HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-19 CC Packet
.
REVISED AGENDA **
CITY OF STn...LWATER
CITY COUNCn... MEETING NO. 97-21
Stillwater Public Library, 223 N. Fourth Street
August 19, 1997
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 5, 1997, Regular and Recessed Meetings; August 13, 1997,
and August 14, 1997, Special Meetings.
PETITIONS. INDIVIDUALS. DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS
OPEN FORUM
The Open Forum is a portion of the Council meeting to address Council on subjects which are not a part of the
meeting agenda. The Council may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff
regarding investigation of the concerns expressed.
.
CONSENT AGENDA *
1. Resolution 97-181: Directing Payment of Bills. r
2. Landscape improvements at Meadowlark Park t:t t']. -, ~ J
3. Advertise for bids for walking path and retaining wall at Anez Ridge Park
4. Contractors Licenses: Aautomated Pool and Patio, Oakdale, MN
5. Physical fitness equipment - Police Dept.
6. Authorizing attendance of Klayton Eckles and Shawn Sanders at International Public Works
Congress and Exposition
7. Resolution 97-182: City contribution to community web-site
8. Resolution 97-183: 1998 rates for Blue Cross Blue Shield
9. Resolution 97-184: Employment of Keith Nelson as Chief Mechanic
STAFF REPORTS
1. Finance Director
2. Police Chief
3. Public Works Director
4. Community Dev. Director
5. Parks & Recreation
6. City Engineer
7. Consulting Engineer
8. City Clerk
9. Fire Chief
10. Building Official
11. City Attorney
12. City Coordinator
.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Hazel Street Ravine Drainage Improvements, Job No. 9609. This is the day and time for the
public hearing to consider the making of Hazel Street Ravine Drainage improvements, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such
improvement are properties North of West Moore Street; East of County Road 5; South of
Minnesota Zephyr Railroad; and West of North Fifth Street. Notice of the hearing was placed in
the Stillwater Gazette on August 1 and 8, 1997, and notices mailed to affected property owners.
tu.o, q'1" IS ("
2. Case No. V/97-28. This is the day and time for the public hearing to consider a request for a
variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 15'3" requested) for construction of a two
story, 2000 sq. ft. addition to an existing single family residence at 2318 Boom Road in the RA,
One Family Residential District and Bluffland/Shoreland Overlay District. William C. Messner,
applicant. Notice of the hearing was placed in the Stillwater Gazette on June 20, 1997, and
notices mailed to affected property owners. (Continued from 7/1/97)
City Council Meeting 97-21
August 19, 1997
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Adoption of AUAR (Resolution.) f7 -I ? 1
.
2. Receiving Recommendations from Planning Commission and Park and Recreation Board
regarding Long Lake surface use regulation
3. St. Croix Area Sports Complex:
/' "."'.I~D.')Review and approve plans and authorize advertisement for bids (Resolution)
~7- ./
I VI ,..",.~
. 4. Update: Sale of territorial prison property for downtown hotel
5. Update: County Road 15 extension planning
6. Authorization for Legislative Associates, Inc., to attempt to attain State funding for prison wall
repair and restoration
7. Update: Ordinance relating to permits for Cellular and PCS Towers
8. Possible first reading of ordinance amending Ordinance No. 695, Establishing Hospital/Medical
insurance for retired city employees.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for TIF assistance for condominium development on UBC site and parking structure over
2nd and Olive St. parking lot
.
2. Request to use City land for construction of stairway from residence to St. Croix River
3. Authorization to proceed with condernn~tion proceedings of properties related to Elm Street
Ravine Project (Resolution), '7 7 -{ i' <j{ ,
4. Consideration of planning process for update of Downtown Plan including Aiple property
5. Consideration of Downtown Parking Improvements for 1998 as part of Downtown Parking
Improvement Program.
6. Possible first reading of ordinance limiting development in and requiring setback from steeply
sloped areas
7. New off-sale 3.2% malt liquor license - Cub Foods (Resolution) q 1 ...Ir~
PETITIONS. INDIVIDUALS. DELEGATIONS & COMMENDATIONS (continued)
COMMUNICATIONS/REQUESTS
COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS
STAFF REPORTS (continued)
ADJOURNMENT Possible adjournment to Executive Session to discuss labor relations matter .
* All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in
which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately.
** Items in italics are additions to the agenda
t.
CITY OF STILLWATER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 97-18
August 5, 1997
.
REGULAR MEETING
4:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kimble at 4:30 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Also present: City Coordinator Kriesel
City Attorney Magnuson
Finance Director Deblon
Police Chief Beberg
Parks Director Thomsen
City Engineer Eckles
Building Inspector Zepper
Planner Fitzgerald
City Clerk Weldon
Press: Julie Kink, Courier
Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette
.
STAFF REPORTS
1. Finance Director Deblon reported the Finance Department has compiled the 1998 budget
requests from all departments and assembled the preliminary 1998 Budget. She requested
Council set workshop format meetings for the initial budget review.
Motion by Councilmember Cummings, seconded by Councilmember Thole setting budget
workshop special meetings for August 13 at 4:30 p.m. and August 14 at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall.
All in favor.
Finance Director Deblon also informed Council the City has received a check from Berkeley
Administrators in the amount of $28,203 due the City under the Optional Refund Plan for its
workers' compensation coverage for the period January 1, 1986 - January 1, 1997.
2. Police Chief Beberg reported Officer Leslie Wardell will be leaving the juvenile officer
position and returning to uniformed patrol effective September 1, 1997; he requested
Christopher Felsch be promoted to this;-{'os~n. In addition, he requested approval of the
employment of Jason Lindner as~'!r~r oYlrcer. (action on consent agenda)
He requested authorization to purchase three computer printers and night vision equipment.
(action on consent agenda)
. He also reported 1) the police department has applied for a "Clinton 'Cops' Grant for 1998 for
one officer. The grant request can be cancelled if no officer is added in 1998, 2) Officer
1
City Council Meeting No. 97-18
August 5, 1997
J
Carla Cincotta will be attending D.A.R.E. School in September, and 3) the total Police .
Department cost (overtime and vehicle/equipment cost) for Lumberjack Days was $13,500.
3. Community Development Director
City Planner Fitzgerald reported the Long Lake Surface Use Study will be addressed at the
August 19, 1997 meeting.
4. Parks Director Thomsen reported the Lily Lake arena roof is in serious need of repair at an
estimated cost of $30,000 - $40,000. He requested authorization to advertise for bids. He
stated $50,000 was budgeted in 1997 for the McKusick Lake walking trail; the trail is in the
planning stage this year and construction will probably not start until 1998 or 1999. He
requested the funds be used for the arena roof repair and the $50,000 be put back into the
1998 budget for the McKusick path.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings directing
advertisement for bids for Lily Lake Arena roof repair. All in favor.
He also requested authorization to purchase picnic tables for Benson Park, using funds
remaining from the installation of the privacy fence at Benson Park. (action on consent
agenda)
.
5. City Engineer Eckles reported an invoice from EFH for finished construction of the shared
pond near the Colonial Craft site was included in the list of bills. The City had entered into a
joint agreement with EFH and Lakeview Hospital for construction of a common pond. The
City's share was estimated to be just under $25,000 but increased due to special design
features needed by Colonial Craft; the changes were previously approved by Council. He
recommended Council approve the payment to EFH. (action on consent agenda)
City Engineer Eckles informed Council the $20,000 for repair of the main street stairs was
not included in the 1997 budget as had been erroneously reported at the July 15 meeting.
However, funds were budgeted for seal coating in 1997 and no sealcoating will be done in
1997. He suggested these funds could be used for the Main Street stair repairs.
Council determined the funds remaining from the 1997 repair of Lily Lake Arena roof
should be used to fund the Main Street stairs repair; if additional funds are needed, the funds
remaining from the 1997 Sealcoat budget should be used. Council directed Finance Director
to make the necessary adjustments.
City Engineer Eckles also reported on additional costs of work needed to complete Phase II
evaluation of the former Myrtle Street dump (monitoring well/deep soil boring/groundwater
sampling). He requested approval of an additional $23,939.29 for the evaluation.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller approving additional
.
2
\.
City Council Meeting No. 97-18
August 5, 1997
. funding of$23,939.20 for Phase II evaluation of the former Myrtle Street dump (monitoring
well/deep soil boring/groundwater sampling). All in favor.
City Engineer Eckles presented proposal from Markhurd for surveying services for
annexation area for topographic mapping of project area described by Bonestroo Rosene
Anderlik & Assoc. (BRA).
Motion by Councilmember Zoller, seconded by Councilmember Thole adopting Resolution 97-
180 approving the contract with Markhurd for topographic mapping services.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
6. City Coordinator Kriesel reported staff (City Coordinator, Finance Director, and City
Attorney) had, as directed by Council, investigated the possibility of contracting with an
individual to provide property assessment services. (This discussion was initiated by the
appearance of Patrick Poshek at the July 15 Council meeting to request Council consideration
of his services.) Staff met with Scott Hovet, Washington County Assessor and other County
staff and also Mr. Poshek. He stated staff believes the County, due to available resources,
past performance, and the fact that the County has already performed about 25% - 30% of
the work for the current appraisal period ending January 2, 1998, should continue to provide
. assessment services to the City.
Motion by Councilmember Cummings, seconded by Councilmember Bealka acknowledging the
retention of Washington County Assessor to continue to provide assessment services for the City
of Stillwater. 4-0-1 (Thole abstain)
Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Cummings to recess at 5 :30
p.m. All in favor.
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
.
3
City Council Meeting No. 97-18
August 5, 1997
J
CITY OF STILL WATER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO. 97-18
August 5, 1997
.
RECESSED MEETING
7:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kimble at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Also Present: City Coordinator Kriesel
City Attorney Magnuson
City Engineer Eckles
City Clerk Weldon
Press: Julie Kink, Courier
Mike Marsnik, Stillwater Gazette
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Thole approving minutes of
July 15, 1997, Special and Regular Meetings. All in favor.
.
OPEN FORUM
James McKinney and Kathy Oertel expressed concerns with excessive noise created by City Hall
air exchange system. Mayor Kimble stated corrective work had been done today. He stated that
if this work does not sufficiently reduce the noise problem, additional measures will be taken
until a solution is found.
CONSENT AGENDA *
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings removing payment
of $15,381 to Conrad Mechanical from list of bills. All in favor.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings approving the
consent agenda, as amended.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
1. Resolution 97-167: Directing Payment of Bills
2. Purchase of jackhammer - Street Dept.
3. Purchase of two sanders - Street Dept.
4. Resolution 97-168: Promoting Steve Zoller to firefighter/engineer
.
4
"
.
.
City Council Meeting No. 97-18
August 5, 1997
5. Utility bill adjustments
6. Resolution 97-169: Employment of Leslie Wardell as patrol officer
7. Resolution 97-170: Employment of Christopher Felsch as juvenile officer
8. Conveyance of Outlot A, Highlands of Stillwater 6th Addition to Highlands of Stillwater
Homeowners Association
9. Purchase of computer printer - Administration
10. Purchase of 3 computer printers - Police Dept.
11. Purchase of night scope - Police Dept.
12. Purchase of picnic tables - Benson Park
13. Resolution 97-171: Seasonal Employment of Tricia Markfort -Parks Dept.
14. Taxi License - A-Taxi/Stillwater Taxi (2 vehicles)
15. Resolution 97-172: Employment of Jason Lindner as part-time patrol officer
16. Resolution 97-173: Proposal Requests Nos. 33, 34, 35, and 36, City Hall Building Project
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Accepting bid and awarding contract - Croixwood Boulevard Reconstruction Projects, Job
No. 9724
City Engineer Eckles reported the following three bids were received: Ashbach Construction
Co., $92,002.49 (low bid); Vi-Con, In., $92,686.80; and Tower Asphalt, Inc., $93,462.75.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings adopting Resolution
97-174 accepting bid and awarding contract for Croixwood Boulevard Street Rehabilitation,
Project No. 9724 to Ashback Construction Company.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
2. Accepting proposal for Hazel Street Ravine repair
City Engineer Eckles reported staff had finalized a repair solution, completed plans and
specifications, and obtained quotes for emergency repairs on the Hazel Street Ravine, as
directed by Council on July 15. Three quotations were received: Glenn Rehbein Excavating,
Inc.; Miller Excavating, Inc.; C.W.Houle, Inc. The Rehbein quote was the lowest for
completing the majority of the work.
Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Cummings adopting
Resolution 97-175 approving plans and specifications for emergency repairs for Hazel Street
Ravine, Project No. 9610.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
. Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Cummings adopting
Resolution 97-176 approving bid and awarding contract to Glenn Rehbein Excavating Inc., for
5
City Council Meeting No. 97-18
August 5, 1997
i
emergency repairs for Hazel Street Ravine, Project No. 9610, contingent upon receiving
necessary rights of entry.
.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
NEW BUSINESS
1. Purchase Agreement with Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company for Lowell
Park Parking Lot
City Attorney Magnuson reported that, pursuant to Council direction, staff negotiated for the
purchase of the Lowell Park parking lot from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
Company for the sale price of$127,500 with $12,500 in earnest money. He had reviewed the
proposed Purchase Agreement, prepared by the Railway Company, and found it consistent
with the Council's direction and in proper form for execution by the City should Council
choose to go ahead with this purchase.
. Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings adopting Resolution
97-177 approving Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement with Burlington Northern and Santa
Fe Railroad Company for Lowell Park parking lot and authorizing payment of deposit.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
.
2. Agreement with NSP for installation of lights on levee
City Engineer Eckles reported Phase I of the installation of historical type lighting by NSP in
Lowell park is nearing completion. In order to have NSP complete the installation and accept
maintenance responsibility, the City must enter into an Agreement with NSP (included in
packet).
Motion by Councilmember Cummings, seconded by Councilmember Thole adopting Resolution
97-178 approving agreement with Northern States Power Company for installation and
maintenance of lighting in Lowell Park.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
3. First reading of ordinance amending Ordinance No. 695, Establishing HospitallMedical
insurance for retired city employees.
Mayor Kimble requested this item be tabled at the request of City Coordinator.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller to table discussion of
amending Ordinance No. 695, Establishing Hospital/Medical insurance for retired city
.
6
,
City Council Meeting No. 97-18
August 5, 1997
. employees. All in favor.
4. Approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids - 4th Street Ravine
Storm Sewer, Project No. 9726
City Engineer Eckles reported the plans and specifications are near completion. If approved
at this meeting, advertisement for bids could be placed August 8; this would allow for bids to
be presented to Council for award at the September 2 Council meeting.
Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Thole adopting Resolution 97-
179 approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids - 4th Street Ravine
Storm Sewer, Project No. 9726, contingent upon receiving all necessary rights of entry and
easements.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Thole to adjourn to executive
session at 7:55 p.m. Possible adjournment to Executive Session to discuss assessment appeal.
.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
.
Resolution 97-167: Directing Payment of Bills
Resolution 97-168: Promoting Steve Zoller to firefighter/engineer
Resolution 97-169: Employment of Leslie Wardell as patrol officer
Resolution 97-170: Employment of Christopher Felsch as juvenile officer
Resolution 97-171: Seasonal Employment of Tricia Markfort -Parks Dept.
Resolution 97-172: Employment of Jason Lindner as part-time patrol officer
Resolution 97-173: Proposal Requests Nos. 33, 34, 35, and 36, City Hall Building Project
Resolution 97-174: Accepting bid and awarding contract for Croixwood Boulevard Street Rehabilitation, Project
No. 9724) to Ashback Construction Company.
Resolution 97-175: Approving plans and specifications for emergency repairs for Hazel Street Ravine, Project No.
9610.
Resolution 97-176: Approving bid and awarding contract to Glenn Rehbein Excavating Inc., for emergency repairs
for Hazel Street Ravine, Project No. 9610, contingent upon receiving necessary rights of entry.
Resolution 97-177: Approving Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement with Burlington Norther and Santa Fe
Railroad Company for Lowell Park parking lot and authorizing payment of deposit.
Resolution 97-178: Approving agreement with Northern States Power Company for installation and maintenance
of lighting in Lowell Park.
Resolution 97-179: Approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids - 4th Street Ravine
Storm Sewer, Project No. 9726, contingent upon receiving all necessary rights of entry and easement.
Resolution 97-180: Approving the contract with Markhurd for topographic mapping services.
7
.
.
.
CITY OF STILLWATER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO.97-19
August 13, 1997
SPECIAL MEETING
4:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kimble at 4:30 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Absent: Councilmember Bealka
Also present: City Coordinator Kriesel
City Attorney Magnuson
Finance Director Deblon
Building Inspector Zepper
City Engineer Eckles
Public Works Director Junker
Parks Director Thomsen
Asst. Fire Chief Barthol
Community Development Director Russell
Press: None
1. 1998 Budget Workshop
Finance Director Deblon and City Coordinator Kriesel presented Council information on
the proposed 1998 Budget.
Department budget pr<;>posals were presented by the following: Building Inspector
Zepper, City Engineer Eckles, Public Works Director Junker, Parks Director Thomsen,
Asst. Fire Chief Barthol, Community Development Director Russell
Budget discussions will be continued at the Special Meeting to be held August 14, 1997,
at 5:30 p.m.
Motion by Thole, seconded by Zoller to direct Community Development Director to obtain
market value appraisal of Burt Rivard property located n Stillwater Township. All in favor.
2. Adjournment
Motion by Thole, seconded by Zoller to adjourn at 9: 10 p.m.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
Attest:
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
CITY OF STILLWATER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING NO.97-20
August 14, 1997
.
SPECIAL MEETING
5:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kimble at 7:00 p.m.
(quorum not present at 5:30 p.m.)
Present: Councilmembers Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Absent: Councilmembers Bealka and Cummings
Also present: City Coordinator Kriesel
City Attorney Magnuson
Library Director Bertalmio
Fire Chief Beberg
Finance Director Deblon
Press: None
1. 1998 Budget Workshop (Continued from August 13, 1997)
Finance Director Deblon and City Coordinator Kriesel presented Council information on .
the proposed 1998 Budget.
Department budget proposals were presented by the following: City Coordinator Kriesel,
City Attorney Magnuson, Library Director Bertalmio, Fire Chief Beberg, and Finance
Director Deblon.
2. Adjournment
Motion by Thole, seconded by Zoller to adjourn at 8:33 p.m.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
Attest:
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
.
I
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-181
DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF BILLS
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, that the bills
set forth and itemized on Exhibit "A" totaling $247,991.04 are hereby audited and approved
for payment, and that order-checks be issued for the payment thereof. The complete list of
bills (Exhibit "A ") is on file in the office of the City Clerk and may be inspected upon
request.
Adopted by the Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Modi Weldon, City Clerk
,
LIST OF BILLS
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 97-181 .
Action Rental Concrete 183.19
ADS Pipe 1,180.87 .
Amdahl, Chris Re-Key Locks 39.00
American Linen Supply Towels/Mops 55.26
Amoco Sprint Gas/Diesel 3,592.94
Ancom Communications Beltclips 68.90
Architectural Digest Renewal 29.95
ASLA Book 21.45
BCA/Forensic Science Refresher Course 40.00
Bergmann's Greenhouse Plants 63.90
Board of Water Commissioners Water 5.33
Brockman Trucking Trailer Rental 181 .04
Buberl Recycling & Compost City Hall Landscaping 9,540.53
Burmaster, Russell Janitorial Services 200.00
BWBR Architects City Hall Project 1 ,426.59
B.E.B. Name Signs for Doors 124.41
Capitol Communications Repair Radio/Analyzer Cup 116.23
Catco, Inc. Repairs 384.45
COW Network Equipment 1,169.01
Charlsen Trucking Moving Services 1,091.50
Clarey's Pumps/Pump Cans/Boots 1,823.50
Commissioner of Transportation Manuals 35.00
Construction Bulletin Ad for Bids 193.20
Courier Employment Ad 20.00 .
Croix Oil Co. Oil for Shop 406.43
Cy's Uniforms Uniforms 647.84
Data Research Inc Reference Book 115.82
Del's Outdoor Equipment Trim Line/Bar Oil 42.53
Einertson, David Polygraph 175.00
Emergency Apparatus Repairs 874.26
Equipment Supply Repairs 717.53
Ferry, Arlie Park Deposit Refund 35.00
Fina Fuel 110.50
Fleet Fueling Fuel 569.94
Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Assoc Professional Services 980.00
G & K Services Uniforms/Rugs/Mops 2,791.85
Geo. W. Olsen Construction City Hall Project 7,111.00
Glenbrook Lumber Plastic for Flood 141 .43
Goodwill Recycling 324.79
Grand View Lodge Housing 160.00
Greeder Electric Wiring 474.00
GTS Seminar 60.00
Harmon Contract City Hall Project 2,584.00
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Housing 890.33
ICBO Meeting Registration 325.00
Imagineering Computer Consulting 3,143.80 .
Jansen's Cleaning Service Maintenance 1,066.30
Jay Bros. Inc. Pioneer Park Retaining Wall 31,069.75
Johnny's TV Transfer Audio Tapes 15.98
Johnston Fargo Culvert New Culverts 1,565.72
Kriesel, Nile
Labor Relations Assoc.
Lake Management
Lakeland Ford
. .awton Printing
eague of MN Cities
Lexmark
Lind, Gladys
Magnuson, David
Maple Island Hardware
Metro Electric Construction
Metropolitan Council
M II Life
MN/S.C.I.A.
Mogren Sod Farms
Moore Business Forms
Moore Medical Corp.
Northwestern Tire
On-Site Sanitation
Parker, Scott
Physio Control
Pioneer Press
Premier Lift Products
R & T Specialty
Reliable Appliance
SECOM
eecure Mini Storage
EH
Shorty's
State of Minnesota
Stillwater Fire Relief Assoc.
Stillwater Gazette
Stillwater Petty Cash
Stillwater Towing
S1. Croix Animal Shelter
S1. Croix Car Wash
S1. Croix Office Supplies
S1. Paul Linoleum & Carpet
Twin Cities Service Center
T. R. Systems
Viking Office Products
Wal-Mart
Washington County
Washington County Public Works
Washington Co. Attorney
Wash. Co. SWCD
Watson, Dennis
Weldon, Morti
.ybrite
""'ocum Oil Co.
Zee Medical
Ziegler
Meals
Professional Services
Pond Treatment
Part
UBC Tab Sets
Deductible
Printer Ribbons
Property Purchase
Legal Services
Misc. Hardware
City Hall Project
Sewer Service
Premiums
Class Registrations
Sod
Purchase Orders
First Aid Supplies
Batteries
Unit Rental
Install Equip. on Squads
Memory Unit
Advertising
City Hall Project
D.A. R. E. Items
Vacuum Betts
Lamp Modules
Storage Space Rental
Engineering Services
Laundry
Vehicle Forfeiture
Re-Certification
Legal Publications
Meals/Coffee
Towing
Boarding Fees
Wash Squad Cars
Office Supplies
City Hall Project
Service Agreement/Speakers
Professional Services
Office Supplies
Supplies
Recording/Paper/Prof. Svcs./Map
Sand Bags
Vehicle Forfeiture
Monitoring Station
Computer Programming
Mileage/Parking/Printer
Maintenance
Gas/Diesel
Medical Supplies
Batteries
83.00
629.00
2,292.00
43.31
17.31
500.00
87.87
927.00
8,437.08
179.06
8,868.00
91,517.00
1,618.06
240.00
88.20
614.93
60.88
266.26
202.60
500.00
173.36
228.03
570.00
27.10
8.41
39.94
163.20
7,618.79
45.32
31.01
310.00
234.90
91.29
90.00
316.13
71.84
755.91
5,847.00
1,295.67
510.00
56.24
120.49
382.32
1,026.04
62.02
1,500.00
685.00
460.19
460.50
169.07
145.16
383.19
ADDENDUM
Airtouch Cellular
AT&T
AT&T Wireless
Burmaster, Russell
Conrad Mechanical
Junker Sanitation
Kriesel, Nile
MN Society of CPA's
NSP
NSP
U. S. West
Cellular Phones
Long Distance
Cellular Phones
Janitorial Services
City Hall Project
Garbage Bags Sold
Supplies
Conference Registration
Street Lights
Electric
Phones/Long Distance
Approved by the City Council this 19th Day of August, 1997.
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
Total Due:
164.73
130.31
8.51
400.00
15,381.00 .
543.75
60.16
169.00
10,052.42
1,523.47
522.96
247,991.04
.
.
LIST OF BILLS
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION 97-181
Action Rental
_OS
mdahl, Chris
American Linen Supply
Amoco Sprint
Ancom Communications
Architectural Digest
ASLA
BCA/Forensic Science
Bergmann's Greenhouse
Board of Water Commissioners
Brockman Trucking
Buberl Recycling & Compost
Burmaster, Russell
BWBR Architects
B.E.B.
Capitol Communications
Catco, Inc.
COW
Charlsen Trucking
Clarey's
Commissioner of Transportation
Construction Bulletin
~ourier
Wroix Oil Co.
Cy's Uniforms
Data Research I nc
Del's Outdoor Equipment
Einertson, David
Emergency Apparatus
Equipment Supply
Ferry, Arlie
Fina
Fleet Fueling
Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Assoc
G & K Services
Geo. W. Olsen Construction
Glenbrook Lumber
Goodwill
Grand View Lodge
Greeder Electric
GTS
Harmon Contract
Hyatt Regency Phoenix
ICBO
Anagineering
~ansen's Cleaning Service
Jay Bros. Inc.
Johnny's TV
Johnston Fargo Culvert
Concrete
Pipe
Re-Key Locks
Towels/Mops
Gas/Diesel
Beltclips
Renewal
Book
Refresher Course
Plants
Water
Trailer Rental
City Hall Landscaping
Janitorial Services
City Hall Project
Name Signs for Doors
Repair Radio/Analyzer Cup
Repairs
Network Equipment
Moving Services
Pumps/Pump Cans/Boots
Manuals
Ad for Bids
Employment Ad
Oil for Shop
Uniforms
Reference Book
Trim Line/Bar Oil
Polygraph
Repairs
Repairs
Park Deposit Refu nd
Fuel
Fuel
Professional Services
Uniforms/Rugs/Mops
City Hall Project
Plastic for Flood
Recycling
Housing
Wiring
Seminar
City Hall Project
Housing
Meeting Registration
Computer Consulting
Maintenance
Pioneer Park Retaining Wall
Transfer Audio Tapes
New Culverts
183.19
1,180.87
39.00
55.26
3,592.94
68.90
29.95
21 .45
40.00
63.90
5.33
181.04
9,540.53
200.00
1,426.59
124.41
116.23
384.45
1,169.01
1,091.50
1,823.50
35.00
193.20
20.00
406.43
647.84
115.82
42.53
175.00
874.26
717.53
35.00
110.50
569.94
980.00
2,791.85
7,111.00
141 .43
324.79
160.00
474.00
60.00
2,584.00
890.33
325.00
3,143.80
1,066.30
31,069.75
15.98
1,565.72
Kriesel, Nile
Labor Relations Assoc.
Lake Management
Lakeland Ford
Lawton Printing
League of MN Cities
Lexmark
Lind, Gladys
Magnuson, David
Maple Island Hardware
Metro Electric Construction
Metropolitan Council
Mil Life
MN/S.C.I.A.
Mogren Sod Farms
Moore Business Forms
Moore Medical Corp.
Northwestern Tire
On-Site Sanitation
Parker, Scott
Physio Control
Pioneer Press
Premier Lift Products
R & T Specialty
Reliable Appliance
SECOM
Secure Mini Storage
SEH
Shorty's
State of Minnesota
Stillwater Fire Relief Assoc.
Stillwater Gazette
Stillwater Petty Cash
Stillwater Towing
St. Croix Animal Shelter
St. Croix Car Wash
St. Croix Office Supplies
St. Paul Linoleum & Carpet
Twin Cities Service Center
T. R. Systems
Viking Office Products
Wal-Mart
Washington County
Washington County Public Works
Washington Co. Attorney
Wash. Co. SWCD
Watson, Dennis
Weldon, Morli
Wybrite
Yocum Oil Co.
Zee Medical
Ziegler
Meals
Professional Services
Pond Treatment
Part
UBC Tab Sets
Deductible
Printer Ribbons
Property Purchase
Legal Services
Misc. Hardware
City HaJJ Project
Sewer Service
Premiums
Class Registrations
Sod
Pu rchase Orders
First Aid Supplies
Batteries
Unit Rental
Install Equip. on Squads
Memory Unit
Advertising
City Hall Project
D.A. R. E. Items
Vacuum Belts
Lamp Modules
Storage Space Rental
Engineering Services
Laundry
Vehicle Forfeiture
Re-Certification
Legal Publications
Meals/Coffee
Towing
Boarding Fees
Wash Squad Cars
Office Supplies
City Hall Project
Service Agreement/Speakers
Professional Services
Office Supplies
Supplies
Recording/Paper/Prof. Svcs./Map
Sand Bags
Vehicle Forfeiture
Monitoring Station
Computer Programming
Mileage/Parking/Printer
Maintenance
Gas/Diesel
Medical Supplies
Batteries
83.00
629.00
2,292.00
43.31
17.31
500.00 .
87.87
927.00
8,437.08
179.06
8,868.00
91,517.00
1,618.06
240.00
88.20
614.93
60.88
266.26
202.60
500.00
173.36
228.03
570.00
27.10
8.41
39.94
163.20
7,618.79 .
45.32
31.01
310.00
234.90
91.29
90.00
316.13
71.84
755.91
5,847.00
1,295.67
510.00
56.24
120.49
382.32
1,026.04
62.02
1,500.00
685.00
460.19
460.50 .
169.07
145.16
383.19
MEMO
.
August 14, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Klayton H. Eckles ;./. L~
City Engineer J
SUBJECT: Meadowlark Park Landscaping Improvements
Project No. 9717
DISCUSSION:
The Meadowlark Park grading improvements are in full swing. As the mass
grading was completed, it was discovered that the site was deficient in top soil. By
grading the site some of this topsoil is lost as well making the park very short on top soil.
