a square design up to eight (8) feet wide. Subd. 3. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set -back zone, provided, however, that the owners of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one common dock within the dock set -back zone appurtenant to said abutting lakeshore sites, if said common dock is the only dock on said two (2) lakeshore sites and if said dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 4. No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site. Subd. 5. All private docks, moorings and buoys are prohibited on public property or within the extended property lines of any such property for a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the ordinary high water mark of such property without written permission of the governmental subdivision having title to said property. Subd. 6. Placement of a private dock or mooring device on property owned by another person or encumbered by an easement, or in such a manner that access to the dock is across property owned by another person or encumbered by an easement, is prohibited without the written consent of the owner and easement holder. 760:05, Subd. 7 Rev. 1989) Subd. 7. Docks, moorings and other structures may be constructed of such materials and in such a manner as the owner determines, provided that they shall be so built and maintained that they do not constitute a nuisance to the public using the waters of the lake and they shall be maintained in a workmanlike manner and shall be in good repair. Subd. 8. Any electrical use on dock facilities must meet all appropriate electrical and building codes. Subd. 9. No person shall store fuel upon any dock, and the installation of fueling facilities on any dock, mooring or other structure is prohibited. Subd. 10. No advertising sign shall be displayed from or on any dock nor shall any oscillating, rotating, flashing or moving sign or light be used thereon. Subd. 11. No boat launch shall be established for commercial purposes without approval of the City Council. Subd. 12. All swimming rafts shall obtain the proper permits from Hennepin County prior to installation, shall be located within one hundred (100) feet from shore, shall not be used for mooring except by persons using the raft for its defined purpose, and shall be limited to no more than one (1) per lake shore site. Subd. 13. All structures in the waters of any lake, whether floating or on posts, shall be lighted with a light visible in all directions, or have attached thereto sufficient reflectorized material so as to reflect light in all directions. Said material shall be capable of retaining eighty percent 80%) of its dry -weather reflective signal strength when wet. Subd. 14. All structures except docks in the waters of any lake, whether floating or on posts, shall be removed from the lake before November 1 of each year and remain out of the water until April 1 of the following year. The City may, upon application therefor, grant an exemption for specified structures of a permanent nature and designed to withstand the effects of winter weather. This Subdivision 14 does not apply to fish houses located on the frozen waters of a lake. (Amended, Ord. No. 89-18, Sec. 2) Subd. 15. Docks, moorings'and other structures located in or on, or attached to, any shoreland shall also be governed by any other applicable provision of this Code including, but not limited to, Section 375:108 (Shoreland Zoning District regulations). 760:10 Rev. 1988) Section 760:10. Water Obstacles. Subd. 1. Except as otherwise provided, no person shall operate, maintain or place any water obstacle in or upon the waters of any lake unless a permit shall first have been obtained for the same. Such permit shall be in addition to any that may be required by Hennepin County. Subd. 2. Applications for permits shall be made upon forms provided by the City and shall include the following information: a) The name, address and telephone number of the applicant; b) The type, number and proposed location of the water obstacle; c) The period for which the permit is sought; d) A statement as to how the water obstacle will be reflectorized; e) If the permit is to be issued to an organization, a statement as to the nature and membership of the organization; f) If the permit is sought for a particular event, the nature of the event, and g) Such other information as the City may require to assist it in considering the application for the permit. Subd. 3. A non-refundable application fee as set forth in Chapter V of this code shall accompany the application at the time of filing i n order to complete the application. Complete applications for permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. Subd. 4. In reviewing an application for a permit pursuant to this ordinance, the City Council shall consider the following factors: a) The size, configuration and manner of construction of the proposed water obstacle(s); b) The level of competing watercraft traffic which can be reasonably expected during the requested duration of the requested permit; c) The size and configuration and depth of the body of water for which the permit is requested; d) The number of competing water obstacles which will be in place pursuant to permits already then issued; e) Any other factor reasonably related to the effect of the applicant's proposed use on the maintenance of public health and safety upon the City's lakes. E 760:10, Subd. 5 Rev. 1988) Subd. 5. If a permit is approved by the Council the permit, when issued, shall specify the dates or period of time for which it is granted as well as any other condition the Council may deem necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public. A violation of any condition or time period specified on a permit shall be a violation of this ordinance. No permit shall be effective for a period of more than one (1) year. Subd. 6. No approved permit shall be issued until the following have all occurred: a) The permittee has signed a statement agreeing to be bound