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 , — .-