Weare recommending, in addition to the mass grading, topsoil be added to the park
improvements. Staff has received a quote fr9ffi Ra~..' h Trucking to bring in 200 cubic
yards of topsoil at a cost of $9.00 per yard ot $1,800. Also up to six hours of dozer work
would be necessary at a cost of $65 .00 per h6ur.or~: 90 to spread the top soil.
. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending Council accept the proposal from Raleigh Trucking for the
placing and spreading of topsoil at Meadowlark Park for the cost of $2, 190.
ACTION REQURIED:
If Council concurs with the recommendation, Council should pass a motion
adopting Resolution No. 97-_, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM RALIEGH
TRUCKING TO COMPLETE ADDITIONAL LANDCAPE IMPROVMENTS TO
MEADOWLARK PARK (PROJECT NO. 9717)
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM RALEIGH TRUCKING
TO COMPLETE ADDITIONAL LANDCAPE IMPROVMENTS
TO MEADOWLARK PARK
(PROJECT NO. 9717)
WHEREAS, it has been determined that additional topsoil is needed for the
completion oflandscaping at Meadowlark Park;
AND, WHEREAS, it appears that Raleigh Trucking of Stillwater, Minnesota has
submitted the low quotation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF STILL WATER, MINNESOTA:
That the quotation from Raleigh Trucking is received and approves the
expenditure of$2,390.00 for the completion oflandscaping at Meadowlark Park.
Adopted by the City Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Modi Weldon, City Clerk
.
.
.
STAFF REQUEST ITEM
.DEP ARI1vlENT
Parks
MEETfi\l'GDATE Aug. 19th 1997
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST (Briefly outline \vhat the request is)
Request to advertise for bids on a walking path and retaining
wall at Anez Ridge Park. The project will be funded by TIF
money at this location. Approximate 2114 feet of walking
path and 600 sq. feet of retaining wall.
~hp path will connect Forest Hills to Caliber Ridge
. FWANCIAL INlPACT (Briefly outline the costs, if any, that are associated \\1th this request and
the proposed source of the funds needed to fund the request)
----
TIF
ADDITIONAL INFORN1ATION ATTACHED YES -1L- NO_
MAP OF AREA
ALL COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK A
MWlIvfUM OF FIVE WORKIN'G DAYS PRIOR TO THE NEXT REGULARL Y SCHEDULED
COUNCIL MEETING IN ORDER TO BE PLACED IN THE COUNCIL Mi\TERIAL PACKET.
SUBMITTED BY c...Z..-=-,,~... DATE P-/y-~?,
.
~ 25 '- o' ::t:
FO~t',-r ,if/its
- -
..
1 ~,..,,:~~" -".- - - J
'Tor Lof
/"
\ / / (~
; I ~ / (
I \ +\ \ ,\
\ ~ \ "-
~ ---
\' "-
~ '- ',-
'- ---
'-
-
-
- ........~l;'" ~ -
- -890 - --
,.....,_..-,'-~. '~".'.'.
'PAvC.. T)
r 1 e.l::. \-il'r.>.'-
C4/16 t\'? fi,d'7 ~
.5'WI~ B>ITOl'/'I)HlcP-S WAL-l'-\
~
v~~
~~.e. z.. 12..1l:4&- '"f' ~K.
111;3 4-0' -0. D
7. 1;- '(11 Nll~1'\
___. L____
1 ~--
'J.. I I '-I ~-r 0 f c...v;4t r..... .
000 Sf'. rt. Re 1.4''''11 "'5 W4 L
p~ to 'FI~ H
b-
.
.
.
.
.
.
DONALD L. BEBERG
CHIEF OF POLICE
TIMOTHY J. BELL
CAPTAIN
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
M E MaR AND U M
TO:
MAYOR KIMBLE AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
D.L. BEBERG, CHIEF OF POLICE
DATE:
AUGUST 15, 1997
RE:
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THERE IS MONEY IN
THE DEPARTMENTS CAPITOL OUTLAY BUDGET FOR THE EXPENDITURE.
TWO PERSONS HAVE COME FORWARD THAT ARE WILLING TO SELL SOME WEIGHT
EQUIPMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENTS PHYSICAL FITNESS/TRAINING ROOM. WE HAVE
CHECKED THE PRICES OF USED EQUIPMENT AND PRICES WE WERE GIVEN FOR THIS
EQUIPMENT IS IN THE RIGHT RANGE.
THE LIST IS TOO LONG TO INCLUDE WITH THIS MEMO, HOWEVER I DID GIVE
A COPY TO NILE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
CRAIG PETERSON - $1,140.00 AND TODD BJORKMAN - $675.00
97-29
212 North 4th Street · Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Business Phone: (612) 351-4900 · Fax: (612) 351-4940
Police Response/Assistance: 911
MEMO
.
August 14, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Klayton H. Eckles
City Engineer
\L ~
SUBJECT: Registration for International Public Works Congress and Exposition
DISCUSSION:
The 1997 International Public Works Congress and Exposition is held in
Minneapolis this year. This provides an excellent opportunity for staff members to
attend. The cost for Shawn Sanders and myself to attend the three day conference would
be $375.00 each. The 1997 budget has adequate funding available to cover these costs
under seminar and conference fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approve the expenditure of$750.00 for the
International Public Works Congress and Exposition.
.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs with the recommendation they should pass a motion
authorizing expenditure of $750 for attendance at the International Public Works
Congress and Exposition.
.
.
.
.
L'- &/ I 7 / ~ ')
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re: City contribution to development of Community Web site
Date: August II, 1997
Background
Over the past several months, the City has attended meetings held by the Community Network
Group, comprised primarily of representatives from the City, the Library, Lakeview Hospital, the
Stillwater Chamber, and area residents interested in promoting the presence of St. Croix Valley
organizations on the Internet. This group has acted as an extension of the Internet Task Force,
and has had as its primary focus the development of a Community Web site, called the
"Boomsite", which will act as a central reference point for all of the government, non-profit and
business organizations who currently have a presence on the Internet. The development of this
site will in fact act as the first step in the creation of a more comprehensive Community Network
on the Web.
The Boomsite Web page is currently being constructed by volunteer Stillwater residents. The
Community Network Group has also reorganized itself as a nonprofit called the "Boomsite
Consortium," operating, for now, under the auspices of the Stillwater Chamber. The Consortium
is requesting a $100 annual contribution from all participating organizations, for administrative
costs and development of the Website. The Consortium will have its own board, comprised of
individuals from each of the funding organizations involved, (which currently includes the
Library, Lakeview Hospital, the Chamber, and CVS). I have attached for your reference a letter
from Jan Brewer, Treasurer of the newly created Boomsite Consortium, requesting a $100
contribution from the City.
The creation of this new non-profit ensures a wide range of community participation in the
development of a comprehensive Website, and will create future opportunities for grant funds
and further expansion of the Community Network, as funding levels increase.
Recommendation
Council approval of a $100 contribution to the Boomsite Consortium, for the development of a
Community Website.
STILLWATER
~~~
PUBLIC LIBRARY
223 North Fourt~ Street
Stillwater, MN"55082
.
June 19, 1997
Ms. Marcy Cordes
City of Stillwater
216 N. Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Marcy,
With this letter I am calling for the funding commitment from each of the "Boomsite"
founding organizations. (See Jerry Brown's June 1 0 e-mail minutes of our May 27
Boomsite meeting.)
As agreed, please arrange to provide me with a check for $100.00, payable
to the "Boomsite Consortium", Stillwater, Minnesota. Mail (or drop off) the check
to me at the Stillwater public Library.
At the earliest opportunity I will open a local checking account in the name of the
consortium to receive the funds and provide a means of disbursing payment for
services.
.
I talked with Leo Neuman, treasurer of the City of Stillwater Chamber of Commerce,
and obtained the Federal I. D. number of the Chamber should we need it for the bank
account. Signatories for the account will be me, Leo Neuman, and Lou Jones of
Community Volunteer Service.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
fl~r ~
Stillwater Public Library
Treasurer, Boomsite Consortium
.
612.439.1675
FAX:439.0012
,
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 182
APPROVAL OF CITY CONTRIBUTION OF $100.00 TO THE ST. CROIX VALLEY
"BOOMSITE CONSORTIUM"
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota that the City will contribute
$100.00 to the St. Croix Valley "Boomsite Consortium" for the development ofa community
web site.
Adopted by Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
(, L &/' 1 f ~ 7
,
MEMORANDUM
To:
.
From:
Re: Hospital/Medical Insurance Increase
Date: August 11, 1997
Discussion
Staff recently met with Blue Cross/Blue Shield regarding the yearly rate increases for our group
health insurance, scheduled to become effective September 1, 1997. The following summarizes
the renewal rates for family and single coverage under both of the City's BCIBS health plans:
SINGLE F AMIL Y
Traditional Plan (Fee for Service)
Current: $161.36 $424.38
Renewal: $176.00 $462.50
.
Preferred Gold (HMO)
Current: $145.43 $382.48
Renewal: $158.50 $417.00
The new premium amounts reflect an overall increase of about 9%, down from the 12% increase
incurred on the City's health insurance rates last year. This may seem unfavorable, however,
they are well in line with what is happening in the rest of the metro area, and well under increases
experienced by employee groups in other parts of the country. They are also reasonable in light
of the increased usage our group experiences from retired employees. Therefore, I would
recommend acceptance of the rate increase.
Recommendation
Council approval of Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance premium increase.
.
,
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 183
APPROVAL OF INCREASE IN HOSPITALIMEDICAL INSURANCE RATES
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1,1997.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota that the yearly rate increases
for the City's group health insurance are scheduled to become effective September 1, 1997 as
follows:
Traditional Plan
Single
$176.00
Family
$462.50
Preferred Gold (HMO)
$158.50
$417.00
Adopted by Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Modi Weldon, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 184
APPROVING FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT OF
KEITH NELSON AS CHIEF MECHANIC
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota, that the full-time employment of
Keith Nelson as Chief Mechanic, for one day on August 21, 1997 and from and after September 3,
1997 for a probationary period of six months, is hereby approved; and that as compensation for
services the said Keith Nelson shall receive wages and benefits as specified in the agreement
between the City of Stillwater and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49,
AFL-CIO.
Adopted by Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Modi Weldon, City Clerk
Note to Council:
This is to fill vacancy created by retirement of Monroe Wood "Woody".
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
MAINSTREAM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
212 112 NORTH MAIN STREET STILLWA1ER MINNESOTA 55082
Mayor and City Council Members
CITY OF STILLWATER
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
15 August 1997
Re: Maple Island Market / Grocery Store
Request for City Assistance
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of Mainstream Development Partnership, I am requesting a workshop with the City to determine
the extent of City assistance toward the Maple Island Market / Grocery store project.
We have completed the first phase of the project, bringing a hardware store back downtown and renovating
the northern portion of the building(s). This has been a large step toward the goal of returning community
service retail downtown. This phase of the project would not have been possible without the City Council
and City Planning Department assistance in securing grant money from the Metropolitan Council Liveable
Communities Act.
We are ready to begin the second phase of the project. The second phase includes a 20,000 sHull service
grocery store, 20,000 sf of second floor office space and related site improvements. Essential to the project
is improvements and completion of the City parking lot east of Maple Island. We are anxious to complete
this phase of the project and look forward to continuing our successful working relationship with the City.
Sincerely,
MAINSTREAM DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
~~
Tim Stefan ~ U .
Partner
'"
MEMO
.
August 14, 1997
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Klayton H. Eckles
City Engineer
k t'
SUBJECT: Update on Garden & Greens Improvements
Project No. 9611
DISCUSSION:
Council will recall that last year about this time, Council agreed to accept the
private streets in the Garden and Greens development area as public. Stipulations
required that the homeowners provide an escrow to cover the cost of bringing the utility
and street system up to City standards, A $7,000 escrow was provided. Over the course
of the summer City staff and private contractors have been working to complete the
necessary improvements. Most of the improvements have been completed except for
some minor street patching and the necessary seal coat.
. This issue is being brought to the Council's attention because the cost of making
all the necessary improvements will exceed the escrow of$7,000. This is because the
condition of the utilities in the area were worse than estimated. Several manholes were
never fully constructed and buried below the surface. It appears there is at least $3,000 of
additional beyond the escrow amount and that seal coating will not take place until 1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council consider this development and direct staff on the
proper course of action.
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM: City Coordinator
SUBJECT: Sale of Freon from Lily Lake Ice Arena
DATE: August 15, 1997
Discussion:
There is approximately 1000 Ibs. of freon from Lily Lake Ice Arena that needs to be disposed of.
The City has determined from a list obtained from the EPA's Stratospheric Protection Division that
there is only one Certified Refrigerant Reclaimer in Minnesota. Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc. has offered the City $7.00/lb. for the Freon.
Recommendation:
Council approve sale of freon to Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc.
d~
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor and counCo/f /
Marcy corn.:tLV
Update on City Hall Local Area Network
From:
Re:
Date: August 13, 1997
On July 16,1997, Council received information from staff and our network consultants,
Imagineering, Inc., which laid out an engineering plan for a City Hall wide Local Area Network,
designed to meet both present and longer-term needs of staff for improved access to City and
County information.
In response to Council direction received on July 16, staff has proceeded with the bidding
process for new workstations, communications equipment, and updated software. Bids are
scheduled to be opened on August 27, with a subsequent recommendation to be brought to
Council for your approval at the September 2, 1997 Council meeting. Assuming timely delivery
of equipment (usually 2 - 3 weeks), Imagineering, Inc. believes they could begin installation in
late September or early October of this year.
:e
.
.
,.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Sanders ,'<;
Civil Engineer :J-
DATE: August 15,1997
SUBJECT: Hazel Street Ravine Public Hearing
Job No. 9610
DISCUSSION:
The ravine along Hazel Street, located in the Brown's Creek Height Addition, of
Stillwater has experienced severe erosion problems to its banks over the last few years.
Storm water discharges into the ravine, from a 18" storm pipe that crosses under Hazel
Street, and flows into Brown's Cr~ek and eventually into the St. Croix River. Because of
the erosion in ravine, several trees have fallen over or are in danger of falling over, \yater
quality in Browns Creek and the St. Croix River is affected by the amount of sediment
that enters in to their waters, and recent storms has threatened the integrity of the street
where storm sewer outlets the ravine.
The City had planned for improvements to this ravine in 1999, but because of the close
proximity of the ravine to the edge of Hazel Street, emergency action to repair the ravine
was presented to City Council and approved at the July 15 Council Meeting. For the
design of the project the City used as a guide, a preliminary plan submitted by Short -
Elliot Hendrickson (SEH) This plan included filling in the ravine and installing storm
sewer with a series of manhole drop structures to convey the storm water from Hazel
Street to a point past the existing eroded banks. Since the majority of the ravine is on
private property, entry agreements were needed from homeowners adjacent to the ravine.
The City met with these homeowners on an individual basis to discuss the project and to
obtain the necessary agreements: After the work is completed the City will need to obtain
drainage and utility easements where the new storm sewer is located. The city received
quotes from contractors with Glenn Rehbein Companies submitting the best quote. Work
was able to commence with the hauling in of material on August 12. They estimate their
work to fill and install the storm sewer would take two to three weeks.
PROJECT COSTS:
In January of 1997, SEH submitted a Feasibility Report estimating the cost of project to
be $105,165 this estimate includes construction, engineering, administration and
contingencies. This work included all cost to complete the work including restoration.
Rehbein submitted a bid that only included labor and materials to fill in the ravine and to
install the storm pipe and is enclosed with this memo. Restoration and landscaping will
be included under a separate contract to the project.
A summary of the cost to complete the improvements is shown as follows:
Grading
Storm Sewer
Landscape and Restoration
$23,511
$24,365
$20.000
TOTAL
$67,876
35% Contingency. Engineering,
Administration
$23.764
TOT AL COST
$91,640
PROJECT FINANCING:
The project would be financed by assessing the property owners in the drainage area a
portion of the cost. Since the grading and pipe installation was bid out prior to the public
hearing this amount would not be assessable to the property owners. This would leave the
restoration and landscaping plus contingency, administration and engineering or $43,764
that could be assessable to the property owners in the drainage area. The city could assess
the fourteen property owners in the drainage area an amount of 4.5 cents per square foot
of drainage area. (This is the same amount used for the Fourth Street Ravine Project). The
drainage area of the ravine is approximately eleven acres, less the acreage of city property
would net an assessable area of 8.5 acres..Also, we could propose a high benefit
assessment for properties in immediate proximity to the ravine of $5.00 per exposed foot
(exposed foot is frontage directly abutting the ravine). Assessments using this criteria
would range from $675 to $2900 or a total assessment amount of$20,000.
Notices were sent to all affected property owners in the drainage area. As of the
preparation of this memo, staff has received no comments from the residents.
Staff will be prepared to present an update on the project, the work remaining, and the
proposed assessment options at the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council hold the required public hearing, and if the hearing results are
favorable, Council should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 97-_, ORDERING
IMPROVEMENT FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF HAZEL STREET RAVINE
(JOB NO. 9610).
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
Q}i lJyv~te~
'";;-" '" "'" " .",,, o~)
August 7, 1997
Subject:
Public Hearing on Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Project No. 9610
Dear Resident:
Attached you will find a Public Hearing Notice officially notifying you of the
public hearing scheduled for August 19, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is
to discuss drainage and restoration improvements to the ravine along Hazel Street in the
Brown's Creek Heights Addition.
The drainage area for the ravine is approximately 11 acres with 16 properties
within this area. The area is bordered by Stillwater Country Club to the south and west,
Fifth Street to the east and the Minnesota Zephyr Railroad to the north.
The Hazel Street ravine has experienced severe erosion damage caused by storm
water runoff, and the poor stability of the ravine soils. As a result of the erosion, several
trees have fallen into the ravine and now poses a threat of Hazel Street washing out. At
the July 15th Council meeting, action was taken by City Council to declare the problem of
erosion in the ravine an emergency and to direct engineering staff to take measures to
COITect the problem. By declaring this project as an emergency, this allows the project
to be constructed immediately before the regular Minnesota Statute 429 assessment
process. However, any work preceding the public hearing would not be assessable to the
affected homeowners.
To correct the erosion problem in the ravine, storm pipe would be installed in the
ravine past the location where the erosion has occurred. The area over the pipe would be .
filled in to match grades with the existing slopes. The filled in area would be seeded and
trees planted to establish vegetation. Below the outlet of the pipe a rip-rap channel with a
check dam would be installed to control sediment from discharging to downstream
waters.
It is estimated that all properties located within this drainage area will be assessed
on the work remaining following the public hearing. The total cost of these
improvements is approximately $100,000. It is proposed that an assessment rate of 4.5
cents per square foot be charged on areas within the drainage area. This amounts to
approximately $2,000 per acre of drainage area.
CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612.439.6121
Resident
August 7, 1997
Page Two
.
The hearing for the project is your opportunity to gain additional information re-
garding this project and to voice your comments to the Council prior to their making a
final decision on how to proceed in funding the remaining portion of the proj ect. You
may participate in the hearing by attending and voicing your comments or by sending a
letter prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 430-8835.
Sincerely,
~~
Shawn Sanders, P .E.
Civil Engineer
SS:dfw
Enclosure
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF HAZEL STREET RAVINE
(PROJECT NO. 9610)
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to finalize a repair solution for emergency
repairs to the Hazel Street Ravine at the July 15, 1997 meeting; and
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted July 15, 1997, fixed a date for a
Council hearing the proposed emergency repairs to the Hazel Street Ravine; and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was
given and the hearing was held thereon on the 19th day of August, 1997, at which all persons
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective and feasible as detailed in the
feasibility report.
2.
Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution
adopted on the 19th day of August, 1997.
3. Klayton Eckles, City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this
improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
improvement.
Adopted by the Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
Attest:
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
.
.
.
,
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Feasibility Study
City of Stillwater, Minnesota
City Project No. 9610
SEH No. A-STILL9609.00
January 29, 1997
Date: January}9~:97 _ Reg. No.: 24245
Reviewed by: ~ f!2 ~~
Date
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
200 SEH Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55110
(612) 490-2000
1:13J-07dW3 J-lINnll:10ddO 7"1n03
NI 'JJ.NnO:J 3>1"17
1M 'N0510"lW
1M '577"1::1 "IM3dd1H:J
NW'on07:J 15
NW S/70d"l3NNIW
':JNI N05>1:JII:fON3H
110/77311:f0H5
.
January 29, 1997
RE: Stillwater, Minnesota
Feasibility Study
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
City Project No. 9610
SEH No. A-STILL9609.00
:>r
City Council
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Council Members:
.
As authorized by the City Council, we are submitting herewith the Feasibility Study for the Hazel
Street Ravine Drainage. This study covers the storm sewer detention basin and control structure for
the ravine between Fourth Street and Second Street. The engineers estimate of costs for the
recommended improvements is $105, 165.
We would be pleased to review this study with the Council at your convenience.
We recommend that the City Council and staff review the Feasibility Study and determine a method
of financing before ordering plans and specifications. The Council should also consider beginning
easement acquisitions.
,....
Sincerely,
tr
David C. Hahn, P.E.
Project Manager
0'
cbp
. NOll ill:fOd5N"II:11 . W1N3WNOl:flllN3 fJNI1:f33NlfJN3 3I:fnl:J311H:JI:1"1
<;<;OC';Cf: 008 000Z-06V ZI9 011<;<; NW '7n"ld 15 '1:131N3:J H35 OOZ 31111:10 1:f31N3:J 5/"INO"l1l <;ESt:
~S:..
.
.
.
January 29, 1997
Feasi bil ity Study
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
As a result of our investigation, we have concluded that:
1. Erosion has occurred at the top of the slope near Hazel Street.
2. Vegetation has continued to contain the major area of the downslope.
3. Drainage and street improvements were constructed on Hazel Street
in 1982.
4. The proposed improvement is necessary to provide erosion control
from the Hazel Street storm sewer outlet.
5. The proposed improvements are feasible.
6. The project as noted in this report is cost-effective from an
engineering standpoint. The City and adjacent property owners will
need to determine the economical feasibility.
Recommendations
Based upon these conclusions, we recommend:
1. This project be co.mbined with another larger project for construction.
2. City staff be directed to begin easement acquisition. Easements need
to be determined as a part of plan preparation.
3. Assessment considerations need to address the small segmented
watershed.
4. The City Council, City staff, and financial consultant review this
report.
5. Improvements should be made as described in this report.
A-STILL9609.00
Page 1
.
.
.
Introduction
The storm water discharge from Hazel Street has developed erosion on
the slope north of Hazel Street to the railroad tracks.
Hazel Street was constructed in 1982. At that time, the existing 18-inch
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) crossed the dirt road and discharged over
the bank. There was just the bare end of the culvert on the south side of
the road to accept the drainage. As part of the Hazel Street construction
in 1982, two catch basins were constructed over the existing RCP so the
bank would not be disturbed.
The watershed contributing to this catch basin system is a total of
approximately 11.1 acres. The calculated discharge rate is approximately
18 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a velocity of9 feet per second (fps).
This project was ordered by the City after concerns were expressed by the
Soil and Water Conservation District, the Department of Natural
Resources, and Wolf Marine.
Proposed Improvements
This project will consist of the construction of an I8-inch RCP down the
slope some distance, a drop manhole to provide energy dissipation, and
a flatter discharge pipe to help reduce that energy. An open waterway
will also be constructed with a series of check dams to dissipate energy
further and to provide de-siltation processes.
The overall project location and drainage areas contributing to this project
are indicated on Drawing No.1. Drawing No. 2 is a drawing of the
drainage contributing to this area from the Stillwater Country Club.
Drawing No.3 is the proposed improvements.
Maintenance Impact
Review of the slope on at least a yearly basis may be required. If any
erosion or breaks in the earthen berms (check dams) are noticed, these
should be repaired by Public Works immediately to prevent further
deterioration and possibly revert to the present condition.
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
A-STILL9609.00
Page 2
Estimated Cost
. The costs for this project have been estimated in accordance with the
following schedule:
Unit Est
Item Unit Qty Price Amount
1 Mobilization L.S. 1 $3,700 $3,700
2 Clearing Acre 1 $1,200 $1 ,200
3 Grubbing Acre 1 $1,200 $1,200
4 Common Borrow c.Y. 2150 $5 $10,750
5 Berm Construction c.Y. 1350 $10 $13,500
6 18" RCP L.F. 275 $26 $7,150
7 Standard Manhole L.F. 45 $270 $12,150
8 Casting Assembly Each 4 $300 $1,200
9 Erosion Blanket S.Y. 2870 $2 $5,740
10 Riprap Ton 132 $50 $6,600
11 10" PVC L.F. 50 $25 $1,250
12 Sod S.Y. 980 $2 $1,960
13 Silt Fence L.F. 150 $3 $450
. 14 18" to 21" Increaser Each 4 $1,200 $4,800
15 21" to 24" Increaser Each 4 $1,400 $5,600
16 18" Flared End Section Each 1 $650 $650
Estimated Construction Cost $77,900
35% Contingencies, Engineering, Legal, and Administrative $27,265
Total Estimated Cost $105,165
Cost Recovery
This project may be prioritized and funded by the Storm Water Utility
Fund.
The City may proceed under Minnesota Statute 429 and assess a portion
or all of the cost in an amount equal to the benefit.
The City considered a drainage improvement in this area in 1990
(Fifth Street between Poplar Street and Hazel Street). The estimated
assessments at that time were between $1,760 per acre and $2,268 per
acre. These improvements have never been constructed.
.
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
A-STILL9609.00
Page 3
.
.
.
Differential assessments may be possible. That is, provide a higher
assessment to properties benefitting more and a lower assessment to
properties benefitting less. For instance. a property which is being eroded
from the drainage could receive a higher benefit than a property on the
other side of the road, simply draining into the catch basins.
A combination of City funds and assessments may be required to
construct this project. It would be beneficial to include this drainage
improvement with a larger project; i.e., street reconstruction in the North
Hill area. The City has resisted street improvements in this area until
sanitary sewer improvements are forthcoming, however.
Project Timetable
No timetable has been established for this project at this time because the
priorities for various drainage projects throughout the City are unknown.
However, if the City decides to proceed with this project, plans and
specifications can be completed in 30 days. Advertisement for bids
requires 21 days. This time requirement follows public hearings that
would be required prior to ordering plans and specifications.
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
A-STILL9609.00
Page 4
.
.
.
Drawing No.1
Drawing No.2
Drawing No.3
Appendix
Study Location and Drainage Area
Stillwater Country Club Drainage Area
Proposed Improvements
.
r----
I
I
I
"L- '1
---..-----
".
..~
I r-::
~~
I :
l --J__
N
t
<<lO 0
I , '
200
<<lO
I
j
/
-
-----
: r::=-
L1\G~~'(~ ~_~
~ -------..
----;-
_ ..;;-.-.
__4'"
---.- l
I
, I
U4.A
f I
6.83IA
,
r~
I
I
I
I
I
~5fH
.
E R
.
~-~
z
G 0 L F
ALE NO.
A-8'T'll..SM5OG.oo
DATE:
01/29/97
COURSE
STUDY LOCATION &
DRAINAGE AREA
STlLLWAlER, MINNESOTA
6
E"
DRAWING
NO.1
.
BROWNS CRt:.t:."-
"
E ..
r------
..
E ..
--. - ..
.
,
/
E II
- ._i
, a:
I ~
a:
x
I <5
a:
(.)
.-:
en .
E ~
E e
...
..
z
c
:;
r
:5
W.
I
E S
z,
. -I.iij[ DR
'--
ro-'
z
E....
c!
#
..
.
( s-
( $"
E $1...1.'
. .
E ,,'(.,.
WI ASl'EN ST
( ~
-
".
"-~-
1"= 600'---'" f. ~
t. .
JUNE 15. 1990
FILE 89114
CITY OF STLLWATER
ORG. NO. 1
I.
~SfH
R.E NO.
A-STl.I...IMlO9.00
DATE:
01/29/97
STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB
DRAl'JAGE AREA
SllLLWATER, MINNESOTA
ORA WING
NO. 2
.
.
@.
--.I
I FILL EXISTING RAVINE
L TO 3: 1 SLOPE
CONNECT TO EXISTING
18" RCP
PROPOSED BERM AND
SEDIMENTATION POND
AVAILABLE STOllAGE
------
PROPOSED BERM AND
SEDIMENTATION POND
AVAILABLE STORAGE
-.. -------..
~J
~
INV. El. 776.0 BERM No. 1
INV. El. 770.5 BERM No. 2
INV. El. 759.0 BERM No. 3
..
HAZEL ST. RAVINE
{ONNECT TO EXISTING
INPLACE 18" RCP
T/C=860.00
860 @
= = = _ = "'~ FILL EXISTING RAVINE
"'" TO 3: 1 SLOPE
840 850.00 -
',^ r'-'_,T/C-828.40
, . ",
~~\ -""@
"~" '-::').
"<, -r,'
V 0 35.00~ ' 'I
815.00 J
18..21". 21..24.
INCREASERS
806.00
I 798.00
18..21., 21".24. J
INCREASERS
788 00
18".21", 21".24"
INCREASERS
820
SEDIMENTATION BASIN No.1
HIGH WATER ELEVATION 780.0
SEE DEl AIL
800
(SEDIMENTATION BASIN No.2
HIGH WATER ELEVATION 774.5
SEE DETAIL
r SEDIMENTA TIDN BASIN No. 3
HIGH WATER ELEVATION 764.0
SEE DETAIL
787.45
[RIP-RAP Cl. II
l" L'. ,,- eo'.
Cl. V 0 1.00"
780
0 <Xl .... '" <Xl ~2 '"
'" <Xl '" 0 '" '"
'" '" ... .,; ,.; " ,.;
'" ~ co " '" ~.~ '"
" " " "
1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00
I hereby eel'lily thot this pion wos prepared by me or
under my dif"eet supervision ond thot I am <1 aut}'
Regist~ed Professional Engineer under the lows or the
stote of Minnesota
.~~~
- ~I;J"
:;A T~
REVlSIONS
7/24/96
Reg. No.