by the terms of the permit; b) The permittee has signed a statement accepting responsibility for the presence, maintenance, use and removal of the water obstacle and agreeing to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liability with regard to the water obstacle; c) The permittee has provided proof satisfactory to the City of a policy or certificate of liability insurance for the permitted obstacle which insurance shall as a minimum meet the following requirements: 1) 'a minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of one million dollars ($1,000,000) of comprehensive general public liability insurance; 2) in effect during the entire period of the permit; 3) endorsed to show the City of Maple Grove as an additional insured; 4) no cancellation for any cause can be made either by the insured or the insurance company without first giving twenty (20) days written notice addressed to the City Clerk of an intention to cancel the same; 5) no payment of any claim by the insurance company shall in any manner decrease the coverage provided for because of any other claim or claims brought against the insured or insurance company thereafter; 6) the insurer shall pay to the extent of the principal amount of the policy any damages for death or injury caused by or resulting from the water obstacle for which such permit has been approved including, but not limited to, any such damages resulting from the violation of any law relating thereto. 760:15 - Rev. 1989) Subd. 7. If any permitted water obstacle is found by the Council to constitute a hazard or obstruction to the safe use of the lake by others the permit may be revoked. This remedy shall be in addition to any criminal remedies available pursuant to this ordinance. a) The permittee shall be given written notice of the hearing at which the Council shall consider the revocation, such notice to be received by the permittee at least ten (10) days before said hearing. If the permittee cannot be found, notice shall be sufficient if delivered to the address of the applicant or permittee as set forth in the permit application. b) The Council shall hear relevant testimony and receive relevant evidence offered by the permittee and that which is offered by or on behalf of the City. As the trier of fact the Council shall determine the relevancy of testimony or evidence. c) After considering all such evidence and testimony submitted, the Council may order revocation of the permit on the record based upon its sole discretion. Subd. 8. Upon receiving notice of revocation, the permittee shall remove the water obstacle within seven (7) days thereafter. Failure of the permittee to remove the water obstacle as specified is a violation of this ordinance. a) If the water obstacle is not removed as specified it may be removed by the City at the expense of the permittee who shall pay the costs thereof immediately upon receiving a bill therefrom. b) In the case of an emergency presenting an immediate hazard to the public safety the City may abate the hazard as it deems appropriate before proceeding pursuant to Subd. 7 above and the permittee shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred in abating said hazard. Section 760:15. Watercraft Regulations. Subd. 1. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 361 and the rules and regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources promulgated thereunder are hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this ordinance as if fully set forth. A copy of said provisions shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's office. Subd. 2. Watercraft shall not exceed a slow -no wake speed within one hundred 100) feet of a person in the water or an anchored or moored watercraft. Subd. 3. Watercraft shall not exceed a slow -no wake speed within one hundred 100) feet of any shoreline, except that a watercraft launching or landing a person on water skis or a similar conveyance requiring speed to stay above water may use the most direct route to open water or shore at the speed limit established in Subd. 5 below, unless within one hundred (100) feet of a person in the water or an anchored or moored watercraft. 760:15, Subd. 4 Rev. 1989) Subd. 4. Except as otherwise provided, no person shall operate a watercraft in any slow -no wake area in excess of slow -no wake speed. a) The location and boundaries of each slow -no wake area established by this ordinance are shown on that certain map entitled "Water Surface Use Zoning Map of Maple Grove" on file in the office of the City Clerk. Said map and all notations, references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this ordinance and shall have the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein. b) Slow -no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable regulations of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. However, said speed limitation shall be effective even in the absence of said markings. Subd. 5. No person shall operate a watercraft at a speed which exceeds the following limitations. Lake a) All lakes in designated "Slow -No Wake" areas b) All lakes in Maple Grove sunrise to sunset, unless otherwise specified in this Subd. 5 c) All lakes in Maple Grove sunset to sunrise, unless otherwise specified in Subd. 5 d) Edward Lake e) Rice Lake in waterways west of Interstate I-94 f) Fish Lake -Southwest bay and Mariner Point channel Permissible Speed Slow -No Wake 40 Mi 1 es Per Hour 15 Miles Per Hour 15 Miles Per Hour Slow -No Wake Slow -No Wake g) All watercraft shall travel on Fish Lake and Weaver lake in a counter- clockwise direction. This requirement shall not apply to: 1) Watercraft traveling in slow -no wake areas at or below said speed; 2) Watercraft traveling anywhere on said lakes at or below slow -no wake speeds; 3) Watercraft moving solely by power of the wind; 4) Watercraft using for its intended purpose any slalom course or ski jump course previously approved by the City Council and subject to such limitations imposed by the Council. 760:20 Rev. 1989) h) No watercraft shall be operated at speed greater than is reasonable and prudent for the existing conditions and having full regard for both the actual and potential hazards at the time. Speed shall be restricted as is necessary to avoid colliding with any person, property, or natural resource which is in, on, or entering the water of any lake. Subd. 6. No person shall moor, dock, or beach overnight more than five (5) watercraft on any lakeshore site or upon the waters of any lake. Subd. 7. No unoccupied watercraft shall be moored, docked, or stored overnight on any lakeshore site or on the waters of any lake unlesssaid watercraft is currently registered pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 361 in the name of a member of said owner's household, or is the watercraft of authorized guests of such owner. Subd. 8. Except as may otherwise be provided in Section 375:108 of the Maple Grove Ordinance Code, storage of watercraft at any lakeshore site within shoreland setback areas is prohibited. Subd. 9. No habitable watercraft shall be occupied overnight more than twice during any calendar week without the prior written approval of the City which may be granted for purposes of fishing or angling. Subd. 10. No person shall use any watercraft, wherever located, as living quarters. Amended, Ord. No. 89-18, Sec. 3) Section 760:20. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the requirements of this ordinance where it is shown that by reason of hardship strict compliance with said requirements could cause an exceptional or undue hardship to the enjoyment of the use of the lake; provided, that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of this ordinance or adversely affect the public's health, safety or welfare. Subd. 1. Written application for a variance, together with a non-refundable application fee as set forth in Chapter V of this Code, shall be filed with the City. The application shall state fully all facts relied upon by the applicant and shall be supplemented with such information as will aid in the analysis of the matter. The application may be referred to such outside consultants, engineers, or attorneys as the City deems necessary to evaluate the application, and the cost of any such referral shall be borne by the applicant. Subd. 2. Upon filing of said application and fee, the City Council shall place the matter on its regular meeting agenda for a public hearing. 760:25 Rev. 1988) Subd. 3. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated wholly or partially within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the lakeshore site to which the variance application applies. The applicant(s) shall provide a list obtained from and certified by Hennepin County to be used in said mailing. Failure of a property owner to receive said notice shall not invalidate any of said proceedings. Subd. 4. The Council may defer the matter for further consideration, adopt the variance, adopt the variance with conditions, or refuse the variance for reasons placed on the record. Subd. 5. No variance shall be granted by the City Council unless it shall have received the affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5) of the full Council. Section 760:25. Violations. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance or permitting or assisting in the same shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day the prohibited conduct continues shall be considered a separate offense. The provisions of this ordinance may be enforced by any law enforcement agency including, but not limited to, the Maple Grove Police Department and Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. Section 760:30. Exemptions. Subd. 1. Watercraft and structures of the City and those utilitized by authorized resource management, emergency and enforcement personnel when acting in the performance of their assigned duties shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 2. Temporary exemption from the requirements of this ordinance for a special event, trial or race may be obtained upon application to and approval by the City Council. Section 760:35. Conflicts. Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this ordinance are either more or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by other ordinance, rule or regulation of the City, the ordinance, rule or regulation which imposes the more restrictive condition, standard, or requirement shall prevail. April 3. 1989 DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Ken Ashfeld, P.E. City Engineer PREVIOUS ACTIONS: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER< AGENDA ITEM 1989 Algae Control Program CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL Council previously approved the 1989 General Fund budget which included an appropriation for an Algae Control Program. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Motion to approve the 1989 Algae Control Program as proposed by the Maple Grove Lake Quality Commission with an estimated cost .not to exceed $12,700.00. COMMENTS: The 1989 General Fund budget includes $12,700.00 as the City's maximum contribution to a cooperative water quality program entitled 1989 Algae Control Program. It was intended to be a cooperative program between the City and the lake homeowners associations to improve the water quality of the lakes for the enjoyment and use by the residents of the City. The budget amount was based on matching funds from the homeowners associations for the control of algae with copper sulfate treatments. There was no funding approved for weed control. The Maple Grove Lake Quality Commission -has formulated a procedure whereby the program can be implemented on a City-wide basis. The procedures would require that a homeowners association be formed on each lake that wanted to take advantage of participating in the program. It was also the intent of the LQC to minimize City staff time associated with the program and to make the homeowners associations and/or contractors