24245
ITEM
Dote:
~
25
#' -Z-
50 0 50
~
':'"
TOP OF BERM L
1 L ~O:xD-D()()()Oo ;.,~ HIGH
21 5'-0. I
WA TER ELEVATION
~
OVERFLOW DETAIL
N.T.S.
5'-0.
10" OUTLET PIPE (T'tf'.)
INV. El. 774.0 BERM No. 1
INV. El. 770.0 BERIIA No. 2
INV. El. 758.5 BERIIA No. 3
-
BERM DET AIL
N.T.S.
~
'" ;;; :::
00 ...: <0
~ ;::: ;:::
9+00 10+00 1+00
STILL WATER
MINNESOTA
HAZEL ST. RAVINE
12+00
3+00
14+00
filE NO
ASTILL9609.00
760
740
720
700
. 680
0+00
DE SIGN
D~AWlNG
CHECKED
::lESIGN 'E AV NO BY
DRAINAGE STUDY
DATE
7/24/96
860
840
820
800
780
760
740
720
700
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Sanders c's
Civil Engineer .J
DATE: August 15,1997
SUBJECT: Hazel Street Ravine Public Hearing
Job No. 9610
DISCUSSION:
The ravine along Hazel Street, located in the Brown's Creek Height Addition, of
Stillwater has experienced severe erosion problems to its banks over the last few years.
Storm water discharges into the ravine, from a 18" storm pipe that crosses under Hazel
Street, and flows into Brown's Creek and eventually into the St. Croix River. Becaus~ of
the erosion in ravine, several trees have fallen over or are in danger of falling over, water
quality in Browns Creek and the St. Croix River is affected by the amount of sediment
that enters in to their waters, and recent storms has threatened the integrity of the street
\\i'here storm sewer outlets the ravine.
The City had planned for improvements to this ravine in 1999, but because of the close
proximity of the ravine to the edge of Hazel Street, emergency action to repair the ravine
was presented to City Council and approved at the July 15 Council Meeting. For the
design of the project the City used as a guide, a preliminary plan submitted by Short
Elliot Hendrickson (SEH) This plan included filling in the ravine and installing storm
sewer with a series of manhole drop structures to convey the storm water from Hazel
Street to a point past the existing eroded banks. Since the majority of the ravine is on
private property, entry agreements were needed from homeowners adjacent to the ravine.
The City met with these homeowners on an individual basis to discuss the project and to
obtain the necessary agreements. After the work is completed the City will need to obtain
drainage and utility easements where the new storm sewer is located. The city received
quotes from contractors with Glenn Rehbein Companies submitting the best quote. Work
was able to commence with the hauling in of material on August 12. They estimate their
work to fill and install the storm sewer would take two to three weeks.
PROJECT COSTS:
In January of 1997, SEH submitted a Feasibility Report estimating the cost of project to
be $105,165 this estimate includes construction, engineering, administration and
contingencies. This work included all cost to complete the work including restoration.
Rehbein submitted a bid that only included labor and materials to fill in the ravine and to
install the storm pipe and is enclosed with this memo. Restoration and landscaping will
be included under a separate contract to the project.
A summary of the cost to complete the improvements is shown as follo\vs:
Grading
Storm Sewer
Landscape and Restoration
$23,511
$24,365
$20.000
TOTAL
$67,876
35% Contingency, Engineering,
Administration
$23.764
TOTAL COST
$91,640
PROJECT FINANCING:
The project would be financed by assessing the property owners in the drainage area a
portion of the cost. Since the grading and pipe installation was bid out prior to the public
hearing this amount would not be assessable to the property owners. This would leave the
restoration and landscaping plus contingency, administration and engineering or $43,764
that could be assessable to the property owners in the drainage area. The city could assess
the fourteen property owners in the drainage area an amount of 4.5 cents per square foot
of drainage area. (This is the same amount used for the Fourth Street Ravine Project). The
drainage area of the ravine is approximately eleven acres, less the acreage of city property
would net an assessable area of 8.5 acres. Also, we could propose a high benefit
assessment for properties in immediate proximity to the ravine of $5.00 per exposed foot
(exposed foot is frontage directly abutting the ravine). Assessments using this criteria
would range from $675 to $2900 or a total assessment amount of $20,000.
Notices were sent to all affected property owners in the drainage area. As of the
preparation of this memo, staff has received no comments from the residents.
Staff will be prepared to present an update on the project, the work remaining, and the
proposed assessment options at the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council hold the required public hearing, and if the hearing results are
favorable, Council should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 97-_, ORDERING
IMPROVEMENT FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF HAZEL STREET RAVINE
(JOB NO. 9610).
(
.
.
.
.
.
.
OtiJ ~ate~
";-:,;",,,,,, " .,""'~
August 7, 1997
Subject:
Public Hearing on Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Project No. 9610
Dear Resident:
Attached you will find a Public Hearing Notice officially notifying you of the
public hearing scheduled for August 19, 1997 at 7:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is
to discuss drainage and restoration improvements to the ravine along Hazel Street in the
Brown's Creek Heights Addition.
The drainage area for the ravine is approximately 11 acres with 16 properties
within this area. The area is bordered by Stillwater Country Club to the south and west,
Fifth Street to the east and the Minnesota Zephyr Railroad to the north.
The Hazel Street ravine has experienced severe erosion damage caused by storm
water runoff, and the poor stability ofthe ravine soils. As a result of the erosion, several
trees have fallen into the ravine and now poses a threat of Hazel Street washing out. At
the July 15th Council meeting, action was taken by City Council to declare the problem of
erosion in the ravine an emergency and to direct engineering staffto take measures to
correct the problem. By declaring this project as an emergency, this allows the project
to be constru~ted immediately before the regular Minnesota Statute 429 assessment
process. However, any work preceding the public hearing would not be assessable to the
affected homeowners.
To correct the erosion problem in the ravine, storm pipe would be installed in the
ravine'past the location where the erosion has occurred. The area over the pipe would be
filled in to match grades with the existing slopes. The filled in area would be seeded and
trees planted to establish vegetation. Below the outlet of the pipe a rip-rap channel with a
check dam would be installed to control sediment from discharging to downstream
waters.
It is estimated that all properties located within this drainage area will be assessed
on the work remaining following the public hearing. The total cost of these
improvements is approximately $100,000. It is proposed that an assessment rate of 4.5
cents per square foot be charged on areas within the drainage area. This amounts to
approximately $2,000 per acre of drainage area.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
Resident
August 7, 1997
Page Two
.
The hearing for the project is your opportunity to gain additional information re-
garding this project and to voice your comments to the Council prior to their making a
final decision on how to proceed in funding the remaining portion of the project. You
may participate in the hearing by attending and voicing your comments or by sending a
letter prior to the meeting. lfyou have any questions, please contact me at 430-8835.
Sincerely,
~~
Shawn Sanders, P .E.
Civil Engineer
SS:dfw
Enclosure
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT
FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF HAZEL STREET RAVINE
(PROJECT NO. 9610)
WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to finalize a repair solution for emergency
repairs to the Hazel Street Ravine at the July 15, 1997 meeting; and
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted July 15, 1997, fixed a date for a
Council hearing the proposed emergency repairs to the Hazel Street Ravine; and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was
given and the hearing was held thereon on the 19th day of August, 1997, at which all persons
desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective and feasible as d~tailed in the
feasibility report.
2.
Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution
adopted on the 19th day of August, 1997.
3. Klayton Eckles, City Engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this
improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
improvement.
Adopted by the Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
Attest:
Morli \Veldon, City Clerk
.
.
.
,
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Feasibility Study .
City of Stillwater, Minnesota
City Project No. 9610
SEH No. A-STILL9609.00
January 29, 1997
Date: Januar~9~:97 . Reg. No.: 24245
Reviewed by: ~ ~ C}pj~
Date
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
200 SEH Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55110
(612) 490-2000
1:13A07dW3,U/NnlI:10ddO 7\1n03
Nt 'Ai ,'mO:J 3>1\17
1M 'NOS/O\lW
1M 'S77\1:::1 \lM3dd/H:J
NW 'on07:J is
NW 'S170dlf3NNlW
:JNI NOS>f:J/tfON3H
ll0/77311:10HS
.
January 29,1997
RE: Stillwater, Minnesota
Feasibility Study
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
City Project No. 9610
SEH No. A-STILL9609.00
,r
Ci ty Council
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Council Members:
-.
As authorized by the City Council, we are submitting herewith the Feasibility Study for the Hazel
Street Ravine Drainage. This study covers the storm sewer detention basin and control structure for
the ravine between Fourth Street and Second Street. The engineers estimate of costs for the
recommended improvements is $105,165.
We would be pleased to review this study with the Council at your convenience.
We recommend that the City.council and staff review the Feasibility Study and determine a method
of financing before ordering plans and specifications. The Council should also consider beginning
easement acquisitions.
''"'
Sincerely,
tr
David C. Hahn, P.E.
Project Manager
0',
cbp
. NOli ~_:fOdSNlfI:11 . 7\11N3WN0l:1f/lN3 9Nfl:133N/9N3 31:1n1:J31/H:JI:1't1
';';OC.=:::: 008 000Z.061' ZI9 011';'; MV '7n\ld IS '1:131N3:J H3S OOZ '3/1/1:10 1:131N3:J SI'tINO'tl/l ';E;';E;
~S~
1-
.
.
.
January 29, 1997
Feasibility Study
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
As a result of our investigation, we have concluded that:
1. Erosion has occurred at the top of the slope near Hazel Street.
2. Vegetation has continued to contain the major area -of the downslope.
3. Drainage and street improvements were constructed on Hazel Street
in 1982.
4. The proposed improvement is necessary to provide erosion control
from the Hazel Street storm sewer outlet.
5. The proposed improvements are feasible.
6. The project as noted in this report is cost-effective from an
engineering standpoint. The City and adjacent property owners will
need to determine the economical feasibility.
Recommendations
Based upon these conclusions, we recommend:
1. This project be combined with another larger project for construction.
2. City staff be directed to begin easement acquisition. Easements need
to be determined as a part of plan preparation.
3. Assessment considerations need to address the small segmented
watershed.
4. The City Council, City staff, and financial consultant review this
report.
5. Improvements should be made as described in this report.
A-STILL9609.00
Page 1
.
.
.
Introduction
The storm water discharge from Hazel Street has developed erosion on
the slope north of Hazel Street to the railroad tracks.
Hazel Street was constructed in 1982. At that time, the existing I8-inch
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) crossed the dirt road and discharged over
the bank. There was just the bare end of the culvert on the south side of
the road to accept the drainage. As part of the Hazel Street construction
in 1982, two catch basins were constructed over the existing RCP so the
bank would not be disturbed.
The watershed contributing to this catch basin system is a total of
approximately 11.1 acres. The calculated discharge rate is approximately
18 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a velocity of9 feet per second (fps).
This project was ordered by the City after concerns were expressed by the
Soil and Water Conservation District, the Department of Natural
Resources, and Wolf Marine.
Proposed Improvements
This project will consist of the construction of an 18-inch RCP down the
slope some distance, a drop manhole to provide energy dissipation, and
a flatter discharge pipe to help reduce that energy. An open waterway
will also be constructed with a series of check dams to dissipate energy
further and to provide de-siltation processes.
The overall project location and drainage areas contributing to this project
are indicated on Drawing No.1. Drawing No.2 is a drawing of the
drainage contributing to this area from the Stillwater Country Club.
Drawing No.3 is the proposed improvements.
Maintenance Impact
Review of the slope on at least a yearly basis may be required. If any
erosion or breaks in the earthen berms (check dams) are noticed, these
should be repaired by Public Works immediately to prevent further
deterioration and possibly revert to the present condition.
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
A-STILL9609.00
Page 2
Estimated Cost
. The costs for this project have been estimated in accordance with the
following schedule:
Unit Est
Item Unit Qty Price Amount
1 Mobilization L.S. I $3,700 $3,700
2 Clearing Acre 1 $1,200 $1,200
3 Grubbing Acre 1 $1,200 $1,200
4 Common Borrow c.Y. 2150 $5 $10,750
5 Berm Construction c.Y. 1350 $10 $13,500
6 18" RCP L.F. 275 $26 $7,150
7 Standard Manhole L.F. 45 $270 $12,150
8 Casting Assembly Each 4 $300 $1,200
9 Erosion Blanket S.Y. 2870 $2 $5,740
10 Riprap Ton 132 $50 $6,600
11 10" PVC L.F. 50 $25 $1,250
12 Sod S.Y. 980 $2 $1,960
13 Silt Fence L.F. 150 $3 $450
. 14 18" to 21" Increaser Each 4 $1 ,200 $4,800
15 21" to 24" Increaser Each 4 $1,400 $5,600
16 18" Flared End Section Each 1 $650 $650
Estimated Construction Cost $77,900
35% Contingencies, Engineering, Legal, and Administrative $27,265
Total Estimated Cost $105,165
Cost Recovery
This project may be prioritized and funded by the Storm Water Utility
Fund.
The City may proceed under Minnesota Statute 429 and assess a portion
or all of the cost in an amount equal to the benefit.
The City considered a drainage improvement in this area in 1990
(Fifth Street between Poplar Street and Hazel Street). The estimated
assessments at that time were between $1,760 per acre and $2,268 per
acre. These improvements have never been constructed.
.
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
A-STfLL9609.00
Page 3
.
.
.
Differential assessments may be possible. That is, provide a higher
assessment to properties benefitting more and a lower assessment to
properties benefitting less. For instance, a property which is being eroded
from the drainage could receive a higher benefit than a property on the
other side of the road, simply draining into the catch basins.
A combination of City funds and assessments may be required to
construct this project. It would be beneficial to include this drainage
improvement with a larger project; i.e., street reconstruction in the North
Hill area. The City has resisted street improvements in this area until
sanitary sewer improvements are forthcoming, however.
Project Timetable
No timetable has been established for this project at this time because the
priorities for various drainage projects throughout the City are unknown.
However, if the City decides to proceed with this project, plans and
specifications can be completed in 30 days. Advertisement for bids
requires 21 days. This time requirement follows public hearings that
would be required prior to ordering plans and specifications.
Hazel Street Ravine Drainage
Stillwater, Minnesota
A-STILL9609.00
Page 4
.
.
.
Drawing No. 1
Drawing No.2
Drawing No.3
Appendix
Study Location and Drainage Area
Stillwater Country Club Drainage Area
Proposed Improvements
.
N
~
400 0
I , I
2lIO
;
/
--
------
, c=
L1\G~~"(~ ~_~
~ ------..
~
- -~
~ NO~rrJ:!ERN "~=----~WA)'
--
--.
.
l
I
I
2.24 . A
I I
6.83IA
f
r~
I
I
I
I
I
~SeH
------.-
---...
E R
.
~---
~
400
I
--
r--
r
I
I
"L- 'I
----..-----
..~
. I ~::
?-'~ ~
I :
.l__L
G 0 L F
ALE NO.
A-S'TI..l..geC>>.OO
DAlE:
01/29/97
COURSE
STUDY LOCA llON &
DRAINAGE AREA
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA
DRAWING
NO.1
.
BROWNS CRt.t."
"
.
[AI
r---' ...--
..
[ ..
r - _. . -..
[ ..
-- .
.
I
J
I 0:
I w
>
'0:
X
0
a:
(.)
.-:
en
[ p
E 8
..
..
Z
c
:;
r
~
W;
I
[ S
z
[ ....
~
Jt
~
..- ~.
- ;-
. i
1 .
. - - -- - t' I
· ~=~I -.- _. u._ - i--+- 1-- .- =::-:. --~~-='---~
. . ,.: .
__._.. _', _.__.~ __ . i
t / f--- - ,;j,.__:..---
.~ - ~. - F-- -: ' - -1 - ---. -;. I
t : 'i t r-
. .......--. ~"-_. '9- ..,. ,-- --..
____. _._ __ i ___ .,..... ~
'-:-'- - ~_.==t~ -.-. - - __a - -- -1.
t----..J' - - . .
.- --.- -- . t
'. .: t t.
WASPfHST' ~-, ====:-i~4;""'- ! . . t-
- I : .;- : --- - lit. . i
t f t i _--.t.
.. .. _1.--., ..i-:-
.----:---.::::.t ~ ."
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON POPLAR STREETr./ .
I _.
PREPARED "'BY S. E. H. ~ 1.
JlRE 15, 1990 ' .f . ~ .
FILE '89114 CITY ENGINEER ...-,:..:::::::!.~_ -.\.
.. 1L - ~
[ 5'
( p
E S'I...I.'
.
.
.- --
" '
- ."-~
t" = 600' -. ~ f. ~
( "'.....
E ASl'I
l '
CITY OF SrUWATER
DRG. NO. 1
.
~SfH
A.E NO.
A-STI..1..9609.00
DATE:
01/29/97
STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB
DRANAGE AREA
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA
ORA WING
NO. 2
.
.
~\
t\..
EXIS T1r;1..G e,,1
18" RC1"
I FILL EXISTING RAVINE
L TO 3 1 SLOPE
CONNECT TO EXISTING
18" RCP
~J
3.
J;:ONNECT TO EXISTING
INPLACE 18" RCP
860 TjC=860.00
@
--- ..,
".' ~FILL EXISTING RAVINE
850.00 ~ TO 3: 1 SLOPE
"".: "'-,1 (C-828.40
'-~, --"--@
"';-'" ,"',
~..":-\.'. .',.
100 l.F. 18- RCP. ,;:: if
Cl. V 0 35.00~ --\
815.00 J
18"x21", 21"x24"
INCREASERS
806.00
I 798.00
18"x21", 21"x24" J
INCREASERS
788.00
840
PROPOSED BERM AND
SEDIMEN T A nON POND
AVAILABLE STORAGE
BERM No,
--------
~
PROPOSED BERM AND
SEDIMENT A liON POND
AVAILABLE STORAGE
PROPOSED BERM AND
SEDIMEN T A TION POND
AVAILABLE STOf~AGE
INV. El. 776.0 BERM No. 1
INV. El. 770.5 BERM No. 2
INV. El. 759.0 BERM No. 3
.
HAZEL ST. RAVINE
820
800
780
18".21". 21".24"
INCREASERS
o
'"
'"
'"
1+00
NO
BY I
::;A i~
SEOIMENTAll0N BASIN No.1
HIGH WATER ELEVATION 7600
SEE DETAIL' .
(SEDI!.4ENTAll0N BASIN No 2
HIGH WATER El,EVAnON 774.5
SEE DETAIL .
II
r SEDIMENTA TION BASIN No. 3
HIGH WATER ELEVA nON 764.0
SEE DETAIL
56 l.F. 18" RCP
CL. V 0 18.00r.'
T (C- 798;00
@'
-~
~ ~)
/
TOP ~ERM
lL
21
5'-0.
-
BERM DET I\IL
N.T.S,
EXISTING CULVERT
<Xl
<Xl
"'
g'
...
'"
-i
~
<Xl
'"
..;
<Xl
....
5+00 6+00
I hereby eer.llly thot this pIon was prepared b
under my direct superVIsion and thot I om 0 ~u~e or
~e9Isl~ed .Proh~sslonOI E.nglneer unOer the lOwS of the
stote a! ~.hnnesotQ
"
,-
'"
~~
<Xl
<Xl
..;
~
'"
o
i!!
....
2+00
3+00
4+00
7+00
6+00
REVlSIONS
7/24/96
Reg. No. 24245
~~5eJ
ITEM
Dote
--------
....
'" 0; ~
cri
~ ...: .;
.... ....
9+00 10+00 1+00
STILL WATER
MINNESOTA
"l~
~
p
50
o
25
l-
iD
HIGH WATER ELEVATION
5'-0.
OVERFLOW DETAIL
N.T.S.
50
10" OUTLET PIPE (TYP.)
INV. El. 774.0 BERM No, 1
INY. El. 770.0 BERM No. 2
INY. El. 756.5 BERM No. 3
-
-
-
HAZEL ST, RAVINE
12+00
.HOO
14+00
rILE NO
ASTILL9609.00
760
740
720
700
. 680
0+00
DE SIGN
DRAWING
CHE eKED
DESIGN 'E AI<
DRAINAGE STUDY
DATE
7/24/96
860
840
820
800
780
760
740
720
700
MEMORANDUM
.
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director V
DA: August 15, 1997
RE: VARIANCE IN THE RA, SINGLE FAMILY BLUFFLAND/SHORELAND DISTRICT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
This item was originally scheduled for the council meeting of July 1, 1997, but continued to this date to address DNR
concerns for redesign of the project.
The proposal is for a two-story addition over the existing garage. The height of the proposed addition has been
lowered to 22'6" by reducing the roof pitch.
A review of the on-site septic system has revealed that it is substandard and does not meet current requirements. To
meet current requirements and to accommodate a future new garage, the septic drainfield would be located to the rear
of the property partially on the city owned property as shown on the parcel map. Special council permission would
have to be granted to allow the use of the city land for the drainfield. There are no 9ther locations on the site that
meet the separation requirements for shallow wells and septic systems. The city owned land will be held in open
space and because of the steep nature will not be developed. A condition for use of the city land could be that if and
when the city sewer service is extended to the area the on-site system would be removed and connected to the city
system.
.
A DNR representative has been part of the project redesign proposal
In addition to the proposed building changes, mitigations are proposed to reduce the appearance of the remodeled
structure as seen from the river as listed below:
Trees shall be planted in front of the lot as approved by the Community Development Director to reduce the visual
impact of the structure from the river (trees shall consist of White Pine 6' minimum and Green Ash 2" caliber).
The residence and garage shall be painted an earth tone to blend with the summer vegetation of the site as approved
by the Community Development Director.
Recommendation: Approval
1. The approval shall be certified by the DNR before building permits are issued.
2. The city council shall issue a license for the septic drainfield to be located on city land to the rear of the site.
3. Trees shall be planted (White Pine 6' minimum and Green Ash 2" minimum) in front of the structure to reduce
the visual impact of the structure from the river.
4. The house shall be painted an earth tome to blend with the summer natural vegetation color of the site as
approvedby the Community Development Director.
5. The property shall connect to city sewer service when it becomes available.
. Attachment: Planning Commission staff report 6-9-97 and minutes, DNR letter 6-30-97
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW ~ORM
CASE NO. V/97-28
Planning Commission Date: June 9, 1997
Project Location: 2318 Boom Road
.
Comprehensive Plan District: One Family Residential
Zoning District: RAlBluffland Shoreland Overlay
Applicant's Name: William C. Messner
Type of Application: Variance
Project Description: A variance to the front yard setback (30' required, 15'3" requested) for the construction of a two
story, 2,000 square foot addition.
Discussion: The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback to construct an addition to the above
residence (30' required, 15'3" requested). A 7 foot porch and a larger living room 18' x 30' which includes a stairway to
the upper floor will be constructed on the level above the existing tuck-under garage. The space above the living room
will be the master bedroom.
In analyzing the proposal, it seems possible to grant a variance request for less intrusion into the front yard setback. The
existing tuck-under garage is 15 feet from the front property line. The 7 foot porch is scheduled to have a roof over it,
making it part of the structure. If the roof isn't constructed over the porch, it would then be considered a deck and not
part of the structure. This would decrease the 15' 3" request to a 7' 9" foot variance to the front yard setback.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The septic system be reviewed and approved by a certified inspector.
2. All plans be reviewed and approved by the building official.
3. All materials and colors used be consistent throughout the entire building.
4. Subject to DNR approval.
5. The color of the structure shall be earth tone.
.
Recommendation: Approval of a IS' 3" foot variance to the front yard setback.
Findings:
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. In this context, personnel
financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other
properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially
impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments: Application Form, Photos, Site Sketch and Elevations.
CPC Action on 6-9-97: +7-0 approval.
.
.
Dick Kilty noted that when he remodeled his building at 200 S. Third St.
for mixed commercial/residential use, he complied with the parking
requirements to provide an enclosed garage space for each tenant as well
as the required number of spaces for the commercial use. He suggested
that Mr. Whitcomb also could comply with the requirements without any
hardship.
John Bourdaghs, Shorty's Cleaners, 121 E. Chestnut St., also expressed his
concern about the parking variance. He noted that he provides 20+ spaces
for his employees and customers.
Roger Tomten, 718. S. Fifth St., chair of the Heritage Preservation
Commission, spoke in favor of the project. He said the project would be an
attractive asset to the downtown. He also stated it is important to retain
the validity of the downtown area by providing a customer base for
grocery, hardware stores, etc.
Mr. Brooks, partner in the proposed project, spoke of his experience in
downtown St. Paul. He said "eventually" the city of Stillwater will find an
answer to its parking problem. Mr. Wohlers responded that "eventually"
could be a long way off and doesn't help the existing situation.
.
Mr. Zoller said he liked the idea of residential use in the downtown area
but has a real concern with parking requirements, especially the
requirement to provide covered parking spaces for residents.
Mr. Valsvik spoke of the experience Trinity Lutheran Church has had with
its private lot which is used so heavily that often times there's not
enough spaces for the church's use.
Mr. Rheinberger moved to deny the requested variance/special use permit.
Mr. Roetman seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Roetman
suggested offering the developers an opportunity to come back to the
Planning Commission with a "creative alternative" to provide residential
parking. Mr. Zoller said he was persuaded by Mr. Kilty's argument that
enclosed parking for residents could be provided with an altered building
design.
Motion to deny passed 6-1, with Mrs. Bealka voting against the motion.
.
Case No. V /97-28 A variance to the front yard setback (15'3" feet
requested, 30 feet required) for construction of a two story, 2,000
square-fo.ot addition to an eXisting single family residence at 2318 Boom
Road in the RA, One Family Residential District and Bluffland/Shoreland .
District. William C. Messner, applicant.
Mr. Messner was present for the discussion. He said the existing garage is
15'3" from the property line. There was some question as to whether the
roof over the requested upper porch would be enclosed. Mr. Messner
explained the request is for a roof/eaves only to keep the weather out. Mr.
Russell said if both ends of the upper porch are open, he would not object
to the proposal.
Mr. Russell noted the request has been sent to the DNR for review; the DNR
comments had not been received at the time of the meeting. The request
also has to go before the City Council.
Mr. Zoller, seconded by Mr. Roetman, moved approval as conditioned. Motion
passed 6-1, with Mr. Wiedner voting no.
Case No. V /97-29 A variance to the front and side yard setbacks for a 6
foot extension of a porch and the construction of a two-car garage with a
shop above at 602 N. Fifth St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District.
Amy Senn, applicant.
.
The applicant and her husband, Jason Ruddie, were present for the
discussion. Ms. Senn presented a list of 33 signatures of neighbors
indicating there were in agreement with the proposed project. She said
the space above. the garage primarily would be used to store tools as the
couple is in the pr.ocess of restoring their home; the space would not be
used for any business purpose.
Mrs. Bealka, seconded by Mr. Rheinberger, moved approval as conditioned.
Mr. Zoller said he thought the proposed improvements would add to the
entire neighborhood, and Mr. Fontaine noted the setback encroachment
already exists. Motion passed unanimously.
Case No. V /DR/97-30 A variance and design review for four signs, one
allowed, for a restaurant located at 14200 60th St. N. in the BP-C,
Business Park Commercial District. Prowood Signs Inc., applicant.
Tom Steinke, representing Prowood Signs, was present for the discussion.
He explained the requested sign package and provided colored drawings of
the requested signs.
.
tl<:it.: .':;:. 1 :2:U" j
t.l'i~II~/JJ';1 =~
SE~- oy: DNR META:,
.
.
.
So
t\.'Iinnesota Dcpartrnenl of Natural Resources
Metro Wat~r9, 1200 W.\rncr Road, St. Paul, MN 55106.6i93
Tdephunc' (612) 772.7910 Fax: (612) 772.1977
June 30, 1 997
Mr Steve RU5sell
City Hall
216 North Four'.n
St\llwater, MN' 55082
Re: Messner Variance Req~esl
Dear Y...r. Russell:
C\fy original resporse to the prop'Jsed varian:e was tr.at no DNR approval is needed for side yard
variances, this is a local ordir.ance standard. However, at your request the site was visited en
June 27, 1997.to determine if there were any othe:- i~sues that ",,,'ould involve the Bluffland
ordir.ance. There are other issues and concern:> due to the location of the existing house with
respect to the bh.:ftline. Th~ house is only 5 feet or so from the bbffiine, there are multiple
bluITlines at thi~ site. The st;'.lcture is very conspic1.:ous, with no opportuni!y to reduce the
visibility by planting, shoulci a ycriancc be granted It is not likely that the DNR could certify a
two story addition on top of the existing L.lck under garage, which is built ir,to the slope on the
front of the hO'Jse, It is not likely that we would certify rai;ing the ro(',: of this structure
Additional living space could bi;: gained from a lateral or rear ad~jtion. A !a:erat addition would
also require a variance urde;:; it is moved back to 40 feet from the blumine.
. The city's action _should b~ fully documented with findings offact cenling with their r~..iew of
hardship and considt:ration of altematives.
lfyou have any questions, please contact me at 772-7910.
Sincerely.
h '-.:\ ~\ S \\ 0 ~.(: ,,'--.
Molly Shodeen
Area Hydrologist
c: William Mes:mer
Obi Sium
Jim Harrison, BAC
\.l.~l~. 1.',1'.>1":1\;,1",,:. id2 ~,,(, (, y:. 1.~(~).7:'.{,-(,r,i'loI . TTY: 1>1.1..".)" 'I,,:. I ~.f"'I''\;..\'12'1
\u t.~!.1 \ r "iT ":1.1..1: r"'r,.~l."
ft. 1';.,.,.,.,1.,.110.:"'. I..,!~' f.... I ,_, II,:"
t..J \I:~"III":'\ ,.t" H~I',i 1'....:, " , II' ..11'\ I \. I
\\:~, V.:l,,>, ni.q'.,;,
Case No: Vi q 1 ~ J,.~
Date Filed: g.lq -t1]
Fee Paid: 7n -
Receipt No. :
PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ~ S&} ~9
,
.