responsible for the following: Public relations. Collection of matching funds. Obtaining DNR permits, Placement of warning signage during treatment. Monitoring lake characteristics as criteria for treatment. Monitoring program successes or failures. The lake water quality criteria that will be monitored is secchi disc readings. Secchi disc readings are an indication of water clarity and water clarity is a function of the magnitude of algae growth. Secchi disc readings between 2.5 - 3.5 feet would be criteria for copper sulfate treatment. It is visualized that the program would operate in accordance with the following Action Plan: r 1989 Algae Control Program April 3, 1989 Page Two PROGRAM APPLICATION Actions of Homeowners Associations/Contractors Notify City by a letter of intent to participate in the program. Make arrangements with a contractor to provide the treatment. Monitor lake water quality to determine when criteria for treatment is present. Obtain DNR permits. Actions of City/LOC Review intended treatment processes. Review qualifications of contractor. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Actions of the Homeowners Associations/Contractors Notify City/LQC that lake water quality criteria has been met and schedule of treatment. Based upon City/LQC review, the association/contractor shall cause the treatment to occur. Provide monitoring information that indicates results of treatments. Actions of City/LOC Review lake water quality criteria for treatment. Authorize treatment. PROGRAM COST REIMBURSEMENT Actions of the Homeowners Associations/Contractor Make payment to the contractor for the treatment. Apply to City for payment of City matching funds. Actions of City Approve payment to the homeowners associations. PROGRAM REVIEW Actions of the Homeowners Associations/Contractor Provide City with lake water quality data indicating the impacts of the treatment program. Actions of City/LOC Review lake water quality data. Make recommendation for or against program funding during subsequent years. Lakes that do not have homeowners associations are currently trying to form associations. Those lakes include Eagle, Pike, Rice and Edward. It is unknown at this time if the individual lakes will be successful in forming associations quick enough to take advantage 1989 Algae Control Program April 3, 1989 Page Three of the 1989 program. If the program is successful and if Council elects to continue the program, newly formed organizations will be able to take advantage of the program during subsequent years. With the program structured as discussed above, staff time dedicated to this program would be minimized. City exposure to liability would also be minimized since it is the homeowners association's and the contractor's responsibility to obtain the DNR permits. If it is the desire of the Council to see this program move forward and feel that the structure of the program implementation does not compromise their intentions for the program, it is recommended that Council approve the 1989 Algae Control Program as recommended by the Lake Quality Commission and presented herein. Ci t)7 of . i940q roNTe rnbrook Lane, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369-9790 May 3, 1990 Subject: 1990 Algae Control Program 6124204000 1 am pleased to inform you that the City Council continues to show their support of the area lake homeowners associations to control algae within the area lakes. An Algae Control Program will again be funded in 1990 as it was in 1989. Enclosed is an application form for your association's use in requesting funding from the City. The form is the same as last year with the exception that the secchi disc reading at the time of treatment must be indicated as well as the dissolved oxygen within the water. The dissolved oxygen content is a factor that your contractor should test for at the time of treatment. The procedures to be followed in 1990 are the same as last year, summarized as follows: Lake associations are to designate a representative to conduct daily secchi disc readings leading up to the day of treatment and several days thereafter. A record of secchi disc readings should be kept and submitted to the City. Lake associations need to select and coordinate their own contractor to complete algae treatment. Individual contractors need to obtain DNR permits and follow all conditions of the permit. Lake associations need to apply to the City for funding, submitting with the application secchi disc reading reports, information as required on the application form and proof of payment to the contractor. The lake Quality Commission will review funding requests and make recommendation to City Council. Serving Today, Shaping Tomorrow" AN EOUAL OPPORTUNRY EMPLOYER James Deane Dxvid Bumness Charles F. Dehn Donald J. Ramstad ownciltncmhrr Gwnciltrnmhc7 ( mncilmwinher Printed on Recycled Paper Donna R)nn C0urx7i11TK1nhc7 1 May 3, 1990 Page 2 Please keep in mind that the Program has established the criteria of secchi disc readings be between 2.5 to 3.5 feet prior to copper sulfate treatment for algae growth. Please contact your Lake Quality Commissioner, . if you have any questions relative to the program or myself at 420-4000. On behalf of the City Council and Lake Quality Commission, this is to wish you and your association members a safe and enjoyable summer. Sincerely, 4-'O Ken Ashfel , P.E. City Engineer KGA:cw MAPLE GROVE ALGAE CONTROL PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM Lake Organization Contact Person Address Contractor/Applicator Address Telephone Area of Lake Treated: Description Arra-, Telephone (H) W) Secchi Disc Reading Level of Dissolved Oxygen Rate of Copper Sulfate Application: Lbs./ Acre Date of Treatment Date of Last Treatment DNR Permit Number Cost of Treatment (attach copy of invoice) $ Amount of City funding Requested $ Previously Requested Amount for Current Calendar Year (19 ) $ Total Amount Requested to Date for Calendar Year (19 ) $ I declare the stated costs are an =accurate reflection of actual costs incurred. Organization Representative Date 1 1lEfEiiRAI TQ CITY AVAM CRY Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizer, awm mma PLIMQIIN OtREm PUBLIC SItIM F1018C NR ADMINM71YE ASWW PARK CIDWOSION June 27, 1990 CITY An0RNEY Ott tt Mr. Eric Blank Director of Parks & Recreation City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear Eric: I would like to thank you for having been able to provideuswitha "last second" update regarding the walking / bicycle path which is to be built along West Medicine Lake Drive. Inthatregards, it is my understanding that the path is in its final design stages and should go out for bids sometime in earlyJuly, 1990 with construction hopefully to begin later that month. I would note that there were a fair number of individuals at our recent membership meeting who expressed some dissatisfactionwiththeplansastheyunderstandthemtobe, and suggestedthefollowingalternatives: I. Simply rerouting West Medicine Lake Boulevard and usingtheexistingroadwayforyourwalking / bicycling paths. 2. Changing West Medicine Lake Drive into a one-way street using the other lane for walking and biking. I am sure you had various public hearings regarding thisissueaswellasconsideredotheralternatives. I did, however, wish to pass this information along to you. For another matter, please be advised that AMLAC has taken out and paid for a weed control permit with the Minnesota DNR, a copy of which is attached hereto together with a listing ofthehouseholdstreatingunderthatpermit. Mr. Don Pennings' company, Lake Management, Inc., is doing the weed treatmentsthisyear. In addition to treating our "native weeds" Mr. Pennings' crew will also be looking for Eurasian water milfoil. I haveinstructedMr. Pennings to treat any and all areas of Eurasian water milfoil he comes across in Medicine lake this year. ItismyunderstandingthattheonlyareawhereEurasianwater milfoil has been positively identified would have been the areajustwestoftheCityofPlymouth's "east beach". It is myunderstandingthatthecostoftreatingEurasianwatermilfoil twi J111 2 6 ':-J Letter to Mr. Blank Page Two with a 2-4D granular systemic herbicide will run approximately 250.00 per acre. In that regards, I am hopeful that at the end of summer when we receive Mr. Pennings' bill, which bill I would anticipate to be somewhere in the area of $1,000.00, that the bill could be split, perhaps on a 50/50 basis, with the City of Plymouth. Naturally, we all have an interest in keeping Eurasian water milfoil out of Medicine Lake and treating any Eurasian water milfoil found there. I am not asking for any funds at this time but simply writing you to let you know what my be coming either this summer of fall. Very truly yours, Bruce W. Larson President of AMLAC 237 Peninsula Road Medicine Lake, Minnesota Home: 593-9530 Work: 375-1550 BWL/wjr Enclosures JUi 2 r 'J May 24, 1990 Mr. Henry Willegalle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 CIN OF PLYMOUTR SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE WITH RESPECT TO DREDGING OF PARKERS LAKE Dear Mr. Willegalle: You have inquired about the possibility of the City undertaking dredging of Parkers Lake. The City Council has reviewed this request and will be considering this matter, together with the 1991 Budget and the 1991 - 1995 Capital Improvement Program. Public hearings on both documents will be held later this year. The hearings will -be publicized in the official newspaper, cable channel 37, and by other means. Please call me atn 550-5013 if you have any questions. iV r 77 V, Fr&'Snk Bbyl s Assistan Ci y Manager FB:kec cc: Eric Blank, Director of Park & Recreation James G. Willis, City Manager Mayor and City Council 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000 May 15, 1990 Park board and City Council Members City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth MN. 55447 Parkboard and City Council Members: C,\' J Please review the letter I have written to Assistant City Manager Frank Boyles concerning my proposal to dredge y the Juneau Lane bay on Parkers Lake. I would think this would be an opportune time to do this project in conjunction with the park expansion and the county road 6 construction being done this summer. Iiam asking you to give this project your consideration because you are the people who decide what projects are selected and scheduled. Thank you for -your time and consideration. lex OLO&` ,tx Henry Willegalle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth MN. 55441 phone: 473-1069 (home) 593-8845 (work) MAY 1 May 15, 1990 Frank Boyles Assistant City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth MN. 55447 Mr. Boyles: 51E;P At the April 9, 1990 town meeting I requested that the city council reconsider the proposal I made last year to dredge out the bay on Parkers Lake along Juneau Lane. I left with the impression that the city council was interested in reviewing this project. You requested that I send you copies of the correspondence I had with the city last year. I have included with this letter copies of my original letters and the responses I received from the various city departments. I hope you will find these a source of usable information. I purchased my home eleven years ago at a premium price because it was lakeshore property. The other four families on the bay purchased their homes with the same understanding. After the watershed project of 1982 we were the only residents that were denied access to the lake. We had wet years from 1982 to 1985 and the water level stabilizes at approximately 10 inches which results in a muddy, weedy, stinking mess that is too shallow to power a boat through. We were never compensated for our loss of lakeshore and yet these properties can never be sold as lakeshore again. ' At the 1982 watershed general information meetings the question of setting the lake level was raised. We were told the lake level would be established using the 100 year average rainfall factor but that the level could be adjusted at a later date if this caused any problems. Now I am told that it is impossible to adjust the lake level due to the location of the activities building at the beach. In 1982 1.2 million dollars was budgeted for this project and it was completed for $900,000. The dredging of the bay should have been included in this project when the money was available. I called several contractors and the average cost to dredge the bay was $90,000. 