ACTION REQUESTED:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _ Certificate of Compliance
CITY OF STILLWATER _ Conditional or Special Use Permit
216 NORTH FOURTH STREET _ Design Review
STILL \VA TER, MN 55082 _ Planned Unit Development
+ Variance
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ Zoning Amendment
Subdivision
Resubdivision
Total Fee
FEEll)
$70
$70/170
-0-
$270
$70
$300
$300
$1 00~S50 lot
$50
The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material
submitted in connection with any application.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Address of Project Q.3' ~ ~)(l()i i 1 (2..J
eng District Description of Project
Assessor's Parcel No. 90':21 - C.:$::>C; djOO
K,E i71i'dl.' ~.oJC"l
,
"J hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all
respects. to the best o/my knowledge and belief, true and correct. Jfurther certify J will comply with the permiT
if it is granted and used. "
Property Ov..rner \.u.LLir11/\ C. tJl("":)5tJcl!... Representative
Address ~ ~j ~ [)CJ(\Il\ tW $\,L\..tvAiEIL Mailing Address
65G,f~;;-
Mailing
Telephone No.
'-f.31-27,fff
Telephone No.
1/1 d . V1/J/J
Signature '-'V L'4,/..I<. 'I I f U!L14-t..uYL-
~ (/
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Signature
Lot Size (dimensions) S V x 15 [)
Land Area
Height of Buildings: Stories Feet
Principal
Total building floor Area
Existing
Proposed
Paved Impervious Area
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
eDDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAYBE REQUIRED AS PART OF APPLICATION REVIEW
Revised 9/19 95
.
/
I~
/
;' ~2~2 /
I~ "i'S 0500
j~ / 706
. .c.
, ./
. I ~
C<{
I J:l
L-- \
E;"oC'I'"
"
/ / /.0/ ~
/ '- ' / I ", ~
(;/ /''-" /~. '. ", ,
fj' ,") .'"
l / ri/ /'~ . "-,
,Ii 0 / / 01~ .
/ ~0!:i >,:" oSt-i
/ 0 ""~" j
OO.f7
, 12rJt..
....
~.
'?
, \~.,
\
\
\
\
o
6...
~~ ~
s
.".
~.
'?
,}:
">J'l '. \
/
1.0 '
,') / / ;
/ I I ,
~ / I ?)2 0 I
/ / I 2/.JrI5J ~ 0
/ / 1''- ~ ''I
'~ '
JS..... i
j
!
-
o
..;-
'S2 "
... 66 5E'G~ L/
~
..s '~G I
-~-
:.iI..>,,:.;~~.
.
J ,
, )
~..LJ-:___
..---
May 2, 1997
.
Boom Road Residents:
I need to ask the City of Stillwater for a variance to remodel my home.
The City of Stillwater requires your living space to be 30 feet from the
front of your property line.
In order to obtain a building permit I need a variance of 8 feet which
requires your approval.
The City of Stillwater requires me to get the signatures of my closest
neighbors confirming their approval.
W. C. Messner
2318 Boom Road
Stillwater, M N 55082
.
Name:
fi&~
c:93tJc2 &6?V1 ft/
5It dV?l'~/
;t;Y'./
Address:
Name:
// /-:/ /~;?
~~ ~~4~~-
...:--/. --
--,
Address: .;:2- -=::, --z & 8c:?ocJ.-.... a{~
Name:
.~ ....._ 1-;' '/"1- ';'.-l
~)_..J..
.- .' /LYJ ....7,
Address: .)? I ,-' '~~'.-.~.. ,.~~l
47~-/l e"?
.
.
.
.
.. .
j \
7
....
"'
.i
!
", \ l
, . \.y~
)I
I '
" ':A--.
6 A ~fr r,.[
>-
, '
'j
:i ~'C.::/'
\--\O\..l3~
w.e. Messner
2318 Boom Rd
Lot & Proposed
Garage and
House
. !
f
This is new height of addition from ground level.
Acceptable to the DNR.
Also need to see if we can plant some trees on DOT
property across Boom Road. Pines, hardwoods, maybe
some Ivy on House to help blend into background.
~
--,-- . . ~
""-.
. --"'---
II
I J
,: I
~ ..- ...
-
I
'I I - ~ -
~ - I -
- - 1-
,
,
i
~
.
.
') "') I I'
~(P
....
.
~ ~14S:+
, :" f I -./f/\/:/1.'}17.' { i ! (I ~r r- r (r I .~<>I ~f V I t,LO.
. ./l /In ' ,r;;t" f 'f I)! I I :
,!. . V 'J/1 1"r1'~/// ). I .' i"~ r i ! i \ : I .
..------...---.--.~ - -':. ./....;--;. /".----[1]----- '-~--- - rl--~~rrl=\7--i]T 1 : -~-: ~.-t\ .. 'IJ'i 'If
. /' " I. I : I I: ---" :\ ~- . I;
- '" I . : I... -"1 . . I - -. , I: I
i .. I j . ...1 _ ''::'T:_: =-:'=1 _:~L_c _ _:_::~ _ .--h
t~I~J~l fbWL ~ ..... - ___,m -- _hh_h - - - . u --, ----1
;
;
.
.
i
!
I ~ T~f oC;- FO~rJ~A-4~~N*,_ ___________.._____._..
""--r-'.-Bf;~~
I ((.. 'l.1 54- \ r\) '\
: f>~A\<" of' R-oof IS
I I 'I
I ~\ Ip ,
, {.
I
: )) J-~'i. )}\{:v0-\-
.._.1-- _ _ _. __
I
I
~ r'ro 111
d'. I
.,
,
;?~ I {p 1/
1
j
r
,
II- n_
.-.-........-...............---'......-...""'-.
. ... ~ 1 I
, \F-\l
\( I).. tJ
"\ ~ f:;.
.a"f\&?
bf>o
- -- .- .- .-- ---
et-6,.h~s
0D
(
I
I
I
r - ----- .-
I
,
BASs.. Ir1 ~~Jt
I
_~____I
---..
-
The 22 Feet 6" is approximately 1 Foot higher than my existing roof from ground
level OR top of Foundation black on North side of house.
i300V'<\. R.oq; ~
<...~vb r~
'* C~e(J k'{ t S~z.e .
.l- i Yv~ 'rIY - r~( 4.G( i P
'0ece5S 0..7
~~ IJ~ E'/evcJ.-J0"T'-5_ r c;~r~ :
D - h-i-{Co.d.-S' f'- I::; +/(,.(5' br~v(
I I
.B -a.. -= 'l-IG,. d.-::7 P -.):~ ,c:/,,""~s- I
2, _yo 4/'7. 7';' ~o~F N,"'-~ I
----
SA ~.{. {3.")5"~ 0~~i~ '- c..J.. 5'1'~ ::< b J. rt1"\ . s~J/ocv
/ivr.. ~ "vd:- l~ ; f\1I e.r + ::: O. 0 I lk'-0e
~~
~'?
~,
fY"'3f .
C','I'-
BM ~. €J )t
(f'~r O'<ll\t0 J .
f~flh
fl~~ Ice I
00
Tr~\ IL>Y {.ku.~ ~
I-
I
N----
~
'i / / L-- _ _ _ _ ! !:~s.VIr\~ r~4~ ~ Ct"~
I Y
('" f-.-~~~_._.. .r,,-8M c- -.
P:~~:~
.
5 c.~ le
r tlj f
- 7t> do
C~{v f rdfev-Y
.
;
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FR:
Steve Russell, Community Development Director /L
DA:
August 14, 1997
RE:
ADOPTION OF FINAL AUAR
The city council approved AUAR is ready for adoption. The final mitigation plan that describes
the city's obligations is attached.
Since the city council approved the AUAR, it has been submitted to the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board. The EQB has reviewed the document and made it available for
additional review, comment and objection. No objections have been filed. The only comment
received-was from the Met Council (attached). They indicate they would like to review the
location of any new wells in the study area to make sure they do not adversely effect ground
water flow to Brown's Creek.
. The final AUAR including the mitigation plan is now ready for adoption.
.
Recommendation: Resolution adopting final AUAR including mitigation plan.
Attachment. Final mitigation plan.
W Metropolitan Council
~ Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
August 8, 1997
Environmental Services
.
Mr. Klayton Eckles, P.E.
Stillwater City Engineer
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
RE: Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
Stillwater Annexation Area
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 16518-2
Dear Mr. Eckles:
The Metropolitan Council (Council) staff has completed its review of the final AUAR for the
1837-acre Stillwater Annexation from Stillwater Township to determine its adequacy and how
well it addresses regional plans and policies. The following comments are offered concerning the
final AUAR document.
Item 13 - Water Use
Council staff recommended the city revise the final document to indicate new welle s) will be
sited outside of the area designated as unsuitable. The final document states that the city is
reviewing alternate well locations outside the groundwater protection area shown in Figure 13-2,
but it does not say specifically that new welles) will be sited outside the area determined in this
review document as unsuitable.
.
Siting a new municipal well within the designated protection area would be inconsistent with
Regional Blueprint Policy 4 and Action Step 4A. Policy 4 states that the Council will consider
the limitations of the natural environment to support development in its regional. . plans, and. .
how well environmental capabilities are reflected in local land use plans and development
projects that it reviews. Action Step 4A states the Council will work to protect natural
watercourses, such as lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, natural drainage courses and the critical
adjoining land areas that affect them, to maintain and improve water quality and quantity, and to
preserve their ecological functions. Given this Blueprint policy and action step, the Council will
negatively review any application for a new municipal well if proposed to be located within the
area designated on Figure 13-2 as unsuitable for new municipal well construction.
Mitigation Plan
Protection Strategy 1, associated with (4.0) Long Lake, McKusick Lake, South Twin Lake, and
St. Croix River, Goal 7, states that implementing the proposed diversion strategy from Long Lake
to McKusick Lake described in 2.0, Goal 1, No.1, would allow sediment from Long Lake and
the Annexation Area to settle in the wetlands north of McKusick Lake. Council staff is
concerned that this strategy implies the purpose of the diversion is to remove sediment from Long
Lake and Annexation Area runoff. However, as stated on page 42 of the draft AUAR, "runoff
diverted into McKusick Lake will have gone through water quantity/quality ponds to remove
sediment and some nutrients", so the quality of diverted flow should actually be better than
runoff into the lake from its current watershed. Council staff recommends the strategy be
.
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul. Minnesota 5510 1-1633
(612) 222-8423
Fax 229-2183
TDO/TIT 229-3760
An Equal Opportunity Entployer
.
~
.
.
Mr. Klayton Eckles, P.E.
August 8, 1997
Page 2
reworded to emphasize hydraulic retention of highest return-frequency storms and reduction of
average water temperature in Browns Creek as the primary reasons for the diversion.
No formal action will be taken on the final AUAR by the Council. If you have any questions or
need further information with respect to these matters, please contact James Larsen, P.E., in the
Council's Department of Environmental Planning and Evaluation at 602-1159.
Sincerely,
~/~
Helen Boyer
Director, Environmental Services Division
HB:jl
cc:
Charles Amason, Metropolitan Council District 12
Keith Buttleman, Director, Environmental Planning and Evaluation Department
Guy Peterson, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative
~ f1 j Bonestroo
~ Rosene
U Anderlil< &
1\J 1 Associates
Engineers & Architects
BO;~'-'5;'-OO, Rosene. An(/erllk dnd A HOCl.J(t.'.li. Inc IJ.Jn Affiff~'<l::. ~ A~': ,~'l-Equ,J1 Opportunity Employer
P~I"(ip."5 Ono G. Bonestroo. PE . Jo~cph C. Anderhk. PE . \',,~'\'i" _ 5orvdld. rE. .
R:C'1,lrd E Turner. PE . Glenn R. Cook. PE . Robert G. Schun:,:r': ?:. . Jt..'rry A. Bourdon, P.C .
R0b~rt W Rosen{:, rE. clnd Susdn M. Eberlin. c.P.A.. Sentor Ccrs~.lt~r:s
AS5,.)(:.-1tt' PrrnClpdls: Howard A. $cmford, r.E. . Keith A. G0rC~'''.?E . ~obert R. Pfefferle. PE. .
R:CI'-:,""L1 W. Foster. PE. . DclVld O. LoskotCt. PE. . Robert C. R~ss(o" ,.; .; . M,_H~ A H":tnson. r.E. .
i\'11Ch"lel T. R,lutmann, rE. . Ted K.Field. PE. . Kenneth P Ar:dc"S=:" Pc. .\~drk R. Roffs, rEo .
Sld""y P Williamson, f'E.. R S . Robert F Kotsm'th
Of,"lces.- 51. P~ul. Rochester, W,lImc:l( and St. Cloud. MN . Mil'.'.~I,.i",e-e "'~'!
.
July 21, 1997
TO:
Stillwater AUAR Reviewers
FR O~1:
Tony DeMars, Natural Resource Specialist
Re:
Final Draft, Stillwater Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Attached for your review is the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan.
This Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan serves as an addendum to the draft AUAR which was
distributed to you for review on May 12, 1997. The entire draft AUAR is incorporated into this
Final AUAR by reference and all information in the Draft AUAR is assumed to be complete and
accurate unless specifically modified in this document. .
Within the Final AUAR, we have included your comments and our responses. Where necessary, we
hu\'e incorporated recommendeLi changes to the Mitigation Plan. The Final AUAR also includes a
summary of AUAR respondents, comll)ent letters, additions to AUAR Text and updated Tables and
Figures.
The City of Stillwater will adopt this Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan on August 19, 1997. We
appreciate your valuable input throughout the Stillwater AUAR process. If you have any questions.
please contact Shcrri Buss or me at 636-4600.
.
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113 · 612-636-4600 · Fax: 612-636-1311
.
;..
CITY OF STILLWATER
ANNEXA TION AREA
L~Ll~ERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE
REVIEW
(FINAL AUAR)
.
Response To Comments
July 21, 1997
l
I
t ...-
I.
I
. ~ ~ Bonestroo
~ Rosene
. IIIiI --~-_.
~ Anderlik &
, \J' Associates
Engineers & Architects
APPEr-,rnIX A
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
1.0 Introduction
This comprehensive environmental protection plan has been prepared as a part of the Alternative
Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process for the City of Stillwater Annexation Area. This plan
is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require preparation of a "mitigation plan" that
specifies measures or procedures that will be used to protect the environment from potential
impacts of development of the Annexation Area. The plan also provides management
recommendations for maintenance and restoration of important natural areas. Finally, the plan
specifies legal and financial measures and institutional arrangements that will assure that the
mitigation measures recommended in the plan are implemented. The mitigation plan will be
used by the City of Stillwater to guide development of the Annexation Area through the
avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of environmental impacts.
The plan is not intended to modify the regulatory agencies' responsibilities for
implementing their respective regulatory programs, or to create additional regulatory
requirements. This mitigation plan is not intended to deprive or divest any person of any
use of property or right to which they are entitled by law. Finally, the AUAR and this
mitigation plan may be silent as to environmental concerns or impacts that may arise later
within the context of specific development proposals, and could not be anticipated during
the AUAR process. This should not be construed as a bar to requests for and commitmenJ:.:
by the City and project prop9sers to compile new and/or additional environmental impact
information and analysis.
.
The AUAR indicated that several important regional natural resources are potentially affected by
proposed development in the Annexation Area: Brown's Creek, the Brown's Creek Ravine,
Jackson Wildlife Management Area, and the St. Croix River. Other resources of local
significance such as Long Lake and McKusick Lake may also be affected by proposed
development. The mitigation plan specifically addresses measures for the long-term protection
and management of these natural resources in Sections 2.0, 4.0 and 5.0. Protection measures that
will avoid or minimize environmental impacts to wetlands, woodlands, and other natural
resources in the Annexation Area are provided in Sections 3.0 and 6.0. The protection of
historical and archaeological resources is addressed in Section 7.0. Protection measures for
other potential development-related impacts, including traffic, air quality and noise issues are
discussed in Section 8.0. The plan provides overall goals for each resource, then strategies that
describe specific measures to be implemented to achieve each goal. The final section of the plan
lists the plans, ordinances, and regulatory tools that the City of Stillwater has in place to
.
.
.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
2
implement the Mitigation Plan.
The City of Stillwater recognizes that the emphasis of the AUAR is to closely examine the
environmental impacts of proposed development in the Annexation Area as described in the
Stillwater Comprehensive Plan. In addition to environmental impacts, the City must consider
other issues as the area develops, including land use, design issues, finances, economics, and
transportation concerns. The City must balance all of these concerns along with environmental
impacts through specific plan development and design review process.
The Mitigation Plan is proposed based on existing conditions and existing information at the
time of its writing. If new information, conditions or mitigation methods develop after the
approval of this plan, the City may convene representative members from the natural resources
agencies and organizations on the Technical Committee to consider the new information and
develop new recommendations to meet the goals identified in the Mitigation Plan.
Finally, this AUAR specifically identifies and analyzes the environmental impacts of
development within the Annexation Area. However, actions outside the 1800-acre area are
beyond the control of the Ci.ty of Stillwater, and may affect the natural resources that the
Mitigation Plan protects or mitigates. The City of Stillwater is committed to try to coordinate
protection of the natural resources with other agencies and organizations as listed in the
Mitigation plan, and others that may impact the natural resources of the Area, particularly
Brown's Creek.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
3
The Goals and Strategies included in this plan were developed with the assistance of a Technical
Advisory Committee for the AUAR process. The assistance of these individuals and their
organizations is gratefully acknowledged.
.
Participants in the Technical Committee meetings included the following:
Jim Almendinger, St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Science Museum of Minnesota
Wayne Barstad, Minnesota DNR Ecological Services
Kathy Don Carlos, Minnesota DNR Division of Wildlife
Mark Doneux, Washington SWCD (representing the Browns Creek WMO)
Annette Drewes, Minnesota DNR Trout Stream Coordinator
Hannah Dunevitz, Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program
Klayton Eckles, City of Stillwater, City Engineer
Jerry Fontaine, Stillwater Planning Commission
Gary Huber, Trout Unlimited
Dwight Jelle, Westwood Development
Jim Larson, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Meg McMonigal, Stillwater Township
Lee Miller, Friends of the Long Lake Homeowners
James Perry, University of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources
Jim Peterson, Trail Head Development
Charles Prokop, Minnesota Trout Association
Marc Putman, Charles Cudd Companies
Steve Russell, City of Stillwater Community Development Director
Richard Schubert, Friends of Bro~vns Creek Ravine
Molly Shodeen, Minnesota DNR Division of Waters
Gene Soderbeck, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Sheila-Marie Untiedt, Stillwater Township
Mary Vogel, University of Minnesota College of Architecture
and Landscape Architecture
Dave Zappetillo, Minnesota DNR Division of Fisheries
Tony DeMars; Bonestroo, & Associates
Bob Schunicht, Bonestroo & Associates
Sherri Buss, Bonestroo & Associates, Facilitator
.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
4
. 2.0 Brown's Creek and il~ Tributaries
Brown's Creek and its tributaries within the Annexation Area are classified as Trout Waters (M:N
Rules 7050.0420). Upper portions of Brown's Creek above the Stone Bridge are considered
marginal trout habitat. Brown's Creek has been ranked as one of the six highest priority trout
streams in the Metro Region. Brown trout are stocked in the stream at catchable size for
recreation purposes. Natural reproduction of trout in the stream is limited. Fishing pressure on
the creek is heavy, due to its accessibility to Metro Area anglers, including mobility-restricted
anglers. The presence of Brown trout in the stream is an indicator of high water and habitat
quality, these conditions also help to support a valuable assemblage of rare species and
communities that survive in the Brown's Creek Ravine.
The City of Stillwater has proposed a set of goals and strategies in this section to maintain the
water quality and hydrologic regime of Brown's Creek, to maintain the health of trout habitat al1rj
natural communities in the Ravine as development occurs in the Annexation Area.
Goal 1 :
Protect and Maintain the Current Quality of Surface \Vater Inflows to
Brown's Creek.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
.1.
Implement the plan to divert discharge from Long Lake and stormwater runoff from the
Annexation Area and Grant Township (south of the Minnesota Zephyr railway tracks) to tb,,:
wetland north of McKusick Lake. Reconfigure the outlet at the north end of Long Lake to
maintain the lake at a normal elevation of 889-890, and direct flows north through the
existing drainageway to the McKusick wetland. Reconfigurc this drainage ditch to a stream
channel form, which will be more stable than the ditch. Remove the current dike at the
north end of McKusick Lake, and build a new dike at the north end of the wetland, to creai:~
a basin to hold the entire runoff from the Long Lake and the Annexation Area up to a 2.5-3.0
inch rainfall event (occurs approximately every 3 years in this area). (Monitoring protocol
described in #9 below.)
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Minnesota DNR, locallandow"ners
Regulatory program: DNR Outlet Permit No. 76-6047, Wetland Conservation Act
Implementation time frame: City will complete a feasibility study of this diversion
strategy by September, 1997. The study will include a cost estimate and recommendations
for equitable distribution of costs for implementing the diversion strategy. The city will
implement the diversion based on results of the study.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
5
2. Implement the Stormwater Management Study for the. Annexation Area developed as a part
of the AUAR, that emphasizes the protection of water quality in Brown's Creek, and sets
forth criteria for the design and performance of storm water detention basins to reduce peak
flows into McKusick Lake and Brown's Creek. Identify and implement opportunities for
regional stormwater detention basins within the Annexation Area and in surrounding
communities that drain through the Annexation Area to Brown's Creek.
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Stillwater Township
Cooperating organizations: Browns Creek WMO, cities adjacent to the Annexation Area
Regulatory program: Minn. Statutes 103B.235 and Minn. Rules 8410
Implementation time frame: Design and construct detention facilities as development is
proposed.
3. The City of Stillwater will work with Developers to implement strategies to infiltrate and
detain stormwater to reduce runoff to surface waters and increase infiltration. The
combination of strategies chosen should maintain the peak discharge rates for 2, 10, and
100-year rainfall occurrence conditions from any development area at less than or equal to
pre:development conditions. The City of Stillwater Subdivision Ordinance allows for
modifications through its design review process to accommodate a variety of strategies to
infiltrate or detain stormwater and meet the identified performance standard:
a. Reduce street coverage .
· Reduce residential (local access) street widths and lengths.
· Use "T" cul-de-sacs or establish vegetated islands designed to hold stom1water.
b. Design and locate buildings to reduce impervious surfaces and retain infiltration areas
~ Use cluster development that maintains open space and minimizes impervious surfaces
· Reduce front setbacks to reduce driveway length.
· Maintain vegetated swales or detention areas between back lot areas to infiltrate and
route water.
c. Reduce parking areas
· Encourage cooperative parking
· Use parking standards that reflect average parking needs instead of peak day
projections.
d. Private developers in thc Annexation Area may also chose to implement the
following:
· Provide infiltration areas
· Use rural road scctions without curb and gutter treatments, that drain to wet or dry
swales. Plant these where possible with native vegetation types.
· Identify soils with high infiltration capacities, and clustcr development and route
drainage to maintain these as open space areas and infiltrate storm rJnoff.
. Use infiltration basins.
· Maintain or create detention basins that release water when it has cooled to less than
65 degrees F .
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
6
.
· Use permeable pipes to transport and exfiltrate stormwater
· Direct downspouts from roofs over yards or other vegetated areas and away from
driveways or paved surfaces
· Use aerators, sand beds, or other cooling strategies to reduce the temperature of runoff
or pooled water before it enters Brown's Creek
· Protect or encourage plantings of native vegetation on public and private properties,
including woodlands, prairies, and wetlands, to promote stormwater infiltration and
provide habitat and aesthetic values.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Stillwater Township, Private Developers
Regulatory program: Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater Management ordinance,
Special Area Plans and Development Agreements, Browns Creek Watershed Plan
Implementation time frame: As development is proposed. City will review developmen'
proposals for consistency with the AUAR and Mitigation Plan. Provisions of the Stillwater
Comprehensive Plan and Special Area Plans allow flexibility from standard subdivision
requirements to implement cluster development, narrower street widths, and other practices
suggested above.
4. Require the use, management and enforcement of Best Management Practices
(BMP's) and Wet Stormwater detention basins to control erosion and sedimentation during
and after construction of projects in the Annexation Area.
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Stillwater Township
Cooperating organizations: MPCA
Regulatory program: Stormwater Management Ordinance, NPDES Permit Program,
Devefopment Agreements, Browns Creek Watershed Management Plan
Implementation time frame: Immediate
5. Maintain or restore an unmown vegetated buffer at least 100 feet in width above the O.H.W.
along the corridors of Brown's Creek and its tributaries in areas developed after adoption of
the AUAR. (The O.H.\V. will be measured from the top of the bank along Browns Creek awl
along tributaries where the top of the bank is visible. Where the top of the bank is not
identifiable, the buffcr will be measured from the centerline of the stream.) A wider buffer
zone may be required where needed to protect floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes or
important fish and wildlife habitat areas. The width of the buffcr zone should be based on Ul'.
quality and function of these habitat areas. Encouragc landowners to plant native trees,
shrubs, tall grasses, herbaceous and wetland plants in this buffer strip to increase shading of
Browns Creek and tributaries to maintain water temper:.l:ure for trout habitat.
.
Amend Draft Shoreland Management Ordinance (February, 1997) to include Brown's Cree"
and its Tributaries, including regulations for Vegetation Management, Diseased Vegetation,
Buffer Zones, Fertilizers, Pesticides, and Oak Tree Management. Adopt and enforce
Ordinance, including the Annexation Area.
Stillwater AUAR Mitif?ation Plan
5/6/97
7
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Stillwater Township
Regulatory program: Development and Subdivision Ordinance, Shoreland
Management Ordinance, Floodplain Ordinance
Implementation time frame: The City will amend ordinances as needed to require a
minimum 100' vegetated buffer and management regulations along Brown's Creek and its
tributaries. Amendments will be completed by December, 1997.
.
6. Protect and enhance in-stream habitat and riparian trout stream habitat along Brown's Creek
and its tributaries in areas of existing development, including vegetated buffer areas,
groundwater recharge areas, pools, riffles, and other critical components of trout habitat. A
continuous stream habitat corridor should be protected along the Creek downstream of the
Storie Bridge.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Stillwater Township
Cooperating organizations: DNR, Trout Unlimited
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame: As development occurs
7. Develop and conduct annual educational programs for local residents on the value of natural
resources in the area, the effects of yard care practices on these resources, and options for
homeowners to assist in protecting resource quality.
.
Responsible parties: \Vashington SWCD, Trout Unlimited, City of Stillwater,
Public Interest Groups, \Vashington County Extension Service
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame: Ongoing
8. The City should work with Washington County and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation as plans are completed for alteration of State Highway 36 and County
Highways 15 and 96, to identify potential water quality and quantity impacts to Brown's
Creek and impacts to other natural resources, and develop strategies to avoid or mitigate
these impacts.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Washington County, Minnesota DOT
Regulatory program: Voluntary coordination
Implementation time frame: Designs for these roadways are currently being developed and
reviewed.
9. Implement a water quality monitoring program, including water temperature, dissolved
oxygen, water quality and quantity parameters, in accordance with Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) and Metropolitan Council water quality monitoring guidelines, as
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
8
.
-
specified in Minnesota Lake and Watershed Data Collection Manual (MPCA 1994) and An
Evaluation of Lake and Stream Monitoring Programs in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
(Metropolitan Council 1989).
Monitoring stations will be placed in the following locations: 1)lower end of Brown's Creek
where it meets the St. Croix; 2)near the Stone Arch Bridge; 3) near Neal Avenue and the
railroad tracks; 4) at County Road 15,5) on the stream tributaries west of McKusick Lake;
and 6) at the Long Lake outlet. Beginning in spring, 1997, these stations will be regularly
sampled for water temperature and flow data. In addition, macroinvertebrate samples will be
gathered and analyzed in for 2 locations, at the upper and lower ends of the Creek. Samples
will be taken three times during the summer.
Automatic monitoring stations at the Stonebridge and the lower end of Brown's Creek will
also collect a variety of water quality data.
The Washington Soil and Water Conservation District will collect and analyze the results of
monitoring on Brown's Creek, and report the results of monitoring to the City of Stillwater,
Metropolitan Council, resource management agencies, and other interested organizations.
.
The Science Museum of Minnesota and other partners are developing a proposal for short
and long-term monitoring and data analysis of the Brown's Creek Watershed, including the
Annexation Area, to include additional
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating_organizations: Washington SWCD, Minnesota DNR, Trout Unlimited
- Metropolitan Council, MPCA, St. Croix Research Station-Science Museum of Minnesota,
Stillwater High School Science classes (biological monitoring)
Regulatory program: Voluntary program. Funding and resources will be provided by all of
the Responsible Parties or Public Interest Groups
Implementation time frame: Monitoring will begin during June, 1997. Washington SWCD
will prep~re the water quality monitoring plan with consultation of other responsible parties.
Data collection will begin in 1997, and continue annually with results to be published in the
annual report of the Browns Creek WMO and entered into the STORET database.
.
10. Encourage the development of a Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for the
Brown's Creek Watershed that models conditions in the Watershed at full development;
identifies issues and problems for water and other natural resources in the Watershed based
on this analysis; and identifies goals, strategies and respoHsibilities for addressing these
issues and problems.
Responsible parties: Browns Creek WMO, other local governments and natural resource
agenCIes
Regulatory program: Minnesota Statutes I03B.
Implementation time frame: The "second gencration" WMO plan is duc for completion in
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
9
June, 2000.
.
Goal 2:
Maintain or improve the quantity and quality of groundwater discharges to
protect the baseflow of Brown's Creek.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Locate the new municipal well proposed for the Annexation Area outside the Area
determined to affect groundwater flows to Brown's Creek.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Minnesota DNR
Regulatory program: Minnesota DNR Water Appropriations Permit Program
Implementation time frame: New well will be sited before development begins
2. Encourage abandonment of private wells in the Annexation Area. Well abandonment will be
implemented in accordance with procedures of the Minnesota Department of Health.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: City of Stillwater
Implementation time frame: Will be implemented by the City as development occurs.