1.50 cu/yd to dredge only. 5.00 cu/yd to dredge, haul the material a maximum distance of 20 miles, and spread the material at the dump site. To dredge the bay to a depth of 36 inches the cost would be $5.00 X 17,500 cu/yd equals $87,500 plus permits = $90,000. (approximately $25,000 per acre of usable surface water. I requested the city council consider this project last year so it could be dnne__this year in conjunction with the widening of county road 6 and the clover to 494 nrxt to Litton Pond (the watershed holding pond). It seems the appropriate place to dump the material from the bay would be Litton Pond. If you remove 17,500 cu/yd of material from the bay and place it in the watershed pond the overall capacity of the two should remain unchanged. The close proximity of the pond should help keep the material transportation cost down. CIM MAY 17 '90 The Parkboard keeps referring to their five year budget. Why wasn't this part of the plan in 19827 In May of 1987 I discussed dredging with the DNR (refer to my request #27-107) and they seemed receptive to the idea. I also talked to the Assistant City Manager Sherm Goldberg but nothing was proposed as part of a five years plan at that time. There woUd--be an obvious advantage to us as residents if the bay were dredged but I would think the city as a whole would benefit more from this project. You have already spent so much money on the beach and park; yet the first thing everyone sees either visiting the park or driving bye is this eyesore. It is a community joke. It has been on television at least twice. This would be a one time investment of $90,000 to gain 3.6 acres of usable surface water for boating and fishing. I have never heard of a lake being too small and here is a chance to increase the usable lake size by 4%. Most people say this project will never be started because it makes too much sense. Everyone wins. We get our lakeshore back and the residents of the city get a more aesthetically pleasing and usable park. I can only bring this situation to the councils attention. You, -:as council members have the power to approve or deny the request to do this project. Please give this matter your serious consideration. If you have any questions or suggestions please contact me. Sincerely Yours 1 YlApg Henry gWille alle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth MN. 55441 CIM MAY 17 '90 May 8. 1989 Mayor Virgil Scheider City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth MN. 55417 Regarding: Parkers Lake Bay on Juneau Lane Dear Mayor Virgil Scheider: My concern, as well as my neighbors and other residents of Plymouth, is what are the cities plans, if any, to clean up the Parkers Lake bay on Juneau Lane. The question was raised at the City Council meetings on the Parkers Lake Watershed as to what depth the lake would be set at. We were told the depth based on the hundred year rainfall w6uld leave us with ample water levels to enjoy the lake. Even in wet years the water is not deep enough to allow launching our boats without mucking about in the mud and it is obvious during dry years that we no longer have lakeshore. It appears the lake was leveled about three feet lower than it should have been. There are several solutions; all of which include dredging. The most expensive part of this operation is the removal of the dredged material. This seems to be a necessary expense. It should be noted that Bloomington dredged Penn Lake (84th and Penn) about twenty years ago and to my knowledge nothing , ever grew on the island they created with the dredged material. Assuming the city would be interested in dredging the bay; the removed material could be dumped into the current county road 6 project. The time required to dredge and remove the material should take approximately two weeks. The amount to be rmoved (assuming a three foot depth) would be 35,000 cubic yards at a cost of approximately $50,000. The DNR has pictures of the bay on file but a permit would have to be applied for. This would be the opportune time to do this project with all the construction planned for this summer in this area. If this project is not done this summer I am afraid it will never be done because it would not only be impractical but the cost would be prohibitive. The first thing people see khen they Jog or go to the beach is this eyesore= and I have heard many c00ments to this affect. The city would gain. another seven acres of usable lake, the lake would-be more attractive. and -aa -residents we could once again use the lakeshore. Compared to the money already spent on the Parkers Lake and Watershend projects this is a minimal expenditure for what everyone would gain. This would be a win- win situation where the city, its residents, and the people who live on the lake win and there would be no losers. Cid MAY 1 ' Ar 1JQ Please answer this correspondence by May 22, 1989 with your intentions concerning this matter. Thank you for your concern. Henry Wille alle it -CC 1525 uneau Lane , Plymouth MN- 55441 CC James J Willis City Manager City of Plymouth Eric Blank Park and Recreation Director City of Plymouth Fred Moore Public Works Director City of Plymouth CSM MAY 17 '90 May 16, 1989 Mr. Henry Willegalle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 SUBJECTS PARKER'S LAKE BAY ON JUNEAU LANE Dear Mr. Willegalle: Your letter suggests that the City consider dredging Parker's Lake, particularly the bay on the northeast corner of the lake. You expressed concern about the existing lake water level. In 1980 the City installed an outlet from the lake to solve flooding which