.
3. Promote a "no-net-loss" of groundwater recharge capabilities for the recharge area of aquifers
discharging to Brown's Creek and its tributaries. Implement the strategies listed in Section
2.0, Goal 1, Strategy #3, ~o decrease the proportion of impervious surface area, add buffer
zones and retention basins, and use other strategies to increase rainfall infiltration in the
Annexation Area to maintain groundwater flows to Brown's Creek.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Washington County, private developers
Cooperating organizations: Browns Creek WMO
Regulatory progralI!: City Subdivision Ordinance, Special Area Plans,
Stormwater Management Ordinance, and Development Agreements
Implementation time frame: Implement as developments are proposed.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
10
.4.
Complete field surveys to identify shallow groundwater areas before utilities are constructed
near Brown's Creek or its tributaries. A void construction of utilities in close proximity to the
creek, its tributaries, and wetlands in the Annexation Area when feasible.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Washington SWCD
Regulatory program: Best Management Practice
Implementation time frame: Complete as part of feasibility study for utilities in the
Annexation Area, to be completed by September, 1997.
5. \Vhen utility construction near streams and wetlands is necessary, require use of trench dams
or other barriers, and backfilling of utility trenches with native material near Brown's Creek
and its tributaries to prevent drainage of shallow groundwater in the area.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Best Management Practice
Implementation time frame: Implement as utilities are constructed in the Annexation Area.
6. Encourage owners of the Oak Glen golf course to discontinue using ground water wells for
irrigation, and explore the feasibility of replacing this source with water from the McKusick
wetland. This may protect groundwater sources as well as increase the storage potential of
McKusick Lake.
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater to contact Oak Glen owners
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame: Sprin-g, 1997
7. Implement a groundwater monitoring program within the Annexation Area.
Cooperating organizations: City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota DNR
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame: Implement as early as possible in 1997
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
11
3.0
Natural Areas in the Annexation Area
.
The majority of high-quality natural areas that may be affected by urban development in the
Annexation Area are located within the Brown's Creek Ravine. The lower one mile of Brown's
Creek in the N Yz Sections 20 and 21, T30N, R20W, is a biologically significant ravinelcreek
system, based on information collected by the Minnesota County Biological Survey. The Survey
noted that less than 6 percent of the land area of Washington County remained in high quality
natural communities ill 1991. Three natural communities occur within this system-a high-
quality maple-basswood forest, mixed hardwood swamp, and moderate quality bluff prairie.
Breeding and foraging habitat of the Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), a special concern
species, is also documented in this area.
While all of these rare feature elements occur outside the Annexation Area, potential impacts
from stormwater discharges to Brown's Creek and other development-related impacts could
affect the quality of natural communities and habitat areas in the Ravine. The Louisiana
waterthrush is particularly sensitive to increased flows from stormwater because the bird nests
and feeds along the stream bank near the stream's normal water level. Increased flows may
inundate nesting and/or critical feeding areas. Changes in surface and groundwater quality and
quantity with increased development may also affect the viability and quality of hardwood
seepage swamp communities.
An additional natural community of concern is an oak. forest located along the west shore of .
Long Lake, in the West Yz of Section 31, T30N, R 20W. This oak. forest community was also
identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey in 1990. In 1995, this area was surveyed
more intensively. This survey suggested that the highest quality forest remains in the eastern
areas of the woodland near Long Lake, while western areas have been degraded by invasion of
exotic species. Development of sewers, roads and residential subdivisions may affect the quality
of this natural community.
The City of Stillwater has proposed goals and strategies in this section to protect and restore
natural communities in the Brown's Creek Ravine, while developing opportunities for passive
. recreation that are compatible with the long-term health of these communities. The section also
includes goals for managing oak. forest communities, and mitigating for losses that may occur
with development of the Annexation Area.
Goal 3:
Maintain or restore the quality of Brown's Creek and the Ravine Area,
including sustaining the health of the Louisiana waterthrush habitat and
trout habitat, and maintain or restore n3tive plant communities.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
12
.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Implement the stormwater diversion to McKusick Lake, Stormwater Management Plan,
infiltration strategies, other BMP's, and monitoring strategies described under Goal #1,
strategies 1-8, to maintain the current quality and quantity of stormwater flowing to the
Ravine from the Annexation Area, to maintain the Louisiana waterthrush habitat and
hardwood seepage swamp communities.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater and others listed under Goal 1
Regulatory program: Listed under Goal 1
Implementation time frame: Identified for each strategy listed under Goal 1.
2. Implement Stillwater's ShorelandIBluffland Management Ordinance and Restrictive Soils
Ordinance to protect the Ravine, and encourage vegetated buffer strips with required 40'
setbacks from the bluff line to protect the natural slopes in the Ravine.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Development and subdivision ordinances, ShorelandIBluffland
Management Ordinance (No. 784), Restictive Soils Ordinance (778)
Implementation time frame: Ordinances are currently in effect.
. 3.
Work with the Minnesota DNR's Natural Heritage Program and Fisheries Division to
develop a restoration and management plan for the Brown's Creek Ravine, including
Louisiana waterthrush and trout habitat and native plant communities that are part of the
Ravine complex. Adopt the plan as a part of the City's Parks and Open Space Plans.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Minnesota DNR
Regulatory program: City Comprehensive Plan and Natural and Cultural Resource
Protection Regulations
Implementation time frame: Adopt management plan by Spring, 1998
Goal 4:
Implement Stillwater's Forest Protection Ordinance and encourage
management, protection, and restoration of woodland resources in the
Annexation Area to provide functions such as stormwater infiltration,
wildlife habitat, and climatic amelioratioll.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
i
I.
1. Implement Stillwater's Forest Protection Ordinance in the Annexation Area, requiring careful
construction and development plans and practices within wooded areas affectcd by
development activitics. Add standard Oak Wilt Protcction Provisions to this Ordinance.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
13
(These provisions describe measures to control the spread of oak wilt: When possible, avoid
cutting, pruning or injury to oak trees between April 15 and July 1 of each year. When
construction occurs during these months, a vibratory plow should be used to sever roots along
the edge of any construction area prior to beginning work, and injuries must be treated with a
tree wound dressing within 15 minutes or less to reduce infection potential. Tree protection
zones should be fenced during construction to prevent all entry.)
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Minnesota DNR Division of Forestry
Regulatory program: Stillwater Forest Protection Ordinance (No. 769)
Implementation time frame: Ordinance is currently in effect. Additional provisions to be
applied immediately with any development on the Annexation Area, and adopted into
ordinance during 1997.
2. Enforce Stillwater's Restrictive Soils Ordinance and Draft Shoreland Management Ordinance
to protect Oak Woodland areas adjacent to Long Lake and on steep slopes within the
proposed development area.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Restrictive Soils and Shoreland Management Ordinances
Implementation time frame: Soils Ordinance is currently ineffect. Draft Shoreland
Ordinance will be adopted by end of 1997.
.
3. Require developers in the woodland area to complete Forest Management Plans that indicate
areas where development will occur, and identify management strategies to protect and
restore the health and function of oak woodlands where possible, and mitigate for losses that
occur due to development. The Minnesota DNR Forestry Division or certified private
foresters may be consulted for assistance in developing management plans.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, private developers
Regulatory program: Forest Protection Ordinance
Implementation time frame: Complete Forest Management Plans before development
occurs
4. Encourage use of native or "naturalized" landscaping by homeowners in the Annexation
Area, to provide greater stonnwater infiltration and more diverse wildlife habitat, and replace
some of the functions provided by the pre-development oak woodland. Plantings should
include canopy trees, understory shrubs, and native grass:;s and forbs. Encourage developers
to use native plants and naturalizedplantings around stormwater ponds in developed areas.
Responsible parties: Homeowners, Devciopcrs
Regulatory program: Voluntary program. Developers, Long Lake Homeowners
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
14
.
Association, Trout Unlimited and others may provide information
demonstrate ideas to residents in the Annexation Area.
Implementation time frame: Ongoing
Goal 5:
Identify potential wildlife and recreation corridors, parks and open space
areas, and adopt plans and development strategies for these areas. Include
significant natural community areas in these corridors and open space areas,
and use corridors to create connections between these areas.
Protection strategies:
.
1. Implement goals and policies of the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Ordinance
No. 837, and provisions of Resolution 96-242, including goals to complete development of
parks and trails plans for the city, and implementation of these plans through application of
these ordinances as the Annexation Area is developed. This plan should identify remaining
native plant communities, important habitat areas, other natural areas, and corridor linkages
among these, and propose management plans for these areas, including trails and recreation
areas where these are appropriate without compromising the quality of significant native
communities and habitats. The City should work with the DNR Division of Wildlife and
others as appropriate to design and implement an effective corridor system.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, Special Area Plans, Subdivision
Ordinance, and Resolution 96-242, Development Agreements, Washington County
Comprehensive Plan.
Implementation time frame: Ordinances are currently in effect. Parks and trails are
identified and mapped in the Comprehensive Plan. Detailed design plans and
implementation will occur with development of the Annexation Area.
2. Coordinate activities to identify natural areas, wildlife corridors and recreation corridors with
greenway corridor planning at the Minnesota DNR, Land Stewardship Project, and
Washington County. The Washington County Linear Park Master Plan includes a trail
segment along CSAH 15 in the Annexation Area. The City should plan for an offroad trail
through this area that \vould connect with other future trail segments along CR 15 going north
and south.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations:. Minnesota DNR, Land Stewardship Project, and Washington
County
Regulatory program: Voluntary coordin"tion activities
Implementation time frame: Corridor planning activities arc ongoing
.
3. Map significant natural areas, woodland communities. corridor areas, etc. in the City's
Geographic Information System. Use development reviews to provide infonnation and
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
direction .to developers to use clustering, open space ~edication, development design, and
other methods to protect these areas.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: City Comprehensive Plan, Special Area Plans, and Subdivision
Ordinance
Implementation time frame: As development occurs
15
~
.
.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
16
.
4.0
Long Lake, McKusick Lake, South Twin Lake, and St. Croix River
These lakes are all located within, or receive direct drainage from, the Annexation Area. The
DNR classifies South Twin and Long Lake as winter kill lakes, while McKusick Lake is
classified as a waterfowl lake, and is too shallow to support game fish populations. South Twin
Lake is located in the Silver Creek Watershed.
Long Lake outlets to Brown's Creek, and is currently experiencing water quantity and quality
problems related to runoff from its drainage area. Most of these problems are generated outside
the Annexation Area. The outlet at the north end of the lake is governed by a DNR permit that
restricts flow from May to September, to prevent the flow of warm water to Brown's Creek.
However, the outlet currently flows year-round, in violation of the permit, to prevent flooding of
homes near the lake. Analysis of impacts of development in the Annexation Area indicates that
this development will have little noticeable impact on the water quality and quantity status of
Long Lake.
The City of Stillwater has proposed goals and strategies in this section to alleviate current
flooding problems on Long Lake, while maintaining or improving the water quality of Long
Lake, McKusick Lake and the St. Croix River as the Annexation Area develops. The section
also proposes adoption of stormwater management strategies for the area draining to South Twin
Lake.
.
Goal 6:
Prevent future flooding and protect or improve the water quality of Long Lake.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Replace the current outlet structure on Long Lake with a new structure that maintains a
normal lake level of 889-890.0 feet, and diverts flows above this level through the current
tributary channel to McKusick Lake.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: DNR Waters Permit No. 76-6047
Implementation time frame: Preliminary study of outlet replacement and diversion
completed during AUAR. Construction feasibility to be completed as the AUAR is
completed (August, 1997).
2. Evaluate methods for improving water quality in Long Lake, including outlet improvement~,
removal of sediments collected at the south end of the Long Lake, planting native aquatic
vegetation, and others. Use native vegetation when possible to aid in cleaning sediments and
nutrients from lake water, and to improve fish and wildlife habitat. Consider remedial plans
for developed al'eas draining to Long Lake to improve water quality, that address
modifications to the current system.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
17
-Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Long Lake homeowners
Cooperating organizations: Browns Creek WMO, Minnesota DNR
Regulatory program: Browns Creek WMO Plan, Stillwater Subdivision and Environmental
Ordinances, Special Area Plans and Voluntary Actions
Implementation time frame: Ongoing. Improvement strategies could be incorporated into
the "second generation" WMO plan due for completion in June, 2000
.
3. Work with neighboring jurisdictions upstream from Long Lake and the Annexation Area, to
ensure that proper safeguard are implemented to protect the quality of Long Lake and other
surface waters.
Respnsible parties: Local governments in the Long Lake watershed area
Cooperating organizations: Browns Creek WMO
Regulatory program: City ordinances and subdivision regulations. Browns Creek WMO
Plan provides for review and comment.
Implementation time frame: Ongoing
4. Complete integrated water quality management plans for lakes in the Annexation Area.
Responsible parties: Browns Creek WMO
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame: Implement when permanent management has been
determined for WMO, or as resources for plans become available. Improvement strategies
could be included in the "second generation" WMO plan, due for completion in June, 2000.
.
5. Consider establishment of adequate public access to Long Lake, as this may increase
eligibility for funding sources to improve water quality.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Voluntary determination
Implementation time frame: Consider in 1997 along with regulations for surface water use
of Long Lake. .
Goal 7:
Assure that solutions to Long Lake high water problems do not degrade the
\yater quality of McKusick Lake, Brown's Creek or the St. Croix River.
PROTECTION STRA TEGIES:
1. Implement the diversion strategy from Long Lake to McKusick Lake described in 2.0, Goal
1, No.1. Allow sediment from Long Lake and the Annexation Area to settle in the wetlands
north of McKusick Lake.
.
Stillwater AUAR MitiKation Plan
5/6/97
18
. Regulatory parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: DNR Outlet Permit, Wetland Conservation Act
Implementation time frame: City will complete construction feasibility study by August,
1997, and implement the diversion based on results of the study.
2. Require the use, management, and enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMP's) and
wet storrnwater detention basins to control erosion and sedimentation during and after
construction of projects in the Annexation Area, to prevent sedimentation to Brown's Creek,
the St. Croix River, and other resources.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: MPCA
Regulatory program: Storrnwater Management Ordinance, NPDES Pennit Program,
Development Agreements
Implementation time frame: Immediate
3. Continue water quality monitoring on Long Lake. If declines in water quality are noted as the
Annexation Area develops, initiate more detailed lake studies through the University of
Minnesota or other research organization to determine factors contributing to the decline.
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Volunteer lake monitors, Browns Creek WMO
Regulatory program: Shoreland Management Ordinance, Planning Commission and Parks
Board Policies
Implementation time frame: May be implcmented immediately.
4. Encourage lakeshore residents to maintain or restore a buffer of native vegetation to reduce
erosion and provide wildlife habitat.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Lakeshore landowners
Regulatory program: Draft Shoreland Management Ordinance (Feb., 1997) and
voluntary actions of current landowners
Implementation time frame: May be implemented immediately
5. Consider a City ordinance limiting the use of lawn fertilizers containing phosphoms, and
educate rcsidents about yard care practices to protect surface water quality.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Long Lake Homeowners Association
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame: Ongoing
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
19
Goal 8:
Protect the water quality of South Twin Lake.
.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Implement the Stormwater Management Study for the Annexation Area developed as a part
of the AUAR, including recommendations for the area north of the Minnesota Zephyr
railroad tracks that drains to South Twin Lake. This study sets forth recommendations for the
design and performance of storm water detention basins to reduce peak flows and protect
water quality in South Twin Lake.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: City Stormwater Management Ordinance, Minn. Statutes 103B.235
and Minn. Rules 8410
Implementation time frame: Implement as the Annexation Area is developed.
2. Require developers in the Annexation Area that flows to South Twin Lake to infiltrate and
detain stormwater runoff using the methods described in Section 2.0, Goal 1, Strategy 3.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, private developers
Regulatory program: Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater Management Ordinance,
Special Area Plans, and Development Agreements .
Implementation time frame: As development is proposed
3. Adopt the City's proposed Shoreland Management Ordinance, including provisions for
vegetative buffers, fertilizer and lawn care manage~ent, and other provisions that protect
lake water quality.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Shoreland Management Ordinance (Draft 2/3/97)
Implementation time frame: Adopt Shoreland Management Ordinance by December, 1997
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
20
. 5.0
Infrastructure _
Goal 9:
Complete development of infrastructure for the Annexation Area (including
sanitary sewer, water supply, and street systems) that is efficient, economical,
and minimizes or mitigates impacts to the environment.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Complete the feasibility study for sanitary sewer service to be constructed in the Annexation
Area. Identify alternatives that avoid and/or mitigate for impacts to groundwater, wetlands,
native plant communities, and surface water resources.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: MPCA, Minnesota DNR
Regulatory program: Wetland Conservation Act
Implementation time frame: Feasibility study to be completed by September, 1997.
2. Complete field survey to identify shallow groundwater areas and implement
Strategies to avoid these areas or prevent drainage of groundwater near Brown's
Creek and its tributaries, as specified in Goal 2, Strategies 5 &6.
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame: Implement as feasibility study and construction of utilities are
completed in the Annexation Area.
3. Encourage development of streets and roadways to minimize impervious surfaces and route
stormwater flows to pervious areas and detention basins, minimize storrnwater runoff to
wetlands, creeks and lakes, and provide for recreation and natural corridors that connect
resources and open spaces in the Annexation Area.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Washington County, Minnesota Departrrien~ of Transportation
Regulatory program: City Comprehensive Plan, Special Area Plans, Park and Trailway
Plans, Washington County Comprehensive Plan
Implementation time frame: Implement as streets and roads arc desigried and constructed.
.
Stillwater AUAR Miti!:ation Plan
5/6/97
21
6.0
Wetlands
.
Wetlands in the annexation area are significant for local hydrology and wildlife habitat. The
National Wetlands Inventory identified 82 wetlands (approximately 287 acres) in the study area.
Wetlands in the Jackson Wildlife Management Area (WMA) north of Long Lake, and north of
McKusick Lake, will be impacted by stormwater management strategies suggested in this
ADAR. Existing, restored or created wetlands may offer opportunities to mitigate the impacts of
urbanization in the Annexation Area, but their function and quality may also be compromised by
development activities. Construction of infrastructure proposed for the Annexation Area may
also impact wetland resources.
The City of Stillwater administers the Wetland Conservation Act, and is required by law to
regulate wetlands in the City. The City will require strict adherence to the rules of the Wetland
Conservation Act, and require that a sequencing process be followed during the design and
construction of all projects. This process requires that wetland impacts be avoided if possible,
and that unavoidable impacts be compensated through replacement with wetlands that provide
equal functions and values.
The City has also proposed completion of a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan,
including a functions and values assessment of wetlands in the community, and development of
policies and management strategies to better manage wetlands based on the functions they
perform and value to the community.
.
Goal 10:
Achieve the policy of "no-net-Ioss" of wetland functions and values in the
Annexation Area by avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts when feasible,
and mitigating for unavoidable impacts. 'Vetland management should be
integrated with local water planning, be based on an assessment of functions
and values of wetlands in the area, and prioritized based on wetland quality.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Implement existing wetland protection regulations contained in Cit)1 ordinances, Watershed
Plans, and State and Federal rules.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: \Vashington SWCD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesot&
DNR, MPCA, U.S. EPA
Regulatory program: Stillwater Subdivision Code, BlufflandlShoreland, Floodplain,
Shoreland Management, and Wetland Conservation Ordinances, Wetland Conservation Act,
Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Minnesota DNR Protected Waters Program,
Browns Creek Watershed Management Plan
Implementation time frame: Ordinances and regulations are currently in effect
.
.
.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
22
2. Complete a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan for the Annexafion Area and the City
of Stillwater that meets the requirements of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)
for such plans, including completion of a functions and values assessment for all wetlands in
the community, development of a wetlands classification system, policies, and management
recommendations based on this assessment.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Minn. Statutes 103G.2242
Implementation time frame: The City will apply for BWSR grant to complete a
Comprehensive Wetlands Management Plan in 1998.
3. Wetland mitigation or replacement that results from development activity in the Annexation
Area should be implemented within the Brown's Creek Watershed (avoid use of Mitigation
Banks outside the Watershed).
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: BWSR, MPCA
Regulatory program: Wetland Mitigation Act
Implementation time frame: As development occurs
Goal 11:
Protect and maintain the quality of surface water flows to wetlands.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Require the use, management, and enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMP's) and
wet storm water detention basins to control erosion and sedimentation by providing
pretreatment of water discharged to wetlands during and after construction.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations:, Washington SWCD, MPCA
Regulatory program: Stillwater Stormwater Management Ordinance, NPDES Stormwater
Management Program, Browns Creek Watershed Management Plan
Implementation time frame: Ordinance is currently in effect
2. Promote the maintenance of natural buffer zones of at least 50 feet in width along the
boundary of wetlands to protect water quality and wildlife habitat as an interim measure until
a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan for the City i_s completed. Develop and adopt
permanent buffer zone recommendations as a part of the Comprehensive Wetland
Management Plan.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Stillwater Subdivision and Shoreland Ordinance
Implementation time frame: Existing ordinance
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
23
7.0 Historical and Archaeological Resources
.
Cultural resources inventory information provided by the Minnesota Historical Society indicated
the presence of areas of high and moderate archaeological potential in the Annexation Area.
These areas include the Stone Bridge site on Brown's Creek.
The City of Stillwater will work with developers to identify historical, archaeological, and
architectural resources in areas with high and moderate archaeological potential, and to preserve
these resources to the extent practicable.
Goal 12:
Identify and preserve historical and archaeological resources in the
Annexation Area.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Stormwater management strategies describ~d in Section 1.0 Browns Creek and its Tributaries
will aid in protecting the Stone Bridge from additional stormwater runoff generated by new
development that could degrade the bridge or affect its structure. These strategies include
diversion of runoff from most storm events away from Brown's Creek, and reduction of
storm flows in other events through ponding and infiltration in upstream areas.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Listed in Section 1.0
Regulatory program: Listed in Section 1.0
Implementation time frame: Described in Section 1.0
.
2. Require developers or the City of Stillwater to conduct Phase I archaeological surveys in
areas that will be disturbed in the development process, and that have high or moderate
archaeological potential, as identified by the Minnesota Historical Society. The surveys
should address identification issues related to archaelogical sites and standing structures.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Private developers and State Historic Preservation Office
Regulatory program: Minnesota Environmental Policy Act; Stillwater Subdivision
Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, SHPO Regulatio[!s
Implementation time frame: Before development in areas identified.
.
.
.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
. 24
8.0
Other Development Related Issues
Urban development in the Annexation Area will impact a variety of other concerns, such as
traffic, noise, and air quality. The City of Stillwater will seek to minimize impacts in these areas
as appropriate to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public.
Goal 13:
Manage Automobile Traffic to Safely Accommodate Development Planned
for the Annexation Area
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Design and construct roads in the Annexation Area to mitigate traffic impacts while meeting
natural resource protection goals and strategies included in this Plan.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Minnesota DOT
Regulatory program: Regulatory and construc!ion programs of these agencies
Implementation time frame: Review and design projects as development
occurs in the Annexation Area.
2. Implement Washington County's Linear Park System Plan, and Stillwater's Parks and Trails
Plans as roads are developed in the Annexation Area.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Washington County
Regulatory program: Washington County Comprehensive Plan and City
of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan
Implementation time frame: Implement as development occurs in the
Annexation Area
Goal 14:
Maintain Air Quality in the Annexation Area as Development Occurs
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Enforce State Air Quality Standards to regulate air emissions in the Annexation Area.
Responsible parties: Minnesota Pollution Con~rol Agency
Regulatory program: Indirect Source Permit Program
Implementation time frame: Regulations are currently in effect
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
25
2. Implement Best Management Practices to minimize dust during and after construction of
developments and infrastructure in the Annexation Area.
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Washington County, Minnesota DOT
Regulatory program: Stillwater Subdivision Code and Contractor Oversight
Implementation time frame: Regulations are currently in effect
Goal 15: Minimize Noise Generated by Construction and Traffic in the Annexation Area
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Regulate hours when construction may occur to control construction noise.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: City Ordinance
Implementation time frame: Ordinance is currently in effect
2. Construct noise berms where needed to control noise associated with road construction and
traffic.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Cooperating organizations: Washington County, Minnesota DOT
Regulatory program: Part of road design and construction activities
Implementation time frame: Ongoing
.
3. Locate less noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to major roads.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: City Comprehensive Plan
Implementation time frame: Planjs currently in effect
.
.
.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
26
ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PLANS AND REGULATIONS
The City of Stillwater has a variety of plans, ordinances, and regulations in place that address
environmental issues in the Annexation Area. These mechanisms will be enforced and
amended as indicated in the Mitigation Plan to provide a comprehensive framework and set
of tools to protect the natural resources of the Annexation Area as development occurs:
City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (1995)
Stillwater Subdivision Code (1997)
Special Area Plans (Chapter 13. Comprehensive Plan - 1995)
Grading Permits Ordinance (1988)
Stormwater Management OrdiIJance #776 (1993)
Restrictive Soils Ordinance #778 (1993)
Floodway Ordinance #747 (1993)
Forest Protection Ordinance #769 (1993)
Current Shoreland Management Ordinance #784
. Draft Shoreland Management Ordinance (1997)
Subdivision Ordinance #837
Park and Trailway Resolution 96-242
Stormwater Utility
\Vetland Conservation Act
Development Process - Enforcement of Regulations and Best Management Practices
MINNESOTA C.
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
WASHINGTON SOIL AND WATER
CONSERV A nON DISTRICT
.
1825 Curl/e Crest 811/0.. Room 101
Stillwater. MN 55082
(612) 439-6361
August 14, 1997
Mr. Klayton Eckles, City Engineer
City of Stillwater
City Hall
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
FAXED AND MAILED
(fax 430-8810)
RE: Stillwater Annexation AUAR
Dear Klayton:
In the past few months, several individuals from Long Lake have been in contact with our office regarding lake
_impacts on water quality. The final AUAR defers existing boating impacts to the Long Lake Surface Water
Committee. While these concerns can be debated both ways, the real issue seems to be what is the impact
on the \vater quality of Long Lake and Browns Creek with annexation area development. Because increased
lake use will result from the annexation, it seems appropriate to address the possible impact on water quality in
Long Lake and in Browns Creek.
If the final and approved AUAR does not further address these issues, I would suggest that the City
communicate the process and procedures that the Long Lake Surface Water Use Committee will use to the
residents of Long Lake.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 430-
6826.
Sincerely,
;1/(~?b D UitRAA/?:/
Mark J. Doneux ,/
Water Resource Specialist
cc: Leah Peterson, 7160 Mid Oaks, Stillwater, MN 55082
.OFFICE\ WINWORD\MJO\ WSD\BCWMO\OS 14ECKL.DOC
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNllY EMPLOYER
ME.MORANDUM
.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
~
DA: August 16, 1997
RE: SURFACE WATER USE ORDINANCE FOR LONG LAKE
Background. In the past, boaters use of Long Lake has been raised as an issue. With the annexation
and imminent development ofland west of the lake, it is timely to review boater use and establish
an ordinance that regulates that activity.
Ajoint city council, planning commission and parks board meeting was first held to receive public
comments on Long Lake use February 17, 1997. At that meeting, several lake users and residents
spoke on the issue (minutes enclosed).
The subject of surface water use was the subject of a second joint planning commission/parks board
- meeting on May 12, 1997. At that meeting, the issues related to lake use were discussed along with
regulation options. The joint committee considered environmental, aesthetic, recreational and the
ease of and practicality of regulation (minutes enclosed).
.
After considering options from no motorized use to unlimited motor use, the joint board voted to
limit use to 10 horsepower with no personal watercraft. All members were not satisfied with the
decision but they felt this recommendation balanced the environmental concerns for the lake and
the natural environment with the recreational concerns and opportunities.
Since the May 12 joint meeting, the council has received individually additional information from
those who would like to have no gasoline motor use and those who would like to have up to 25
horsepower pontoon boats allowed. The final AUAR includes additional information on use and
water quality effects of use and responds to some of the assertions contained in the comments.
l'vlotor use has some effect on water quality but the significance of that effect depends on amount and
type of use and other water conditions.
Additional Information. In order to accommodate concerns of existing boat owners, it may be
appropriate for the council to consider a grandfather provision or the amortization of existing boats
that are not consistent with the new regulations over a period of time (5-10 years).
This would reduce the hardship of the regulations and provide for the long ternl purpose of the
regulations.
Recommendation: Review recommendation from parks board and planning commission regarding
regulation of surface water use on Long Lake and direction to staff to submit regulations as
. appropriate to DNR for approval.
Attachments: Draft ordinance, staff report and minutes from joint meeting 5-12-97
.
.
.
MAGNUSON LAW OFFICE
6124395641
P.eJ2
ORDINANCE NO,
~~
8//'/'11
AN ORDINANCE REGULAtING THE
USE AND OPERA1'ION OF WATERCRAFT
ON LONG LAKE
The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain:
1. umg Lake. This Ordinance applies to the waters of Long Lake, located in Sections 30 and
31, Town 30 North, Range 20 West, in the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minn,esota.
2. Ten Hor/lepower Limit. Watercraft permitted to be operated upon Long Lake may not be
pOwered by motors having a maximum total horsepower in ex~e$S often (10) hp.
2a. Exc~tion for Pontoon Boats, Notwithstanding the ten (10) hp limit set forth in ~2, pontoon
boats may be powered by motors having a maximum total horsepower not exceeding twenty-five (25)
hp.
3. Permitted Boats. Boats, canoes, kayaks, rowing shel~s, IXll'ltoons" paddle boats and sailboats
may be operated on Long Lake.
4. Motorized Persoll~1 W.v.tercraft Prohibited. Personal mororized waterer~ft, such as wave
runnel'S o.r jet skis and similar devices may not be operAted an Long Lake.
5. PeQalties. Any person who. violates any of me provisions ofthesc reglllations is guilty of a
misdemeanor and may be fined by a fine of not more than seven hundrCld and no/lOP dollars ($700.00) or
by imprisonment of not more than ninety (90) days, or both.
6. Savin~s. In all other ways the City Code will remain in full forc~ an~effect.
7. Jm'ective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force ,and effect from and after its passage and
publication according to. law.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater tltis _ day of
,1997.
CITY OF STILL WAtER
Jay L. Kimble. Its Mayor
A TrEST:
Morti Wel(klll~ Its Cle,rk
...
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE
USE AND OPERATION OF WATERCRAFT
ON LONG LAKE
The City Council of the City of Stillwater does urdain:.
1. Long Lake. This Ordinance applies to the waters of Long Lak.e, located in Sections 30
and 31, To~n 30 ~orth, Range 20 West, in the City of Stillwater, Washington CQunt.y,
Mmnesota.
2. Tc;(n Horsepower Limit. Watercraft permitted to be operated upor. Long Lake may not
be powered by motors having a maximum total horsepower in excess of tel~ (10) hp.
3. Permitted Boats. Boats, canoes, kayaks, rowing shells. pontoons, paddle boats and
sailboats may be operated on Long Laks.
4. Motorize\l Personal Watercraft Prohibite<J. Personal motorized watercraft. such as
wayc runners or jet skis and similar devices may not be operated on Long Lake.
5. Penalties. Any person who violates any of the provisions of these regulations is guilty
of a misdemeanor and may be fined by a fine of not more than seven .hundred and nol100 dollars
($ 700.00) or by imprisonment of not mOre than ninety (90) days, or both.
6. Savings. In aU other ways the City Code will remain in full force and effect.
7. Effective Date(. Tnis Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and publication according to law,
Enacted by the City Council. of the City of Stillwater this 20lh day of May, 1997.
CITY OF STILL VI ATER
.
Jay L. Kimbk, Its Mayor
ATTEST:
re./
~'1
. t/ .~t ~.
V Y--
J..i
~...i
fA
(YlVfV 1 /"'\
" J,/V'
.\---
Morli Weldon, Its Clerk
TO:
FR:
DA:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Steve Russell, Community Developmeot Director V
June 5, 1997
DRAFT LONG LAKE ORDINANCE
The attached ordinance was drafted by the city attorney to respond to the direction provided at
the joint planning/parks meeting on May 12, 1997. The planning commission should review and
approve the ordinance for recommendation to the city council.
..
.
.
.
/1 .
-10 L~/,/t( i1 t11.{{ 1JJ1 '1
.1"
, ,~ r~
',J () IIJ r r'i1_<- -( "11;-:}_ .~ - /~'- ~ 7 '7
.
He further noted the square footage of both the structures and lot exceed
ordinance requirements.
Betsy Glennon, 812 Harriet St., spoke in opposition to the request. She said
she lives directly across from the carriage house, which would have the
requested increased usage. She spoke of problems with turn-around traffic
that often drives on her property and on-street parking, and she said it
was not her intent when she purchased the property to be at the end of a
commercial cui de sac. She also provided photos.
Mr. Lawson said he wanted Ms. Glennon's concerns addressed. He said the
turn-around traffic is not from the B&B guests. He said the Lawsons would
be willing to put up a fence of Ms. Glennon's choice to prevent U-turns. And
he said he did not think the request would result in much increased
traffic. He said he thought Ms. Glennon's concerns were manageable issues.
Mr. Russell pointed out the current ordinance limit of five guest rooms is
to limit impact on residential areas.
Mr. Valsvik noted that Ms. Glennon's statements amount to a formal
complaint that need to be addressed. Mr. Rheinberger moved to deny the
. request based on the current ordinance. Mr. Valsvik seconded the motion.
Mr. Zoller agreed that the Lawsons site and B&B operation is unique and
said he might be able to support the request if the parking issues are
addressed. Mr. Fontaine noted that many months had been spent working on
the B&B ordinance. Motion to deny passed by unanimous vote, 5-0.
l/ Long Lake use ioint Park Board/Planning Commission meeting
, Present from the Planning Commission were Mr. Fontaine, Mrs. Bealka, Mr.
Rheinberger, Mr. Valsvik and Mr. Zoller. Present from the Park and Rec
Board were chairperson David Junker, members Linda Amrein, Nancy
Brown, Rich Cummings, AI Liehr, Rob McGarry, Ken Meister,. Del Peterson
and Leah Peterson.
Also present were Community Development Director Steve Russell;
Engineer Klayton Eckles; Molly Shodeen of the DNR; Lee Miller, David Fabio,
Eileen Gordon, Jon Engelking, Don McKenzie, all of the Long Lake
Homeowners Association; and Paula and Robert Kroening, property owners.
Also present was Ward 4 Councilman Gene Bealka; he left prior to the
beginning of the discussion due to a concern that his presence along with
Mr. Cummings and Mr. Zoller would constitute a quorum of the City Council.
.
Mr. Russell gave a brief overview of the process and issues. Mr. Eckles
talked briefly about AUAR study, flood control and drainage issues. .
Mr. Junker noted the focus of the joint meeting was that of water surface
use. He suggested members look at four possible scenarios in order to
focus on coming to a joint recommendation: unrestricted use, allowing
motors of 25 hp or less; allowing motors of 10 hp or less; prohibiting the
use of gas motors.
Mr. Valsvik said he thought the regulation should be consistent with that
of other lakes within the city, specifically Lily Lake where no gas motors
are allowed.
Each members was allowed to state their position.
Ms. Amrein said if the recommendation followed what was heard at the
public hearing and in written communications, it would be to prohibit the
use of motorized craft. She later asked whether a pontoon could be
operated if a slow, no-wake rule were imposed. She also noted that
whatever regulation is imposed must be enforceable.
Mr. Cummings noted that those residents on the lake who have .
boats/motors want to continue their use. However, he said there should be
some regulations, such as no jet skis or water skis.
Mr. Peterson said the ideal would be to accommodate all compatible uses
and minimize environmental impact. He said he thought Long Lake should
have more restrictions regarding use due to its shallowness. He said he
would prefer no motors, but would go along with allowing 10 hp or less.
Ms. Brown said she favored allowing 10 hp motors. She said she thought
there was too much emphasis on the damage caused by motors versus what
people put on their lawns. She also pointed out that several people were
told they could have boats/motors on the lake when they purchased their
property.
Mr. Meister pointed out there have been no regulations on surface use to
date and there have been few problems. He said he did not like to see a lot
of regulations but said his preferred option would be allowing 10 hp and
under. If there are problems in the future, use could be restricted to
electric motors only.
.
.
.
.
Mr. McGarry agreed with Mr. Meister's comments regarding restrictions. He
said ideally the lake would be self-regulating due to its shallowness. He,
too, said he would favor allowing 10 hp to provide the opportunity for
property owners to use the lake.
Mr. Liehr said his concern has been that if there are homeowners who have
pontoons and are now told they can't use the craft, there could be
problems. He said he thought restricting the use to 10 hp or less would be
sufficient at this point.
Mr. Junker said he would favor allowing 10 hp motors at a minimum and
would even consider allowing 25 hpmotors.
Mr. Zoller referred to the impact of motors on the water quality. He also
suggested there would be a problem enforcing restrictions on horse power
or speed. He said the most logical restriction would be to allow the use of
electric motors only.
Mr. Rheinberger spoke in favor of unrestricted use due to enforcement
problems. He suggested social pressures will develop that will self-
regulate use.
Mrs. Bealka said she felt strongly that the use should be restricted to
electric motors only because of the residential location of the lake.
Mr. C,ummings said no matter what regulation is imposed, there will be
angry' people. He said the lake is self-regulation and said he thought
restricting use to motors of 1 0 horse power is enforceable.
A straw poll was taken and indicated that restricting use to 10 hp or
electric motors only were the favored options. Mr. Rheinberger, seconded
by-.Mr. Cummings, moved to recommend to the City Council that surface use
on Long Lake be limited to motors of 10 hp and below. Motion passed 8-6.
Mr. Liehr raised the issue of regulating use to certain type of watercraft.
Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Liehr, moved to exclude the use of
personal watercraft as defined by state law. Motion passed unanimously.
It was the consensus of members not to limit hours of operation.
Mr. Rheinberger, seconded by Mr. Junker, moved to adjourn at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
MEMORANDUM
.: Parks Board and Planning Commission
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
DA: May 9, 1997
RE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR YOUR JOINT MEETING ON MAY 12, 1997
REGARDING SURFACE WATER USE OF LONG LAKE
Background.
The issue of surface water use of Long Lake has recently and in the past been brought to the
attention of the city. In the past, it was decided that because jurisdiction of the lake was split
between Stillwater town and city no special city regulation was considered..
With the annexation of the Phase I expansion area (entire area around Long Lake) and the prospect
of residential development on the west side of Long Lake, the surface water use issue has again
been raised. ..
..
Staff feels it is important at this time to address the issue so that new development will have certain
future expectations regarding the issue of the lake surface water use.
.Iated issues of lake dockage and public access will be effected by surface water use but can be
addressed separately in the development review process.
On February 17, 1997, a joint city planning commission/parks board public meeting was held on use
of Long Lake. Twenty five residents were in attendance. In addition, letters from several property
owners who could not attend the meeting were received (see attached #9 and 10).
Long Lake Conditions.
Several attached reports describe the existing condition of Long Lake, its depth, f1aura and fauna,
fish survey and information on impacts of use. A key consideration based on the information
presented is the shallow lake depth and the lake control level that will result from the AUAR
mitigation plan.
City Engineer Klayton Eckles will be at the meeting to present current information on the Long Lake
Study and answer park board or planning commission questions.
Information attached to this review includes DNR Long Lake Map, #82-21, DNR Long Lake Report
and memo from Sherri Bussi AUAR Consultant regarding surface water impacts on lake
environmental conditions and sections from the draft AUAR that discuss Long Lake use (#8).
4Ilgulation of Surface Water Use.
In order for the city to regulate lake surface water use, certain information must be considered and
provided to the DNR. The DNR information requirements and consideration is attached along with a
. sample ordinance (#4). Item #3 is the existing city ordinance controlling surface use of Lily Lake.
The city has the authority to regulate surface lake water use in the following areas:
.
1. Type and size of water craft.
2. Type and horsepower of motor
3. Speed of water craft.
4. Time of use.
5. Area of use.
6. Conduct of other activities on water for safety and public use.
Staff suggests that if additional controls are used to regulate lake use, they be clear and easy to
enforce such as Lily Lake where no gas motors are allowed, only electric. It would be difficult for the
city to enforce more complicated time, size of boat or area of use restrictions.
In order for the city to regulate surface water use, there should be a relationship between the need
for regulation and the lake conditions, future health of the lake and public enjoyment of the lake. If
the condition of the lake creates safety problems or the use of the lake is detrimental to the
environmental quality of the lake and public health is protected, then regulations can be justified.
Personal preferences regarding boat use, motor or non-motor, are not alone a basis for regulation.
Recommendation.
It is recommended that the joint parks board/planning commission decide the key elements of a .
surface water use ordinance and direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance. The ordinance then could
be prepared and returned to the parks board and planning commission before approval before
recommendation to the city council.
Attachments.
1. Notice of Joint Parks Board/Planning Commission meeting on May 12, 1997
2. Memo from David Magnuson, City Attorney.
3. Chapter 48.03 from city code regulating the use of Lily Lake and Lily Lake Park.
4. DNR information concerning regulations of lake surface water use.
5. "DNR map of Long Lake (82-21).
6. DNR lake report for Long Lake (7-6-92).
7. Memo from Sherri Bussi, AUAR consultant, on Long Lake surface water use impacts
information (4-7-97).
8. Section from Draft AUAR on surface water use impacts (pp 65-67) and Long Lake Mitigation
Plan section (pp 16-17).
9. Minutes from Long Lake surface water use meeting 2-17-97.
10. Written correspondence from interested citizens regarding condition and use of Long Lake.
.
.
.
.
~il~(lt~r
~ - ,
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA J
(!)
NOTICE OF MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 12, 1997
The Stillwater City Planning Commission and Parks Board will hold a public meeting to review
information on Long Lake Surface Water Use and to possibly develop a regulation governing the
surface water use of the lake.
The meeting will be held after 8 p.m. on Monday, May 12, 1997, in the Margaret Rivers Room
of the Stillwater Public Library, 223 North Fourth Street.
T.he purpose of the meeting is to review information that has previously been submitted and to
consider developing a draft regulation.
THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
If you have any questions regarding this meeting, contact Steve Russell, Community
Development Director at 430-8820.
PU~LISH: May 7, 1997
CITY HAll: 216 NORTH FOURTH STillWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121
.
.
.
MAGNUSON LAW FIRM
LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN
THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDI:oiG
333 NORTH MAIN STREET. SUITE #202 . P.O. Box 438 . STILLWATER. MN 55082
TELEPHO:O:E: (612) 439-9464. TELECOPIER: (612) 439-5641
DAVID T. MAGNUSON
RICHARD .D. ALLEN
MEMORANDUM
@
TO: Steve Russell, Community Development Director, and Stillwater Planning
Commission
FROM: David T. Magnuson, Stillwater City Attorney j11r~\' V
DATE: May 9,1997
SUBJECT: Local Ordinance Regulating Surface Water Use of Long Lake
With respect to the City's power to regulate surface water use, we look to the statutes of
Minnesota which provides in part:
i"
"The governing body of any Home Rule Charter Statutory City with respect to
any body of water situated wholly within its boundaries has all the powers to
improve and regulate the use of the body of water subject, however, to M.S.
S86B.205" (A specific statute delineating State imposed rules with regard to
surface use ordinances.)
These State rules provide that ordinances adopted by cities must be consistent with the statute.
and the rules adopted by the commissioner. Proposed surface use ordinances must be submitted
to the Commissioner of Natural Resources for review and approval before adoption. The
Commissioner has one hundred twenty (120) days to approve or disapprove of any proposed
ordinance and if the Commissioner disapproves, it must return the ordinance to the City with a
written statement of the reasons for disapproval. -
Page 2
May 9,1997
.
Minnesota rules also provide that the City must carefully assess local conditions before adopting
a surface use ordinance. It must consider 1) physical characteristics of the water, such as the
size, bottom, shore soils, aquatic floor and fauna, water circulation; 2) the regional relationship of
the body of water to other bodies of water in the area; 3) it must evaluate existing development,
both private and public; 4) the ownership ofthe shoreland; 5) other public regulations and
management; 6) the history of accidents which have occurred on the surface water; 7) existing
water use, both by riparian owners and those using the waters by local access points; and 8)
consider opinions gained by surveys through public meetings or hearings.
After evaluating conditions, and if warranted, the City has the authority to restrict:
1.
The type and size of watercraft and the size of motor that may be used in the
waters;
Areas of water that may be used by watercraft;
The speed of watercraft;
The times permitted for use of watercraft; and
The minimum distance between watercraft.
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Further, since each lake is unique, there is no requirement that all lakes within the City be
controlled by the same restrictions.
Provided that the assessment of local conditions is carefully done and all points of view are
considered, the above restrictions, if adopted by the City would be consistent with State rules and
Water Surface Management Standards.
DTM/ds
.
48.03 G)
.
48.03. REGULATING THE USE OF LILY LAKE AND LILY LAKE PARK.
Subdivision 1. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this ordinance the following
terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given
herein.
(1) "Flotation Devices" are any a~r inflated, styrofoam, or other
buoyant devices, including but not limited to inner tubes and air
mattresses, other than a U. S. Coast Guard approved life buoy or life
jacket, when properly worn.
(2) "Power Operated Watercraft" ~s any watercraft, including seaplanes
when not airborne, which is propelled by any means other than sail, oars,
paddles, poles, foot-operated paddle wheels, or electric trolling motors.
(3) "Alcoholic Beverage" includes intoxicating liquor as defined ~n
Ordinance No. 295 of the City of Stillwater.
(4) "Lily Lake Park" is that property owned by the City of Stillwater
used as a public park and abutting on Lily Lake described as follows:
.
Lots Fourteen (14) and Fifteen (15), Block Twenty (20), Holcombe's Second
Addition to the City of Stillwater, according to th~ plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Washington County,
Minnesota, Also all that part of the Southwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter (SW~ of NW~) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township
Thirty (30), Range Twenty (20) described as follows: Beginning at a point
where the South line of Lot 15, Block 20, Holcomb's Second Addition to the
City of Stillwater intersects with the Westerly line of South Greeley
Street; thence South along the Westerly line of South Greeley Street 195.2
feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing Southerly along the Westerly line of
South Greeley Street 155.4 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing Southerly
along the Westerly line of South Greeley Street 284.0 feet to an iron pipe;
thence deflecting to the right 11201' 692.1 feet to an iron pipe on the
West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW% of NW%);
thence North along said West line to the Northwest corner of said Southwest
quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW% of NW%); thence East along the North
line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest quarter (SW% of NW%), being
also the South Line of Lot Fifteen (15), Blo~k Twenty (20), Holcomb's
Second Addition, to the point of beginning,
.
And also all that part of the Northeast Quarter (NE~) of Section Thirty-two
(32), Township Thirty (30) North, Range Twenty (20) West, in the City of
Stillwater, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast
corner of the Northeast Quarter (NE%) of Section 32, Township 30 North,
Range 20 West, Stillwater, Minnesota; thence-North along the East line of
said Section 32 for 807 feet to the point of beginning of this description;
thence Northwesterly by a deflection angle to the left 50055' for 386.5
feet; thence North by a deflection angle to the right 50055' for 1,026
feet to its intersection with a line drawn parallel and 561.84 feet South
of the North line of said Section 32; thence East along said line drawn
parallel and 561.84 feet South of the North line of said Section 32 for 300
feet to its intersection with said East line of Section 32; thence South
along said East line of Section 32 for 1269.56 feet to the point of
beginning.
2-12-80
48.03 Subd. 1
(5) "Beach Premises" is that part of Lily Lake Park described as follows:
That area bounded on the South by the arena-beach house building; bounded .
on the West and the East by chain link fences running North and South to
the water's edge and continuing into the water of Lily Lake by strings
of white floating logs; bounded on the North by a string of white painted
floating logs running East and West.
vi
Subd. 2. POWER OPERATED WATERCRAFT.
watercraft on Lily Lake at any time.
No person shall operate a power operated
Subd. 3. FLOTATION DEVICES. No person shall enter the waters of Lily Lake
from Lily Lake Park with a flotation device or use the same within the beach
premise for other than emergency purposes.
Subd. 4. ENTRY TO LILY LAKE. No person shall enter the waters on Lily Lake
from the shoreline of Lily Lake Park as previously described herein except
at places designated by signs constructed and erected as follows: Metal sign
plate, stating either "boat launching" or "swimming area", and erected on
standard channel steel sign posts.
Subd. 5. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. No person shall conveyor consume any alcoholic
beverages upon the beach premises.
Subd. 6. HOURS OF USE OF BEACH PREMISES. No person shall be present upon the
beach premises or use beach equipment during hours when the beach premises are
not supervised by life guards or instructors employed for that purpose by the
City of Stillwater, or other authorized agency. .
Subd. 7. PENALTY. Any person who violates any provision of this ordinance
shall upon conviction thereof be guilty of a misdemeanor.
48.04. PROHIBITING CONSUMPTION AND POSSESSION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR ~~
NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR IN PIONEER PARK.
Subdivision 1. No person shall consume upon, introduce upon, or have in his
possession upon the public park known as Pioneer Park and located upon Block
8 of the Original Town (now city) of Stillwater, any intoxicating liquor or
non-intoxicating malt liquor, as defined in Chapter 340 of the Statutes of
the State of Minnesota.
Subd. 2. The City Council may upon its own motion or upon application waive
prohibitions of the above section for specific occasions, groups or individuals.
Subd. 3. PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of Section 1 of this
Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
48.05. PROHIBITING CONSUMPTION AND POSSESSION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND
NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR IN LOWELL PARK AND WASHINGTON PARK AND
ESTABLISHING A CURFEW IN PARKS WITHIN THE CITY.
Subd. 1. No person sahlI consume upon, introduce upon, or have in his
possession upon the public park, known as Lowell Park, or the public park, .
known as Washington Park, any intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating malt
liquor, as defined in Chapter 340 of the Statutes of the State of Minnesota.
2-12-80
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayt:llc Road
51. P;lUl. MinncSO!;l 55155-40_
(j)
To Whom it May Concern:
Each year the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) receives numerous inquiries regarding
water surface use management. This is general information concerning the rules and statutes that may govern
the water surface of lakes and rivers in Minnesota.
Water surfaces are managed through numerous statutes and rules. Minnesota Rules parts 6110.3000-.3800,
Water Surface Use Management (WSUM: Rules) describe the goals of the rules, requires an assessment of the
water surface use conditions, and establishes water surface management standards or parameters which may
be included in an ordinance. For more specific information, a copy of the statutes and rules are enclosed.
Any governmental unit formulating, amending or deleting controls for water surface use must submit the
following information to the DNR for review prior to adopting a proposed WSUM: ordinance:
.
1. Water surface worksheet - with a map ofthe water body (highlighting the
affected areas).
2. A statement explaining why the ordinance is needed and how this ordinance will
solve the problem.
3. A copy of the proposed ordinance (sample wording is included).
4. An account of the public hearing held concerning the proposed controls,
including an account of the statements of each person who testified.
If more than one governmental unit is involved in adopting an ordinance, all the governmental units with
jurisdiction over the particular body of water must agree with the ordinance. All the governmental units must
submit the required information to the DNR for approval. Enclosed is an example of a WSUM: ordinance
that was approved by the DNR. If for some reason DNR denies the proposed ordinance, then the denial will
be in the form of a letter which will explain the reasons for denial. The governmental unit may amend the
proposed ordinance in accordance with the denial letter and resubmit the proposed ordinance for a second
review by the DNR
The DNR will notify the governmental unit in writing of approval or denial within 120 days after receiving all
of the above information. Failure of the DNR to notify the governmental unit shall be considered approval.
The governmental unit adopting an ordinance must provide for notification of the ordinance to the public,
which involves placing signs at public watercraft launch sites outlining essential elem~nts of the ordinance.
If you would like further information on water surface use management, call the Department of Natural
Resources, Boat and Water Safety Section at (612) 297-5708.
Sincerely,
7~L~~<-~ :; jR~ J
T em 1. Roesler
Boating Staff Specialist
.
Enclosures
D:\R Information: /112-2%-6157. I-XO()-7/16-60(lO . TTY: 612-296-54X4. I-XOO-657-3929
.\n Flju.d Orp"nuflll: E:llpltlJl!'r
\\'110 \'allH." Dl\cr'lt:
ft. Pnllh:J IIn Rct.::\."kd P;Jr1,.'r C\mt.J.l.,in~ J
C. J \111111nul11 of 10'; PO"l{-Cnll..umc:r \\;.bll;."
.
Water Surface Use Rules
and Statutes
.
Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St Paul. MN 55155-4046
.
.
.
.
WATER SURFACE USE MANAGEMENT
6110.3000 POllCY.
It is the policy of this state to promote full use and enjoyment of waters of
the state, to promote safety for persons and property in connection with such use,
and to promote uniformity of laws relating to such use.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
6110.3100 SCOPE.
As part of implementing that policy, Minnesota Statutes, sections 378.32
and 459.20 authorize counties, cities, and towns to regulate by ordinance the use
of surface waters by watercraft, upon approval of any such ordinance by the com-
missioner. Minnesota Statutes, section 361.26, subdivision 2a authorizes the
commissioner to regulate such use by rule, upon request of a county, city, or
town, and after the rule is approved by the majority of the counties affected. Parts
6110.3000 to 6110.4200, however, shall not apply to units. of government other
than counties, cities, and towns, or to counties, cities, or towns adopting ordi-
nances identical to and on the same body of water as a lake conservation district
ordinance. .
Statutory Authority: }JS s 361.25
6110.3200 GOAL OF WATER SURFACE USE MANAGEMENT.
The goal of water surface use management shall be to enhance the recre-
ational use, safety, and enjoyment of the water surface of Minnesota and to pre-.
serve these water resources in a way that reflects the state's paramount concern
for the protection of its natural resources. In pursuit of that goal, an ordinance
or rule shall:
A. where practical and feasible, accommodate all compatible recre-
ational uses;
B. minimize adverse impact on natural resources;
C. minimize conflicts between users in a way that provides for maxi-
mum use, safety, and enjoyment; and
D. conform to the standards set in part 6110.3700.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
6110.3300 STATtITORY AUTHORITY.
Parts 6110.3000 to 6110.4200 are required by Minnesota Statutes, section
361.25. They provide procedures for the development and approval of rules.and
ordinances for resolving water surface use conflict by regulating:
A. type and size of watercraft;
B. type and horsepower of motors;
C. speed of watercraft;
D. time of use;
E. area of use; anc
F. the conduct of.other activities on the water body where necessary to
secure the safety of the public and the most general public use.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
6110.3400 JURISr~-:nON OF COMMISSIONER. r,
The commissioner shall exercise his discretion unu_i Minnesota Statutes,
se1:tion 361.26, subdivision 2 to regulate a water body when so requested by a
county, city, or town only when the water body:
A. is traversed by a state or international boundary; or
B. is within the jurisdiction of two or more counties which cannot agree
on the content of ordinances; and
C. regulation is necessary to achieve the goals in part 6110.3200.
In all other cases, water surface use regulation shall be by county, city, or
town ordinance as specified in Minnesota Statutes, sections 378.32 and 459.20.
If a body of water is located within the jurisdiction of two or more cities or towns
which cannot agree on the content of ordinances, any such city or town may peti-
tion the county in which they are located to adopt an ordinance.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
6110.3500 EXISTING ORDINANCES AND RULES.
All existing ordinances and rules adopted on or after January 1, 1975 affect-
ing water surface use shall be brought into compliance with parts 6110.3000 to
6110.4200 within a reasonable time period after promulgation of these parts.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
6110.3600 ASSESSMENT OF CONDmONS.
Subpart 1. Factors to consider. The commissioner of any governmental unit
formulating, amending, or deleting controls for surface waters shall acquire and
consider the following information, noting factors that are not relevant:
A. Physical characteristics:
. ( 1) size: normal surface acreage, if available, or the basin acreage
listed in the Division of Waters Bulletin No. 25, An Inventory of Minnesota
Lakes;
(2) crowding potenti3.l: expressed as a ratio of water surface area to
length of shoreline;
(3) bottom topography and water depth;
(4) shore soils and bottom sediments;
(5) aquatic flora and fauna;
(6) water circulation: for lakes, the existence and locations of strong
currents, inlets, and large water level fluctuations; for rivers and streams, velocity
and water level fluctuations;
(7) natural and artificial obstructions or hazards to navigation,
including but not limited to points, bars, rocks, stumps, weed beds, docks, piers,
dams, diving platforms, and buoys; and
(8) regional relationship: the locations and the level of recreational
use of other water bodies in the area.
B. Existing development:
(1) Private: to include number, location, and occupancy character-
istics of permanent homes, seasonal homes, apartments, planned unit develop.-
ments, resorts, marinas, campgrounds, and other residential, commercial, and
industrial uses.
(2) Public: to include type, location, size, facilities, and parking
capacity of parks, beaches, and watercraft launching facilities.
C. Ownership of shoreland: to include the location and managing gov-
ernmental unit of shoreline in federal, state, county, or city ownership as well as
private, semipublic, or corporate lands.
~.
."
,
\
"-
\
,
'.
4
.
.
2.
.
D. Public regulations and management: to include federal, state, or local
regulations and management plans and activities having direct effects on water-
craft use of surface waters.
E. History of accidents which have occurred on the surface waters.
F. Watercraft use: to include information obtained in the morning,
afternoon, and evening on at least one weekday and one weekend day, concerning
the number and types of watercraft in each of the following categories: kept or
used by riparians, rented by or gaining access through resorts or marinas, using
each public watercraft launching facility, in use on the waterbody.
G. Conflict perception and control preferences: to include opinions
gained by surveys or through public meetings or hearings of riparians, transients,
local residents, and the public at large.
Subp. 2. Written statement. Any governmental unit formulating, amending,
or deleting controls for surface waters shall submit to the commissioner the fol-
lowing: .
A. the information requested in subpart 1, portrayed on a map to the
extent reasonable;
B. a statement evaluating whether the information reveals significant
conflicts and explaining why the particular controls proposed were selected;
C. the proposed ordinance; and
D. a description of public hearings held concerning the proposed con-
trols, including an account of the statement of each person testifying.
Subp. 3. Ci>mmis~ioner review and approval. The commissioner shall require
the ordinance proposer to provide additional information of the kind described
in subpart 1 when needed in order to make an informed decision. The commis-
sioner shall approved the ordinance if it conforms with these rules.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
6110.3700 WATER SURFACE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS.
Subpart 1. Purpose. To promote uniformity of ordinances or rules on the use
of watercraft on surface waters of this state, to encourage compliance and to ease
enforcement, the commissioner and any government unit formulating such ordi-
nances or rules shall follow these standards. When formulating an ordinance or
rule, it is not required that all the standards listed below be incorporated into
every ordinance or rule. Rather, the commissioner or governmental unit shall
select from the standards listed below such standard(s) as are needed to regulate
the surface use of waters.
Subp. 2. Watercraft type and size. Controls may be formulated concerning
the type and/or size of watercraft permissible for use on surface water body(ies)
or portions thereo[ .
Subp. 3. Motor type and size. Controls, if any, concerning the maxim~?1 total
horsepower of motor(s) powering watercraft on surface waters shall utilize o~e
or more of the following horsepower cutoffs or motor types: 25 hp; 10 hp; electnc
motors; no motors.
Subp. 4. Direction of travel. Directional controls, if used, shall mandate
watercraft to follow a counterclockwise path of travel.
Subp. 5. Speed limits. Controls, if any, concerning the maximum speeds
allowable for watercraft on surface waters shall utilize one or more of the follow-
ing miles-per-hour cutoffs:
A. "'Slow-No Wake" means operation of a watercraft at the slowest pos-
sible speed necessary to maintain steerage and in no case greater than five mph.