had become an annual problem. The elevation of the outlet was established through the Department of Natural Resources at the historic high water level which existed prior to urban development. The existing water level is at the outlet elevation. Lake levels throughout the state have been affected by the drought—like conditions we have experienced last year and this spring. The snow run—off and rain we have thus far received, have only restored the lake to the outlet elevation. I'm sure you have read about other area lakes which remain well below their normal water levels. You suggest that a dredging project be undertaken for Parker's Lake. The park component of the City's five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) does not presently include a dredging project for Parker's Lake. Since this is the City's planning document for such public improvements, the project would have to be included here in order for construction to take place. You may wish to formally suggest the inclusion of a Parker's Lake dredging project in the CIP by attending the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission public hearing scheduled for Thursday, July 13 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Center Council Chambers. You should be aware of a few things: 1. Any dredging of the lake is likely to have both a general benefit to lake users, but also a special benefit to those who live around the lake. Accordingly, a portion of the dredging cost would likely be specially assessed against the benefitting properties. CIM MAY 17'90 Mr. Henry Willegalle May 16, 1989 Page 2 2. The spoil dredged from the lake cannot be used for the County Road 6 project as it is unsuitable as subsoil for the roadway. I have shared your letter with members of the City Council. I have also supplied a copy to Park and Recreation Director Blank with the request that it be distributed with the agenda materials for the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission CIP Public Hearing. Thank you for sharing your suggestion with me. I hope you will pursue it by attending the upcoming public hearing. Sincerely, Vi gil Schneider Mayor VS: 1jk cc: City Council Members Eric Blank CIM MAY 17 '90 May 8, 1989 Eric Blank Park and Recreation Director City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth MN. 55447 Reference my letter to Mayor Virgil Scheider. Dear Eric Blank: I think it would be a shame to lose this opportunity to gain 5-7 acres of usable lake for a small investment. This area will be under construction for the beach tunnel, County Road 6, and the sound barriers. The area to be dredged is still dry and I believe the removed material could be used as fill could be used as fill on the road project. You can build all the paths, buildings, and improve landscaping but there are few oppurtunities to gain a 59.' increase in lake size. There -is also the advantage of upgrading the overall appearance of the beach area. Imagine the additional area for fishing and boating. It is currently hard to get around in the bay area even with the water at normal levels. I would appreciate any support you could give to the success of this project. Thank you for your support. Henry Willegalle / 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth MI. 55441 CIM MAY 17 '90 z 5 1 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: September 11, 1989 TO: PRAC FROM- Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation C SUBJECT: PARKERS LAKE DREDGING As per your request, I have met with Fred Moore, Director of Public Works, to discuss the dredging request of Parkers Lake. Mr. Moore informs me that the DNR is the official body which sets the normal water elevation on Parkers Lake. It is an extremely difficult process to attempt to have the water level adjusted by the DNR. You are aware that the City uses Parkers Lake as part of its master storm water retention program. Up to four feet of water is stored in the lake above the normal water elevation. If the normal elevation were to be raised, this could cause future flooding of property around the lake. This may include the Parkers Lake Pavilion, which has its floor set two feet above the ordinary high water level of the lake. Thus, the only way of practically getting water into the bay in the future would be by dredging this area. A suggestion was made that the dredging take place in conjunction with the County Road 6 project, so that the material could be used. Mr. Moore informs me that the material in the lake would not be suitable for any type of work associated with the County Road 6 project. Also the County Road 6 project will have excess material of itslown which it will have to dispose of. Therefore, there does not appear to be any practical reason to attempt to tie the timing of the dredging of the lake to the construction of County Road 6. I have not attempted to get any quotations on the cost of dredging the lake, but I have no doubt that the quoted figure of $90,000 would be necessary to undertake a project of this magnitude. The questions the commission must answer then are: o Would the park "the public" benefit significantly by increasing the water acreage of Parkers Lake? o Given all the other priority needs for community playfields, trails, tennis courts, etc., what type of priority would you place on this project? I cannot justify a high priority for this item. It is something that could be done at any time in the future. EB/np C'M MAY 17 '90 ril9'• WIC ria =•: VI -t-; PLYMOUTR September 15, 1989 Henry Willegalle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Henry: The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed and discussed your request with regard to the dredging of Parkers Lake at their September 14 Commission meeting. Based on the information that I have enclosed in the attached staff report, the Commission concluded that it was not a high enough priority to be considered in the current five year capital improvement budget. This would not preclude such a program from