B. 15 mph.
C. 40 mph.
.
.
3
.... .
~~. ~
Subp. 6. EffectiYe time. Controls must use one or more of the following time
periods.
A. sunrise to sunset or sunset to sunrise the following day;
B. 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.rn. to 9:00 a.m.. the following day;
C. noon to 6:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.rn. to noon the following day; .
D. all 24 hours of the day.
Controls must be in effect during one of the following calendar divisions: all
year; Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend; on all weekends and
legal holidays occurring within Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day week-
end.
Controls governing the use of watercraft may be adopted which are placed
into effect based upon specific water elevations.
Subp. 7. Area zoning. Co~trols shall clearly specify which portion of the
water body is affected by such controls.
Area controls may be formulated concerning any of the subject matter cov-
ered in the water surface management standards in subparts 2 to 9.
Controls concerning a "Slow-No Wake" shall be established for the entire
water body or portion thereof according to the following criteria: within 100 feet
or 150 feet from the shore; or where watercraft speed or wake constitutes a hazard
to persons, property, or the natural resources; or where it has been determined
that such control(s) would enhance the recreational use and enjoyment of the
majority of users. ..
Subp. 8. Conduct of other activities on a body of water. Controls formulated
by a governmental unit which restricts other activities (such as swimming or
scuba diving) shall conform to part 6110.3200. .
Subp. 9. Emergencies. In situations of local emergency, temporary special
controls may be enacted by a county, city, or town for a period not more than
five days without the commissioner's approval. The commissioner shall be noti-
fied, however, as soon as practicable during this five-day period.
Subp. 10. Additional evidence. A government unit may submit additional
evidence if it feels that variance from the afore-stated standards is necessary to
best address a particular problem. The commissioner will review such evidence
and shall 2.T3.nt a variance if there are circumstances peculiar to the body or
bodies of water in question of such magnitude as to overshadow the goal of uni-
formity.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
6110.3800 ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
Subpart 1. Enforcement and penalties. Any government unit adopting ordi-
nances pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 378.32 and 459.20 shall provide
for their enforcement and prescribe penalties for noncompliance. Rules estab-
lished pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 361.26 shall be enforced by con-
servation officers of the Department of Natural Resources and the sheriff of each
county.
Rules or ordinances shall contain a provision exempting authorized resource
management, emergency, and enforcement personnel when acting in the perfor-
mance of their assigned duties. They may also provide for temporary exemptions
from controls through the use of permits issued by the unit of government adopt-
ing the ordinance or rule.
Subp. 2. Commissioner's approval for proposed ordinances. Any governmen-
tal unit formulating ordinances or desiring amendments and deletions to existing
ordinances shall submit the written statement required by these rules with the
proposed ordinance to the commissioner pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section
4-
"
'~.
\.
~ ~
.
.
.
378.32 for his approval or disapproval. Determination of approval or disap-
proval shall be baSed upon the written statement and the compatibility of the
ordinance with these rules. If the proposed ordinance is disapproved by the com-
missioner and a satisfactory compromise cannot be established, the governmen-
tal unit may initiate a contested case hearing to settle the matter. .
The commissioner shall notify the governmental unit in writing of his
approval or disapproval of proposed ordinances within 120 days after receiving
them pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 378.32. Failure to so notify shall
be considered approval.
Subp. 3. Public notice. Any governmental unit adopting ordinances shall pro-
vide for adequate notification of the public, which shall include placement of a
sign at each public watercraft launching facility outlining essential elements of
such ordinances, as well as the placement of necessary buoys and signs. All such
signs and buoys shall meet requirements specified in Minnesota Statutes, section
361 and parts 6110.1500 to 6110.1900.
The commissioner shall publish and update at his discretion a listing of
watercraft use rules and ordinances on surface waters of the state for distribution
to the public.
Statutory Authority: MS s 361.25
~
CHAPTER 86B
.
REGULATION OF SURFACE WATER USE
86B.201 STATE LAW AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AUTHORITY.
Subdivision 1. Application of state law. The provisions of this chapter and of other
applicable laws of this state shall govern the operation, equipment, numbering, and all
other related matters for a watercraft operated on the waters of this state, or the time
when an activity regulated by this chapter may take place.
Subd. 2. Local authority to adopt ordinance. (a) This chapter does not limit the
authority of a political subdivision of this state to adopt regulations that are not incon-
sistent with this chapter and the rules of the commissioner relating to the use of waters
of this state that are wholly or partly within the territorial boundaries of a county or
entirely within the boundaries of a city.
(b) A city of the first class of over 200,000 or the park board of the city may forbid
the use of motorboats or boats with attached motors on its lakes.
History: 1990 c 391 art 9 s 9
.
86B.205 WATER SURFACE USE ORDINANCE.
Subdi:vision 1. Assistance. The commissioner shall develop and publish guidelines
to assist counties adopting water surface use ordinances for waters within their jurisdic-
tion.
Subd. 2. Surface use ordinances. (a) A county board may, by ordinance, regulate
the surface use of bodies of water located entirely or partially within the county and
not located entirely within the boundary of a single city or lake conservation district
established by law.
5
~. ~
(b ~ If a body ?f wate~ is located within more than one county, a surface use ordi-
nance is not effectIve until adopted by the county boards of all the counties where the
body of water lies under section 471.59 or placed into effect by order of the commis-
sioner under subdivision 9.
(c) With the authorization of an affected city or lake conservation district, a county
board may assume and exercise the powers in subdivisions 2 to S with respect to bodies
of water lying entirely within that city or lake conservation district. The regulation by
the county of the surface use ofa portIon ofa body of water located within the boun~
of a city must be consistent with any city regulation existing on May 25, 1973, of the
surface use of that portion of the body of water. After January 1,1975, the ordinance
must be consistent with the provisions of this chapter and rules of the commissioner
under this chapter.
Subd. 3. Prior ordinances invalid without approval. A surface use zoning ordinance
adopted under subdivisions 2 to 5 by a local governmental unit after May 25, 1973,
is invalid unless it is approved by the commissioner.
Subd. 4. Approval of ordinances~ A proposed surface use zoning ordinance must
be submitted to the commissioner for review and approval before adoption. The com-
missioner must approve or disapprove the proposed ordinance within 120 days after
receiving it. If the commissioner disapproves the proposed ordinance, the commis-
sioner must return it to the local governmental unit with a written statement of the rea-
sons for disapproval.
Subd. 5. County regulatory authority. A county board may:
( 1) regulate and police public beaches, public docks, and other public facilities for
access to a body of water, except:
(i) regulations are subject to subdivision 6;
(ii) a county board may not regulate state accesses; and
(iii) a municipality may by ordinance preempt the county from exercising power
under this subdivision within its jurisdiction;
(2) regulate the construction, configuration, size, location, and maintenance of
commercial marinas and their related facilities including parking areas and sanitary
facilities in a manner consistent with other state law and the rules of the commissioner
of natural resources, the pollution control agency, and the commissioner of health, and
with the applicable municipal building codes and zoning ordinances where the marinas
are located;
(3) regulate the construction, installation, and maintenance of permanent and
temporary docks and moorings in a manner consistent with state and federal law, per-
mits required under chapter 103G, and sections 86B.111 and 86B.11 S;
(4) except as provided in subdivision 6, regulate the type and size of watercraft
allowed to use the body of water and set access fees;
(5) subject to subdivision 6. limit the types and horsepower of motors used on the
body of water;
(6) limit the use of the body of water at various times and the use of various parts
of the body of water; .
(7) regulate the speed of watercraft on the body of water and the conduct of other
activities on the body of water to secure the safety of the public and the most general
public use; and
(8) c'ontract with other law enforcement agencies to police the body of water and
its shore.
~
~
,
.
.
.
.
.
Subd. 6. Public: aexess restrictions. The county board must allow the same types
and sizes -of watercraft and horsepower of motors to access and enter the lake or water
body as are generally allowed to be operated on the lake or water body. Special use
exceptions that are not dependent on lakeshore or property ownership may be granted
by permit.
Subd. 7. County acquisition of public access. A county board may acquire by pur-
chase, gift, or devise land for public access to a lake or stream and may improve the
land as a park or playground if the land is less than ten acres and is contiguous to the
meander line of a navigable lake or stream wholly or partly within the county and not
entirely within the corporate limits of a city.
Subd. 8. Advisory assistance. The county board may invite any municipal council
or town board or the soil and water conservation district board of supervisors or water-
shed district board of managers to designate a representative to advise and consult with
the county board on water use r~lation and improvement.
Subd. 9. Watercn.ft use rules for loc.aJ waters. (a) On request of a county, city, or
town, the commissioner may, after determining it to be in the public interest, establish
rules relating to the use of watercraft on waters of this state that border upon or are .
within, in whole or in part, the territorial boundaries of the governmental unit.
(b) The rules shall be established in the manner provided by sections 14.02 to
14.62, but may not be submitted to the attorney general nor filed with the secretary of
state until first approved by resolutions of the county boards of a majority of the coun-
ties affected by the proposed rules.
(c) The rules may restrict:
( 1) the type and size of watercraft and size of motor that may use the waters
affected by the rule; .
(2) the areas of water that may be used by watercraft;
(3) the speed of watercraft;
(4) the times pe~itted for use of watercraft; or
(5) the minimum distance between watercraft.
(d) When establishing rules, the commissioner shall consider the physical charac-
teristics of the waters affected, their historical uses, shoreland uses and classification,
and other features unique to the waters affected-by the rules.
(e) The commissioner shall inform the users of the waters of the rules affecting
them at least two weeks before the effective date of the rules by distributing copies of
the rules and by posting of the public accesses of the waters. The failure of the commis-
sioner to comply with this paragraph does not affect the validity of the rules or a convic-
tion for violation of the rules.
(1) The cost of publishing rules and of marking and posting waters under this sub-
division shall be paid by the counties affected by the rules, as apportioned by the com-
miSSioner.
(g) Regulations or ordinances relating to the use of waters of this state enacted by
a local governmental unit before January I, 1972, shall continue in effect until repealed
by the local governmental unit or superseded by a rule of the commissioner adopted
under this subdivision.
History: 1990 c 391 art 9 s 10
'1
~'.
"
86B.211 WATER SAFETY RULES.
The commissioner shall adopt rules and publish the rules in the manner prescribed
in section 97 A.051, subdivision 3, that relate to:
(1) the application for, form, and numbering of watercraft licenses;
(2) the size, form, reflectorized material, and display of watercraft .1icensc num-
bers, which must comply with the requirements of the federal watercraft numbering
system;
(3) placement and regulation of docks, piers, buoys, mooring or marking devices,
and other structures in the waters of this state;
(4) rules of the road for watercraft navigation;
(5) standards for equipment used in the towing of persons on water skis, aqua-
planes, surfboards, saucers, and other devices;
(6) standards for lights, signals, fire extinguishers, bilge ventilation, and lifesaving
equipment;
(7) standards of safe load and power capacity;
(8) accounting, procedural, and reporting requirements for county sheriff;
(9) designation of swimming or bathing areas;
( 1 0) standards of safety for watercraft offered for rent, lease, or hire;
(11) the use of surface waters of this state by watercraft as provided and inaccor-
dance with section 86B.205, subdivision 9, paragraphs (c) and (d), including:
(i) standards and criteria for resolving conflicts in the use of water surfaces by
watercraft;
(ii) procedures for dealing with problems involving more than one local govern-
mental unit;
(iii) procedures for local enforcement; and
(iv) procedures for enforcing the restrictions in section 86B.20S, subdivision 9,
paragraph (c); and
(12) other rules determined by the commissioner to be necessary to implement the
provisions of this chapter.
History: J 990 c 391 art 9 s J J
LAKE IMPROVEME~-r DISTRICIS
~
"~I
~l
.
103B.551 BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Subdivision 1. Membenhip. After a lake improvement district is es~b~i~hed, the
county board or joint county authority shall aPI?<>int persons to serve as an lOltlal board
of directors for the district. The number, quahficatlOnS, terms of offic.e, removal, and
filling of vacancies of directors shall be as provided. in the order ~reatlOg the board of
directors. The initial and all subsequent boards of duectors must lOclude p.ersons own-
ing property within the district, and a majority of the directors must be reSidents of the
district. .
Subd. 2. Compensation. The directors shall serve with comP7nsation as dete:-
mined by the property owners at the annual meeting and may be reimbursed for theIr
~
"
.
.
.
_actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties in the manner
provided for county employees.
Subd. 3. Powers. County boards. joint cOUilty authorities, statutory and home rule
cities, and towns may, by order, delegate the powers in this section to the board of direc-
tors of a district to be exercised within the district. Programs and services undertaken
must be consistent with the statewide water and related land resources plan prepared
by the commissioner of natural resources and with regional water and related land
resources plans. A body of water may not be improved by using authority granted under
this section unless the public has access to some portion of the shoreline. County
boards, joint county authorities, statutory and home rule cities, and towns may delegate.
their authority to a district board of directors to:
( 1) acquire by gift or purchase an existing dam or control works that affects the
level of waters in the district;
(2) construct and operate water control structures that are approved by the com-
missioner of natural'resources under section l03G.245;
(3) undertake projects to change the course current or cross section of public
waters that are approved by the commissioner of natural resources under section 103G.
245;
(4) acquire property, equipment, or other facilities, by gift or purchase to improve
navigation;
(5) contract with a board of managers of a watershed district within the lake
improvement district or the board of supervisors of a soil and water conservation dis-
trict within the district for improvements under chapters l03C and 103D;
(6) undertake research to determine the condition and development of the body
of water and the water entering it and to transmit the results of the studies to the pollu-
tion control agency and other interested authorities;
(7) develop and implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution;
(8) conduct a program of water improvement and conservation;
(9) construct a water, sewer, or water and sewer system in the manner provided
by section 444.075 or other applicable laws;
(10) receive financial assistance from and participate in projects or enter into con-
tracts with federal and state agencies for the study and treatment of pollution problems
and related demonstration programs;
(11) make cooperative agreements with the United States or state government or
other counties or cities to effectuate water and related land resource programs;
(12) maintain public beaches, public docks, and other public facilities for access
to the body of water,
(13) provide and finance a gov..ernment service of the county or statutoI1:' or.home
rule city that is not provided throughout the county or, if the government servIce IS pro-
vided the service is at an increased level within the district; and
, .
(14) regulate water surface use as provided in sections 86B.205, 103G.605, and
l03G.617.
History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 40
'J
N.
~
pARK DISTR.Icr
398.08 GENERAL POWERS.
Park districts shall have all the rights, powers, privileges and immunities of a
municipal corporation at common law and they shall be subject to the duties of a
municipal corporation at common law. Except as otherwise limited in this chapter they
shall have perpetual succession. may sue and be sued, may use a corporate seal, may
acquire by lease. purchase. gift, condemnation or otherwise such real and personal
property as the purposes ofthe board may require and may hold, manage, control, sell,
convey, lease or otherwise dispose of such property or its interests therein. The board
shall have full authority to exercise all the powers of the district, to make all necessary
or desirable contracts, to procure public liability and other insurance protection as may
be necessary or desirable, to hire and employ help and assistance as its needs require,
to exercise the power of eminent domain, to enact ordinances and to declare that the
violation thereof shall be a penal offense and to presc.ribe the penalties thereof. not to
exceed a fine of $100, or imprisonment in a statutory city or county jail for a period
of not more than 90 days, or both, and in either case the cost of prosecution may be
added to the penalties imposed. The board shall have full power and authority to
acquire and establish parks and to operate, maintain, protect, improve and preserve
a park system and to conduct a recreational program in its parks.
History: 1955 c 806 s 8; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7
398.09 SPECIFIC POWERS.
Park district boards in addition to the foregoing general powers shall have these
specific powers:
(a) The power to regulate by ordinance the use of the waters of any lake lying
wholly within a park established under this chapter and the use of any lake shore which
is within a park established under this chapter and the waterfront immediately abutting
such lake shore for noUo exceed 300 feet therefrom. by all persons, including persons
boating., swimming, fishing, skating or otherwise, in, upon or about said lake. lake shore
and abutting waterfront, subject to regulation by the state of Minnesota.
cn~ AND TOWNS
\
~
\~
.
459.20 AUTHORITY OVER PUBUC WATERS.
The governing body of any home rule charter or statutory city or town in the state
has, with respect to any body of water situated wholly within its boundaries. all the pow-
ers to improve and regulate the use of such body of water subject to section 86B.205,
subdivision 6, as are conferred on county boards by sections 86B.205 and 103F.801,
and to establish and administer lake improvement districts under sections 103B.501
to 103B.581. With respect to any body of water situated wholly within the contiguous
boundaries of two or more home rule charter or statutory cities or towns or any combi-
nation thereof, the city councils and town boards may, under the provisions of section
471.59, jointly exercise such powers to improve and regulate the use of the body of
water subject to section 103F.751, as are conferred on county boards by sections 86B.
205 and 103F.801, and to establish and administerlake improvement districts as pro-
vided under sections 103B.501 to 103B.581, provided that no home rule charter or stat-
utory city or town may establish and administer a lake improvement district or ex.ercise .
any of the powers granted in this section if a lake improvement district covering the
same territory has been created by a county board under sections 103B.501 to 103B.
581. References in sections 86B.20S. 103B.501 to 1038.581, and 103F.801 to theicounty board shall be construed to refer to the governing body of a home rule charter
or statutory city or the board of supervisors of a town.
If)
.
.
.
APPLICANTS FOR WATER SURFACE USE ORDINANCES ARE REQUIRED BY MINN.
RULE 6110.3600 TO SUPPLY TIIE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING THE WATER
BODY TO BE REGULATED. YOU MAY USE THIS FORM OR SEPARATE SHEETS TO
PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION. (pLEASE NOTE ANY INFORMATION
)HA T IS NOT RELEVANT.)
1. Physical Characteristics
a. Size _ normal surface acreage, if available, or the basin acreage listed in the Division of
Waters Bulletin No. 25 "An Inventory of Minnesota Lakes."
surface acres (or)
basin average
b. Crowding potential- expressed as a ratio of water surface area to length of shoreline.
surface acres:
miles of shoreline
c. Bottom topography and water depth (deepest & average) (available from DNR regional
or area fisheries headquarters).
d. Shore soils and bottom sediments (available from DNR regional or area fisheries
headquarters) .
e. Aquatic flora and fauna (available from DNR regional or area fisheries headquarters).
f. Water Circulation
F or Lakes: the existence and locations of strong currents, inlets, and large water level
fluctuations.
For Rivers and Streams: velocity and water level fluctuations.
~'.
~
\
"-
'~
"
g. Natural and artificial obstructions or hazards to navigation, including but not limited to
points, bars, rocks, stumps, weed beds, docks, piers, dams, diving platforms, and buoys.
\.
'4 ~
h. Regional relationship - the locations and the level of recreational use of other water bodies
in the area.
2. Existing development.
a. Private - to include number, location, and occupancy characteristics of permanent homes,
seasonal homes, apartments, planned unit developments, resorts, marinas, campgrounds, and
other residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
b. Public - to include type, location, size, facilities, and parking capacity of parks, beaches, .
and watercraft launching facilities.
3, Ownership of shoreland - to include the location and managing governmental unit of shoreline in
federal, state, county, or city ownership as well as private semi-public, or corporate lands.
4. Public regulations and management - to include federal, state or local regulations and management
plans and activities having direct effects on watercraft use of surface waters.
.
.
.
.
5. History of accidents which have occurred on the surface waters (available from sheriff's office).
6. Watercraft use _ to include information obtained in the morning, afternoon and evening on at least
one weekday and one weekend day, concerning the number of types of watercraft in each of the
following categories:
a. Kept or used by riparians.
b. Rented by or gaining access through resorts or marinas.
c. Using each public watercraft launching facility.
d. In use on the waterbody.
7. Conflict perceptiotl and control preferences - to include opinions, gained by surveys or through
public meetings or hearings of riparians, transients, local residents, and the public at large.
IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, APPLICANTS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE:
1. The information requested in Minn. Rule 6110.3600, portrayed on a map to the extent reasonable.
~.
~
'\
'"
t-"
2. A statement evaluating whether the infonnation reveals significant conflicts and explaining why the
particular controls proposed were selected.
3. The proposed ordinance.
4, A description of public hearings held concerning the proposed controls, including an account of
the statement of each person testifying.
NMffi (TYPE OR PRINT)
SIGNATURE
TITLE OF PERSON
COMPLETING FORM:
Return Completed Form To:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Boat and Water Safety Section
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4046
~
.
.
SAMPLE ORDINANCE
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
(CITY OR TOWN OF )
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SURFACE USE OF (specify body of water).
. Be it ordained and enacted by the ( County Board of Commissioners, City
Councilor Town Board), State of Minnesota, that these amendments following, by this act,
hereby replace and nullifY those like numbered clauses now existing and a part of (County, City or
Town) Ordinance No. , or are newly enacted sections which, upon their enactment, become
a part of (County, City or Town) Ordinance No.
.
Section 1.: PURPOSE, INTENf AND APPLICATION: As authorized by Minnesota
Statutes 86B.201, 86B.205, and 459.20, AND Minnesota Rules 6110.3000 - 6110.3800 as now in
effect and as hereafter amended, this Ordinance is enacted for the purpose and with the intent to
control and regulate the use of the waters of in (County. City. or Town) Minnesota, said
bodies of water being located entirely within the boundaries of (County, City or Town), to promote
its fullest use and enjoyment by the public in general and the citizens of (County. City or Town) in
particular; to insure safety for persons and property in connection with the use of said waters; to
harmonize and integrate the varying uses of said waters; and to promote the general health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of (CountYr City or Town), Minnesota.
Section 2.: SURFACE ZONING OF (SPECIFY BODY OF WATER) BY
RESTRlCTING SPEEDS DURING CERTAIN HOURS:
(a) During the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on each and every day of the week,
motorboats shall be subject to a 40 11PH speed limit.
(b) During the hours of6:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on the following day, on each and every
day of the week, no motorboat shall be operated in excess offifteen (15) miles per hour.
Section 3.: ENFORCEMENT: The primary enforcement of this Ordinance shall be
the responsibility of the peace officers of (specify name of communitv) or the County
Sheriffs Department.
Section 4.: EXEMPTIONS: All authorized Resource Management, Emergency and
Enforcement Personnel, while acting in the performance of their assigned duties are exempt from the
foregoing restrictions.
.
Section 5.: NOTIFICATION: It shall be the responsibility of the (City, County or
T own) to provide for adequate notification of the public, which shall include placement of a sign at
-
"
\
"\
each public watercraft access outlining essential elements of the ordinance, as well as the placement
of necessary buoys and signs. .
Section 6.: PENALTIES: Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine
of not more than Seven Hundred Dollars ($700.00) or by imprisonment of not more than ninety (90)
days, or both.
Section 7.: EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the
date of its passage a~d publication.
Passed by the (CountY Board of Commissioners, City Councilor Town Board) on this
day of ,19_.
.
.
.
,/
/'
(
"
(j~
..":'::'1:>/ /~ ':
~~p. ">1/>
(0::'
;:~1
-~ /
/(;V! $.-')'/
tf;',p ( ~~:f~-
: i.____~/ ~:/
,~5'1
J J I
-~~5'//
,,-" iN.~ .:.. -
/ 5' )/'~
/~
:~) J"(
, j
\' \
'\ ~'t.
'\: \
'\\
"
'\
~\
\\
'\\
\
.:-__0..----
l-
\: -
,--, ,.~ S"I
,~j~,
'\..c..;:'':'
.
s'
,.
r
/---.
..--' .~
,.-/.-
.~ /'
.,
,~
\,
-,/
.,..~7'
"1'
'/ -_. '--}i,.
~~. 5v \~?,,\
~/-:-- at . '\
. .// -. "'- 10' I~~")) /~'~
; ,.-/ r------:...., -1r..:.:;-, ,~~" " I
1/ il,~' '/ / _~ '~\'I~' CoO.
// I I,', ...' I.' ) // _
./ :" ........ '--.>, ",.;, ~~>/~,., '~\ :,"~:j '.'.,:;:::;
, ~ . .C=l:":; \\ ,."-",, .'"'"
'~J ;: i // /;. n "" . ,
,~/' .-
" ------S~ ~/
'~ .'
C:., /~-
","~
). \.:~'
;..., ':<Y
:.v< \
\
\
); ....,:.i(~
"., -
,.
..: ').
:':"" __'_. ~-:-"!.~ ::7"
~iO.':''1!:O .C.~W
_;c.~;:,'..'::7:;;''':; .~:;:.,
- .:;- . .. . - .~ __ "0::
_l:I.i;'~ ;; !:".:':l;) ..L";~!::"_~l:::
rcp OF r':'STE"I't'.n:H !O" C:..C ON
";.;nt'1:.:..,7 ::;:C
:.:" ;T/L!.:'t':';-~3
\
\.
\
\
~-';='::'::==-=':"'-='- -:-~=:z:zq
;.~.. i..":' .. . ~ :..
\'(,
\
\
\
\
\
'.U:dIE:;~U
OE~"RT"C:"'T ':F 'jATU;tAL 'HSCURC:::S
..,l.Kc.
.:aJT:"IN[ i)ROlW~. ;:,C;,& .'3:'7 5L.uEl-I"'E
AE'l:IAl- "HOTO $nEET NO. 113-2
"::"'lC~VC7jCN CF T"l$ ~A;> f1Ei:l~I;::!:S .=1110;[.'1:
::;~;:T ~
70 1)1"I::iC:-i :: ,~~" A:l::l AjIL::lL!'!;.
"
~
\
\,..,...,~..".
h(P,.'r1Hl~r\l ,,1
AJ\i"rII"r....oo
..~ :;:" .;.:) .;'": ::',
. :'-:;..;:::' .=I,;"'J
O~.:;A ~i.\l ::~! 7'
., J:l ~ 1;-:"
CF ~I:-~R~L ~~SOURC~
Minnesota's EJookstom
P;utol UIQ Dcpa1tnlOfltol AdmJnistr.ltion
PfinfConmunicll1iOlJSDMsion
To order reproduced copie s 0'
ContourLakeMapscaU:
112/2i7-JOOO or 0....
Nltionwldeloil-fr88 number
-800-&57-3757
C1VI,:-;CN OF F~SH ":':-..10 WilDLIFE
C::OLCGIC~L ::::::;ViC::.3 5.::::,iCN
LONG LAKE (32- 21)
WASHING.eN C2CNTY
@) ~~:Tyt~~'~~:~OTA": ,. f~: N~
OfF'AR";'M:~T 0; NATURAL RESOURCES
CIVISION OF ~ISH AND W1LOLIFE
T.:50N.
:":':';\'1,
FIELDWORK OW? JII.!).
C'1;,IIW~ BY S.C.llol.
DATE 5/ )1/79
C~TE 7/7/80
C.?7?()
.
~c;;.::s
~\:~ES,
:IIIU:3
!MIll!3
S.~').~l
;>lI:OJ.IOEt
.
.
.
06/10/96
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Section of Fisheries
Lake Information Report for LONG
@
Lake name:
Alternate name:
Date of survey:
Division of Waters inventory number:
Nearest town:
Primary county:
LONG
N/A
07/06/92
82-0021-00
STILL WATER
Washington
Public Access
Ownership
Type
Location/Comments
Unknown
Unknown
FIELD CREW ACCESSED THE LAKE OFF OF INTERLACHEN
DRIVE ON THE NORTH END.
Lake Characteristics
Lake area (acres):
Area less than 15 ft deep (acres):
Maximum depth (feet):
Water clarity (secchi depth, feet):
Dominant bottom substrate (less than 4 feet deep):
Abundance of aquatic plants:
M~imum depth of plant growth (feet):
110.00
106.00
22.00
1.80
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish Sampled for the 1992 Survey Year
Number of Fish per Net
Average Fish Normal Range*
Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range* Weight (lbs) (lbs)
White Sucker Gill net 0.5 0.5 - 7.4 1.00 1.0 - 2.2
Golden Shiner Gill net 0.5 0.4 - 4.3 0.10 0.1 - 0.1
Black Crappie Gill net 1.5 1.5 - 14.7 0.12 0.1 - 0.3
Black Bullhead Gill net 217.0 9.6 - 91.4 0.07 0.2 - 0.5
Page 2
Lake Information Report for LONG
06/10/96
Fish Sampled for the 1982 Survey Year (continued)
Number of Fish per Net
Average Fish
Caught Normal Range* Weight (lbs)
Normal Range*
(lbs)
.
Species
Gear Used.
White Sucker Trap net 0.8 0.3 - 2.2 0.93 1.1 - 2.5
Snapping Turtle Trap net 1.0 N/A - N/A trace N/A - N/A
Green Sunfish Trap net 1.0 0.2 - 2.0 0_08 0.1 - 0.2
Golden Shiner Trap net 0.2 0.2 - 1.0 0.05 0.1 - 0.1
Brown Bullhead Trap net 0.6 1.4 - 6.6 0.47 0.3 - 0.7
Black Crappie Trap net 7.0 2.4 - 15.1 0.10 0.2 - 0.4
Black Bullhead Trap net 41.2 2.2 - 60.5 0.10 0.2 - 0.5
* Normal ranges represent typical catches for lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics.
Length of Selected Species Sampled from All Gear for the 1992 Survey Year
Number of fish caught for the following length categories (inches):
Species
0-5
6-8
9-11
12-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
>30
Total
Black Crappie
Black Bullhead
3
74
3
75
Fish Stocked by Species and Size for the Last Five Years
.
Year
Species
Age*
Number
>>> No record of fish-stocking was found <<<
Status of the Fishery (as of 07/06/92)
GAMEFISH WERE OBSERVEQ. LOW NUMBERS OF SMALL BLC WERE SAMPLED. ABOVE AVERAGE NUMBERS OF SMALL GSF
WERE NETTED. HIGH NUMBERS OF SMALL-SIZED BLB AND BRB WERE CAUGHT. LOW NUMBERS OF SMALL WTS WERE
OBSERVED. AVERAGE NUMBERS OF SMALL GOS WERE CAPTURED. SHORELINE SEINING SHOWED MODERATE NUMBERS OF
Y-O-Y BLHi NO SMALL SUNFISH OR CRAPPIES WERE TAKEN.