being added to a future capital budget. If you and the other homeowners surrounding this area would like to consider privately financing such an operation, I would be happy to offer my services to help you in securing the necessary DNR and Corp of Engineer permits that would be required. If I can be of any further assistance to you, please give me a call. Thank you for your time and interest in this matter. Sincerely, Z'..' P51x--- Eric J. Blank, -Director Parks and Recreation EJB/np Attachment cc: James C. Willis Fred Moore Blair Tremere Mark Peterson PRAC V OM MAY 17 'P May 8, 1989 Fred Moore Public Works Director City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth MN. 55447 Reference my letter to Mayor Virgil Scheider. Dear Fred Moore: I feel this is the opportune time to upgrade the lake in the area of the bay on Juneau Lane as my letter to the Mayor indicated. One thing I did not mention was the possible upgrading of the storm sewer on County Road 6 and West of Juneau Lane. I know the question has come up in the past concerning the possibility of a delta being formed from the end of the storm sewer outlet. This would be a good time to incorporate any storm sewer improvement at the time of the dredging. The general area will be under heavy construction with the beach tunnel, County Road 6 improvement, and the sound barriers being constructed. Any support you could give the possible dredging of the bay would be appreciated. Thank you for your support. Henry Willegalle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth MN. 55441 CIM MAY 17 'qo May 26, 1989 Mr. Henry Willegalle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 SUBJECT: STORM SEWER OUTLET TO PARKERS LAKE COUNTY ROAD 6 IMPROVEMENT Dear Mr. Willegalle: Mayor Virgil Schneider and City Manager Jim Willis have previously responded to you with regard to the dredging of the small bay west of Juneau Lane and south of County Road 6 on Parkers Lake. You sent me additional correspondence concerning the storm sewer which must ;be constructed as part of the County Road 6 Improvement Project. Hennepin County will be undertaking this construction project since County Road 6 is under their jurisdiction. As part of the preliminary approvals for the project, the City has requested that they consider the extension of the storm sewer which you addressed in your letter. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works E FGM:kh cc: James G. Willis, City Manager CIM MAY 17 W May 8, 1989 James G. Willis City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth MN. 55447 Reference my letter to Mayor Virgil Scheider. Dear James G. Willis: I am sure you can see the advantages of upgrading the bay along Juneau Lane at this time. 'My main point is that there will never be a better time or a better oppurtunity with all the construction going on along County Road 6 as well as the sound barriesrs and the beach access tunnel bening built. If the city doesn't so something with the bay area at this time the questions will continue to come up. Some of these questions and concerns will be: Is the storm sewer going to create a delta at the outlet? How could the lake be expanded to produce more usable acreage of water surface? Why was the water level set so low as a result of the Watershed project? How far out do the lots run and how much of this land can the residents improve? I cannot believe that there are many park projects that can return more value for -the dollar per acre than this proposed project. _ I would like a summary of the cost of the Watershed and the Parkers Lake Park projects including the landscaping and activities building so that I can do a cost evaluation in the event I would have to start petitioning. Thank you for your support. Henry Willegalle J Ik- it t uk- Juneau Lane Plymouth MN. 55441 CIM MAY 17 'g0 May 16,1989 Mr. Henry Willegalle 1525 Juneau Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 Dear Mr. Willegalle: I am responding to your letter of May 8 addressed to me, although you also received a letter from Mayor Schneider on the same topic. I appreciate your interest and concern with respect to the low lake level at Parkers Lake. We share that concern. You asked four specific questions in your letter and I will answer them in the order in which you raised them. 1. The storm sewer entering the northeasterly portion of the lake has and will continue to bring solid material which will form a delta. The city had the delta area cleaned out approximately 2 years ago and will continue to undertake that kind of maintenance periodically. This particular activity, however, does not contem- plate the type of dredging that I believe you may have in mind. Our work is strictly done for basic maintenance purposes. 2. The lake surface can be expanded by dredging it as you have suggested. This would obviously deepen out the areas which are currently dry, but which have periodically held water. Dredging activity within the lake bottom area would require a permit from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 3. The DNR established the ordinary high water (OHW) for Parkers Lake at 934.4 feet. The outlet which was constructed by the city several years ago was established at 934.0. Prior to the instal- lation of our storm sewer, there was no storm drainage outlet for Parkers Lake other than through flooding. It was this flooding, which included closing a portion of I-494, which ultimately led to the construction of the storm drainage outlet to the lake. 4. The lots within your area were platted many years ago and were likely platted to the then existing water level. I am enclosing a copy of the plat for your area in order that you may become familiar with the' platting boundaries as they relate to your lake shore. CIM MAY 17 ^ Mr. Henry Willegalle Page 2 I hope these responses have adequately addressed your concerns. please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, o JJ-'—---_ 3 mes G. Willis Ci y Manager OGW :1 f k If not, F CIM RAY 17'90 Pw low , — .-