.
Page 3
Lake Information Report for LONG
06/10/96
For Additional Information
.
Area fisheries supervisor:
Minnesota ONR Area Fisheries Headquarters
1200 IJARNER ROAD
ST. PAUL, MN 55106
(612) 772-7950
Lake maps can be obtained from:
Minnesota Bookstore
117 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 297-3000 or (800) 657-3757
To order, use C2720 map-id.
General DNR Information:
DNR Information Center
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4040
(612) 296-6157 TOO (612) 296-5484
(800) 766-6000 TOO (800) 657-3929
Turn In Poachers (I'IP):
(800) 652-9093
Weigh Your Fish With A Ruler
IJeighing a fish with a scale can harm or even kill it.
You can estimate the weight of a fish safely and fairly
accurately by measuring its length and finding the
corresponding weight on the charts shown below.
Northern Pike
Inches 24 25 26 ~ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Pounds 3.9 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.2 7.0 7.7 8.5 9.3 10.2 11.2 12.2 13.3 14.5 15.7 16.9 18.3 19.6 21.2
ffalleye
Inches 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Pounds 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.5 5.1 5_7 6.5 7.2 8.1 9.0
Largemouth Bass
Inches 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Pounds 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 5.0 5.7 6.6 7.6
Crappie
Inches 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Pounds 0.4 0.6 0..8 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.4 4.1
Note: IJeights given are estimations only.
Actual weights vary by lake and stream.
Copyright 1994. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources.
Reproduction of this material without express written authorization
of the Department of Natural Resources is prohibited.
.
.
.
.
.n
-
l\11
Bonestroo
Rosene
Anderlil< &
Associates
Bonesrroo. Rosene. Anderlik and Associares. Inc. is an AffI,matlVe Aerion/Equal Opponuniry Employe'
Principals: Quo G. Bonestroo. PE. . Joseph C. And~rlik. PE, . Marvin L. Sorva/a. PE. .
Richard E. Turner. PE. . Glenn R, Cook. PE. . Thomas E. Noyes. PE. . Robert G. SchuOlcht. P.E. .
Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. . Robert W. Rosene. PE. and Susan M, Eberlin. C.PA.. SenIor Consultants
Associare Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE. . Keith A. Gordon. PE.. Roberr.R. Pfefferle. PE. .
Richard W. Foster. PE. . Oavid O. Loskota. PE. . Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. . Mark A. Hanson. P.E. .
Michael T. Rautmann. PE. . Ted K.Field. PE. . Kenneth P Anderson. PE. . Mark R. Rolfs. PE. .
Sidney P. Williamson. P.E.. L.S. . Robert F, Kotsmith
Offices: St Paul. Rochester. Willm~r and St. Cloud. MN . Mequon. WI
Engineers & Architects
(Y
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DA TE:
Steve Russell, City of Stillwater .
Sherri Buss, Bonestroo & Associates~
Recreation and Environmental Impacts on Long Lake
April 7, 1997
The AUAR for the Stillwater Annexation Area is evaluating the effects of development
of the Area on natural resources. As a part of this process, we will look at the potential
effects of increased recreational use on Long Lake. The City of Stillwater is looking at
some of these same issues in developing policies for recreational use of lakes in the City.
Research on this issue suggests that recreational use, particularly motorized use, could
affect the lake in various ways. The sections below summarize these issues and results of
recent research.
Motor boat impacts on water quality
Temporary reduced water clarity due to increased turbidity is the main impact of
motor boats on water quality. Several research studies have been completed in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other parts of the U.S. on this issue. The studies generally
focus on the consequences of resuspension of sediments and associated nutrients (like
phosphorus) by motor boat activity. Water clarity decreased by about 10 percent on
weeken<:ls (heaviest boating traffic times) on average in the Wisconsin lakes studied.
Numerous studies have documented decreased water clarity and increased turbidity
related to motor boat activity. In the Wisconsin and Minnesota studies, these changes
were most prevalent in shallow waters (lake areas less than 1.5 meters deep). Fine-
grained bottom sediments in lake areas with little or no aquatic vegetation are most easily
resuspended.
Studies in Florida also noted an increase in phosphorus levels associated with increased
resuspension of sediments due to motor boat activity. (Phosphorus is a concern because
it is a nutrient that encourages algal growth in lakes.) The Wisconsin ~tudy also showed
increases in phosphorus, but not in levels as high as those observed in Forida. Lakes with
the largest proportion of shallow areas had the largest increases in phosphorus.
In Wisconsin, increased phosphorus in lake water was more likely to result in increased
algal growth in northern lakes (with soft-water sediments) than in lakes in the southern
half of the state (hard-water sediments).
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 · 612-636-4600
Some speakers at the public meeting on Long Lake suggested that motor boat activity
might improve water quality by aerating lake water. All of the studies indicated that
motorized watercraft are not a significant force in the aeration of lakes. Even in areas
where turbidity and phosphorus were greatly increased, the increase in dissolved oxygen
due to motors was statistically insignificant.
.
While motor boat activity was found to affect turbidity and water quality in lakes, the
Wisconsin study and others indicated that wind resuspension of sediments, carp activity,
and seasonal changes in lakes are all greater factors in increased tubidity and reduced
water clarity than motor boat activity, even in shallow lake areas.
Other impacts of motor boat activity
Pollution from fuel. Before 1975, up to half the fuel consumed by outboard motors was
discharged unburned into the aquatic environment. Since the fuel crisis of the 1970's,
technology has changed and fuel efficiency has increased dramatically. Typically fuel
waste is less than 1 percent in a well-tuned, modem engine. In most of the U.S., less
than 25 percent of the engines in use are older models.
Shoreline erosion. Various studies have shown that motorized watercraft can create
shoreline erosion if the shoreline is susceptible. Shoreline conditions and vegetative
cover are important factors here, and management of these factors can help to prevent
erosion. Adopting the City's new Shoreland Management Ordinance, and encouraging
lake shore owners to maintain an un mown buffer of native vegetation along shorelines
would probably help to reduce erosion.
.
Damage to submerged plant communities. Motorized watercraft can damage submerged
plant communities. This is more likely where plants are at deptl}s of less than five feet.
Both the physical impacts of the craft and the increased turbidity (lower light levels)
caused by motors can damage or inhibit vegetation. Damage is most critical during the
spring growth period.
Dispersal of exotic plants. Motorized watercraft help to disperse exotic plants like
Eurasian water milfoil within and among lakes. Boat owners should inspect and clean
boats that ate used on other lakes where Eurasian water mil(oil may be a problem.
Altered animal communities. One of the studies reviewed suggested that watercraft can
increase human disturbance of nests and place stress on wildlife populations.
Disturbances can also occur from other human activities around the lake. There are few
studies avail~ble that quantify the effects of watercraft on wildlife populations. One
study noted that when boats disturbed adult birds, their nests became increasingly
vulnerable to predation.
.
~
Asplund, Timothy R., Im acts of Motor Boats on Warer ualit in Wisconsin Lakes,
Final Report to the Wisconsin DNR Bureau of Warer Resources Management, March,
1996. (Includes a summary of other lake research on this issue.)
Wagner, Kenneth J., Assessing Impacts of Motorized Watercraft on Lakes: Issues and
Perceptions, Enhancin States' Lake Mana emen' Proarams 1990, p. 77.93. (This
report summarizes a variety of research on watercraft impacts on lakes.)
.
.
.
.
.
. s~/]'\~;, /)/Z-c1A-
4u ;1- rz'M ;r~vu~L
5lf~ &Jf~ Lvtff--
Volume] (Ir--
Stillwater Annexation Area ~
Alternative Urban Areawide Review ~
(AUAR@
.,-.;-.''''''(
~.... ," ~
..:\'t~.. "; ~
~~"i-..;.)~ .:.......;~,..
~'.:" ~...
...,.....
Volume 1 of 2
Prepared for
The City of Stillwater
Prepared by
Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc.
Northern Environmental Technologies, Inc.
David Braslau Associates
May 6, 1997
Stillwater Annexation Area A UAR
May 6, 1997
15. Water Surface Use
Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any
water body?
LYes _No
.
If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and
discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or
fish and wildlife resources. This item need only be addressed if the
A UAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies.
The Annexation Area includes portions of Long Lake and South Twin Lake. Additional
residential development is planned around both lakes. There is currently motorized water craft
on Long Lake, but not on South Twin Lake. Additional watercraft use is expected, but the scale
of development is such that overcrowding and conflicts are not expected. In addition, the
shallow depth of most of Long Lake (3-4 feet) limits the size of motors and boats
R-esearch on the effects of watercraft use on natural resource quality was reviewed for this study.
Research from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and around the United States suggests that the major
impact of motorized craft on water quality is a temporary reduction in water clarity due to
increased turbidity. Water clarity decreased temporarily by about 10 per cent on weekends
(heaviest boat traffic times) on average in the Wisconsin lakes studied. Reductions in water
clarity were most frequently noted on lakes less than 1.5 meters deep.
.
While motor boat activity was found to affect turbidity and water quality in lakes on a temporary
basis, research in Wisconsin and other areas indicated that wind and seasonal changes in lakes
are a far more important factor in reducing water clarity~ even in shallow lakes. The increases in
motorized boating with development of the Annexation Area would be unlikely to impact the
quality of Long Lake in a signficant, permanent way. Wind and seasonal changes to Long Lake
will have far greater impacts on the lake and downstream waters than increased motorized
recreation, if this occurs. Based on research available that suggests only minimal temporary
impacts to water quality due to water surface use,.no mitigation strategies to prohibit motorized
recreation are included in the AUAR Mitigation Plan.
The other potential environmental impact noted in the research on boating activity is erosion and
damage to shorelines caused by boat wakes. Research noted that establishment and maintenance
of health aquatic and shoreline plant communities is the best method to prevent erosion damage
from boats or wind. The AUAR Mitigation Plan includes recommendations that public and
private lakeshore landowners establish and maintain buffers of native vegetation along the
shoreline of Long Lake to reduce erosion potential.
No research was available to estimate the potential impacts of motorized recreation on wildlife
populations. Research reviewed for this study noted that a variety of types of recreation on or
around lakes may affect wildlife, but that research has not been completed to describe or quantify
these effects, or suggest the need for mitigation strategies as a part of the AUAR.
.
65
Stillwater Annexation Area A UAR
May 6, 1997
.' The Stillwater Parks and Recreation Commission is currently considering recommendations for
boating use on Long Lake. Recommendations should be available in May, 1997. '
Recommendations will consider appropriate recreation on Long Lake based on environmental
issues as well as noise, safety, and aesthetic concerns.
16. Soils
a. Approximate depth (infeet) to:
Ground water: minimum -1L average >6'
Bedrock: minimum ~ average 131'
b. Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known.
(SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need!1QJ. be attached)
A standard soils map covering the area should be included.
The groundwater contours in the vicinity of Stillwater and the Annexation Area are illustrated on
Figure 16-1. Area soils as mapped by the Washington County Soil Survey are indicated in
Figure 16-2. The majority ofthe soils found within the annexation area as described in the
Washington County Soil Survey are the Antigo series. Inclusions commonly found within the
Antigo series are Brill, Rosholt, Campi a, Chetek, Po skin, and Barronett sandy substratum.
Commonly found in addition to the Antigo soil series is the Santiago-Kingsley soil mapping unit.
.
.
66
APPENDIX B
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
1.0 Introduction
1b.is comprehensive environmental protection plan has been prepared as a part of the Alternative
Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process for the City of Stillwater Annexation Area. 1b.is plan
is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require preparation of a "mitigation plan" that
specifies measures or procedures that will be used to protect the environment from potential
impacts of development of the Annexation Area. The plan also provides management
recommendations for maintenance and restoration of important natural areas. Finally, the plan
specifies legal and [mancial measures and institutional arrangements that will assure that the
mitigation measures recommended in the plan are implemented. The mitigation plan will be
used by the City of Stillwater to guide dev~lopment of the Annexation Area through the
avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of environmental impacts.
The plan is not intended to modify the regulatory agencies' responsibilities for
implementing their respective regulatory programs, or to create additional regulatory
requirements. This mitigation plan is not intended to deprive or divest any person of any
use of property or right to which they are entitled by law. Finally, the ADAR and this
mitigation plan may be silent as to environmental concerns or impacts that may arise later
within the context of specific development proposals, and could Dot be anticipated during
the AUAR process. This should not be cOD.strued as a bar to requests for and commitments
by the City and project proposers to compile new and/or additional environmental impact
information and analysis.
.
The AUAR indicated that several important regi(;mal natural resources are potentially affected by
proposed development in the Annexation Area: Brown's Creek, the Brown's Creek Ravine,
Jackson Wildlife Management Area, and the St. Croix River. Other resources of local
significance such as Long Lake and McKusick Lake may also be affected by proposed
development. The mitigation plan specifically addresses measures for the long-term protection
and management of these natural resources in Sections 2.0, 4.0 and 5.0. Protection measures that
will avoid or minimize environmental impacts to wetlands, woodlands, and other natural
resources in the Annexation Area are provided in Sections 3.0 and 6.0. The protection of
historical and archaeological resources is addressed in Section 7.0. Protection measures for
other potential development-related impacts, including traffic, air quality and noise issues are
discussed in Section 8.0. The plan provides overall goals for each resource, then strategies that
describe specific measures to be implemented to achieve each goal. The [mal section of the plan
.
Stillwater A UAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
/6
.4.0
Long Lake, McKusick Lake, South Twin Lake, and St. Croix River
These lakes are all located within, or receive direct drainage from, the annexation area. The
DNR classifies South Twin and Long Lake as winter kill lakes, while McKusick Lake is
classified as a waterfowl lake, and is too shallow to support game fish populations. South Twin
Lake is located in the Silver Creek Watershed.
Long Lake outlets to Brown's Creek, and is currently experiencing water quantity and quality
problems related to runoff from its drainage area. Most of these problems are generated outside
the Armexation Area. The outlet at the north end of the lake is governed by a DNR permit that
restricts flow from May to September, to prevent the flow of warm water to Brown's Creek.
However, the outlet currently flows year-round, in violation of the permit, to prevent flooding of
homes near the lake. Analysis of impacts of development in the Armexation Area indicates that
this development will have little noticeable impact on the water quality and quantity status of
Long Lake.
The City of Stillwater has proposed goals and strategies in this section to alleviate current
flooding problems on Long Lake, while maintaining or improving the water quality of Long
Lake, McKusick Lake and the S1. Croix River as the Armexation Area develops. The section
also proposes adoption of stormwater management strategies for the area draining to South Twin
Lake.
. Goal 7:
Prevent future flooding and protect or improve the water quality of Long Lake.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Replace the current outlet structure on Long Lake with a new structure that maintains a
normal lake level of 890.0 feet, and diverts flows above this level through the current
tributary channel to McKusick Lake.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: DNR Waters Permit No. 76-6047
Implementation time frame: Preliminary study of outlet replacement and diversion
completed during ADAR. Construction feasibility to be completed as the AUAR is
completed (August, 1997).
2. Evaluate methods for improving water quality in Long Lake, including outlet improvements,
removal of sediments collected at the south end of the Long Lake, planting native aquatic
vegetation, and others. Use native vegetation when possible to aid in cleaning sediments and
nutrients from lake water, and to improve fish and wildlife habitat. Consider remedial plans
for developed areas draining to Long Lake to improve water quality, that address
modifications to the current system.
.
Stillwater AUAR Mitigation Plan
5/6/97
17
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater, Washington CountylWMO .
Regulatory program: Browns Creek WMO Plan, Stillwater Subdivision and Environmental
Ordinances, Special Area Plans and Voluntary Actions
Implementation time frame: Ongoing
3. Work with neighboring jurisdictions upstream from Long Lake and the Armexation Area, to
ensure that proper safeguard are implemented to protect the quality of Long Lake and other
surface waters.
Responsible parties: Washington County/Browns Creek WMO
Regulatory program: Browns Creek WMO Plan
Implementation time frame: Ongoing
4. Complete integrated water quality management plans for lakes in the Annexation Area.
Responsible parties: Washington County/Browns Creek WMO
Regulatory program: Voluntary program
Implementation time frame:. Implement when permanent management has been
determined for WMO, or as resources for plans become available.
5. Consider establishment of adequate publiC access to Long Lake, as this make increase
eligibility for funding sources to improve water quality.
.
Responsible parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: Voluntary determination
Implementation time frame: Consider in 1997 along with regulations for surface water use
of Long Lake.
Goal 8:
Assure that solutions to Long Lake high water problems do not degrade the
water quality of McKusick Lake, Brown's Creek or the St. Croix River.
PROTECTION STRATEGIES:
1. Implement the diversion strategy from Long Lake to McKusick Lake described in 2.0, Goal
1, No.1. Allow sediment from Long Lake and the Armexation Area to settle along the
stream channel and in the wetlands north of McKusick Lake.
Regulatory parties: City of Stillwater
Regulatory program: DNR Outlet Permit, Wetland Conservation Act
Implementation time frame: City will complete construction feasibility study by August,
1997, and implement the diversion based on results of the study.
.
.
.
.
Public Meeting
Long Lake Surface Water Use
Feb. 17, 1997
(J)
Park and Recreation Board members present: David Junker, chairperson;
Linda Amrein, Nancy Brown, Rich Cummings, AI Liehr, Ken Meister, Del
Peterson, Leah Peterson, Mike Polehna, and Steve Wolff
Planning Commission members present: Jerry Fontaine, chairperson; Kirk
Roetman, John Rheinberger, Don Valsvik, Darwin Wald, Tom Wiedner and
Terry Zoller
Others: Council Member Gene Bealka; Community Development Director
Steve Russell; Sherri Buss, Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik.
See attached list; note" there were others in attendance who "did not sign
In.
Park and Rec Board Chairperson David Junker opened the meeting at 7: 10
p.m. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was- to receive
comments only.
Mr. Russell gave some brief introductory comments. Ms. Buss, Bonestroo
and Associates, talked briefly about the AAUR environmental assessment
and mitigation study which is currently in progress.
Planning Commission Chairperson Jerry Fontaine opened the meeting for
presentations and comments.
Lee Miller, representing the Long Lake Homeowners Association, gave a
presentation describing the physical characteristics of the lake. He also
provided a map indicating the possible number of watercraft that might
use the lake once development occurs in the phase 1 annexation area. The
boat density could be as high as one per 1.5 acre or less, according to the
Homeowners Associations calculations; the rule of thumb is 1 boat per
1 5/20 acres for waterskiing, 1 per 10 acres during peak use on the St.
Croix River, he said. Miller also spoke briefly about a problem that is
occurring with snowmobilers using the lake as a cut-through from the DNR
property north of the lake.
Don Peterson, 7130 Mid Oaks, said when he purchased his property in
1974, he was told no motors were allowed on the lake. He said large boats
on the lake erode the shoreline and intensify problems already existing
due to high water levels. He said smaller boats and catamarans don't
create a problem; large boats with large motors are a big problem. .
AI Hager, 716 Nightingale, also said he was of the understanding when he
bought his home that no motorized traffic was allowed on the lake. He said
while snowmobiles on the lake are no problem, per se, there is a problem
with speed.
Mr. Zoller asked who told homeowners that no motors were allowed on the
lake. Carolyn Lauermann, 650 Nightingale, said they were told by Orrin
Thompson people. When boats started appearing on the lake, she said she
contacted Stillwater Township but never received a response back.
Dick Peterson, 7160 Mid Oaks, said he, too, was told motors were not
allowed. He said he thought the no-motor policy was part of covenants
drafted for the Jackson Farm, but the covenants never got recorded.
Later, Mr. Peterson noted that by law all abutting property owners, which
includes the city of Stillwater, have a right to use the entire surface of
the lake. He said the city needs to figure out a way for all residents to
share in the resource, and he said self-regulation won't work. He said he
has seen kids of jet skis chasing geese and "buzzing" docks. He suggested a .
solution might be to allow small motors and/or electric motors.
He further noted by statute, the city can regulate the size of motors,
speed limits and hours of operation. There could be any combination of
such regulations, which are all spelled out by state statute.
Susan Wahlen, 1180 Nightingale, said she was never told that motors
were not allowed. She suggested the city has no right to take away the
opportunity to use pontoons and boats with small motors and said she
didn't think such use would cause any damage. She said the lake isn't big
enough for big boats; people who try to. use the big boats will probably
wreck their motors, she said.
Later, Ms. Wahlen reiterated that the lake is not conducive to high powered
motors, but said small motors won't bother wildlife. She also questioned
the data regarding erosion.
Ned Gordon, 2970 Marine Circle, said he had watched his shoreline
disappear over the weekend due to erosion caused by jet skis and big
power boats. He also suggested there is a discrepancy in policy between .
the current use on Long Lake and Lily Lake, where no motorized craft are
.
allowed. If the decision is to allow boating, the lake is safe for only the
smallest of craft, he said.
Mr. Gordon also spoke of the problem of motorized boats stirring up
sediments in the lake that eventually will get to Brown's Creek.
John McCarthy, 2913 Marine Circle, said water quality of the lake is
bound to go down with the use of motors. He also noted the DNR won't
allow the water level control gate to be opened if the water quality is not
improved.
Dave Rueh, 1124 Nightingale, spoke of the differences of opinion
regarding use and even the desired water levels on the lake. He suggested
that a high concentration of power boats would not be desirable, but
called for "compromise" below that level of use.
Lori Mildon, 3034 Marine Circle, said the lake can't handle the number of
boats that might come with the new development and said large boats on
the lake is a _ safety issue. Kerry M ildon said they previously had a jet
boat on the lake and observed the wake it created; he also spoke of the
pollution caused by leaking gasoline.
.
Nedra Meyer, 2929 Marine Circle, suggested allowing motorized craft
will disrupt the wildlife and breeding habitats.
Laurie Maher, 3018 Marine Circle, provided pictures of wildlife she has
observed on the lake. She said she, too, was told power boats were not
allowed on the -lake when she purchased her home. She also expressed a
concern that homeowners in the new developments will clear cut their
lots for views of the lake. She urged the city to look at the city of
Woodbury's ordinance which requires 150 feet of shoreline dedication and
allows only .electric motors.
Rudy Lauermann, 650 Nightingale, asked whether there would be park
land dedication on the western side of the lake. Mr. Fontaine responded
that initial plans call for a walkway on the western side that would
connect up with other trails in the annexation area. Les Hartmann, 2907
Marine Circle, said walkways, if developed, should be of natural materials
and not paved.
.
Jon Engelking, 1220 Nightingale, said the concern with the water quality
of Long Lake has nothing to do with boats, it has to do with the runoff
from Cub/Target. He said the churning of the water caused by motors can
actually improve water quality. He also said the physical characteristics
of the lake will, themselves, restrict use. He said the lake is for .
everyone's enjoyment, not just conservationists but recreationi?ts, as
well. Later in the discussion he said if the decision is made to regulate
use, a speed limit of 25 mph might be acceptable.
Mr. Engelking stated the erosion of the shoreline is more due to wind and
high water levels than it is due to boats. He reiterated that the biggest
problem with the water quality of Long Lake is due to runoff from
Cub/Target and other parts of the watershed and called for some kind of
watershed management planning.
Mike Putnam, 1166 Nightingale, said the shallower the lake level, the
more concern there is regarding water quality -- the lower lake level
makes the problems worse.
Rick Meyer, 2929 Marine Circle, reiterated the concern about the
coexistence of wildlife and big boats. He also expressed a concern that the
DNR might decide to shut the Long Lake outlet if the water quality doesn't
improve. If the outlet can't be opened, he said he (and others) would be in
"big trouble" due to flooding.
Marc Putnam, Charles Cudd Co. developers of the Newman property, said .
the developers are concerned about the outcome of the water surface use
issue. However, he said, the first marketing concern is for the protection
of the resource -- the land. Regarding water usage, he said it would
"obviously" be better for developers to be able to offer dockage and the
use of craft such as canoes and catamarans.
Written comments, attached, were received from Richard Huelsmann,
12610 62nd St. N., and Ted and Jennifer Harms, 2904 Marine Circle.
Mr. Fontaine closed the meeting to public comment at 9 p.m. Mr. Junker
thanked those in attendance for their comments. He stated the two boards
(Park and Rec and Planning Commission) would use the comments to "make
the best recommendation we can to the City Council."
Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
Others in attendance at the Long Lake public meeting of 2/17/97
Ned and Eileen Gordon
Allan Hager
Rocky Hyberger
Lee and Helen Miller
Rudy and Carolyn Lauermann
Laurie Maher
Darryl Bixby
Sandra Fabio
Paula and Robert Kroening
Dick Peterson
Nedra and Rich Meyer
Mary Anne Tucker
Don Peterson
Mike and Diane Putnam
Jim and 110 Staloch
Dave Ruch
Ted Wright
Lori and Kerry Mildon
Les Hartmann
Susan Whalen
Rosemary McKenzie
Karla Hyberger
Jon Engelking
2970 Marine Circle
716 Nightingale Blvd.
2922 Marine Circle
2962 Marine Circle
650 Nightingale Blvd.
3018 Marine Circle
2930 Marine Circle
2946 Marine Circle
12480 N. 72nd St:
7160 Mid Oaks
2929 Marine Circle
7171 Mid Oaks Ave.
7130 Mid Oaks Ave.
1 166 Nightingale Blvd.
12394 62nd St. N.
1124 Nightingale Blvd.
800 Nightingale Blvd.
3034 Marine Circle
2907 Marine Circle
11 80 Nightingale Blvd.
12620 72nd St. N.
2922 Marine Circle
1220 Nightingale Blvd.
.
Stillwater City Council
Re: Long Lake Surface Use
Feb. 17, 1997
Dear Council,
We live on Marine Circle adjacent to the Park land that fronts Long Lake. We have
lived here since 1990 and have seen many changes in the usage of Long Lake. When
we first moved here the lake was primarily used by people with canoes enjoying the
natural setting.
Over the past several years we have seen a wide range of motorized boats including
16' aluminum boats with 10hp motors all the way to boats that are much larger with
75hp motors. Jet skis and pontoon boats are also a frequent sight on Long Lake. We
have seen some close calls involving canoes and motorized boats. This will only
increase as the development around the lake continues. We feel it is more suitable to .
being a nature oriented lake as opposed to what it has become.
We have made a few calls to the city of Stillwater over the course of the last 5 years in
regards to monitoring the speed and size of the watercraft used and received differing
opinions on Whose jurisdiction Long Lake was part of, the City or the County.
We would suggest that the best use of Long Lake be a nature oriented lake with non-
motorized canoes and watercraft.
''''/---':
~,
i/""') , .
,L' d- -J,c '-" 1 k\.-.../. ,'L '-
~ . . /" r
4LLll,LV
\ +' L\ T :; ~ 'r-.. n _\--...: .,- t-\(i~ V' rr,'j
'''), C \" /i "
C?'-t; Devil \...C~ ,{ 'V'--':- LI 1<--
<' \ 'i\ ' J-, - lV' l \ S~-LZ L-
v T \... \... L'- 0._ \ '<:' '{ ( \ N
.
.
.
.
@)
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Russell-----Please kindly ensure each member receives a copy of this letter.
May 6,1997
Stillwater Joint Planning and Parks Commission
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Joint Planning and Parks Commission Members,
This letter is in reference to the meeting scheduled for May 12, 1997 relating to
surface use of Long Lake in Stillwater. This topic is of prime concem to me and
my family, however due to insufficient notice of the meeting, we have a serious
schedule conflict and our attendance is not possible. We have offered input to
this thopj~ in letter$..which you. all should havke a.t hand.dated March 9, 1997 and
Marc 10, 1997. :Smce that time 1 have wor ed out With my legal counsel an
even more viable proposal.
The following option is offered as a win-win proposition for all stakeholders.
PROPOSAL
. Provide permits to all lake residents who have used motorized boats.
A listing is shown as Attachment I.
. Permit holders may use, hold, sell or transfer their rights.
. City could grant(for a fee), or withhold, future permit requests plus
control existing permits.
. Limited number of permits could possibly be provided to
developers, if the city deemed it appropriate.
. All MN State DNR powered boating rules would apply to permit
holders.
. No additional limitations need be applied.
The following are the Advantages of the proposal:
This proposal would defuse the issue for current lake property owners who enjoy
boating plus prevent costly legal battles over potential loss of their current rights. It
must be remembered that many of these owners paid large financial premiums to own
1
on this recreational lake. This proposal would help to preserve the current property
values of these recreational lake shore owners. .
Those* concerned about over population of boats (which is the stated point of the
issue at hand) would be assured that there would be no significant change from
the past. Since 1973, which began our history at this lake, there has been no
known boating safety incident nor documented environmental** issue (any
aeration of the water including that caused by motorized boating is actually
helpful to the water quality per Mark Doneux of Washington County Soil and
Conservation District). Actual use of boats on the lake is very limited and always
has been. There is no evidence to suggest that situation would be changing under
this proposal. As stated in my earlier letter the use of the lake is self limiting due
to depth, size, and quality of the lake itself.
The city would have complete control over the situation through the permitting
process which need not be at all complex nor costly.
Future purchasers of newly developed areas would be made aware in advance of the
limited permit process for protecting the lake from over use and potential boating
safety or environmental issues. The potential for obtaining a new or existing permit
_ would exist, however.
There is no public boat access to the lake. If future access is limited to carry-in
craft, such as canoes, no official sUIveillance would be required to insure that
only permit holders used motorized craft. I tend to believe there are current
residents who would insure the system was not abused.
.
We anticipate that you will take our proposal into serious consideration as it
_ appears to offer viable solutions for the issues at hand with no serious downside.
Respectfully submitted,
~d~
~m~ ~c~~
M~d R~emary ~~I(9nzie
12620 72nd Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082-9322
* Friends of Long Lake Homeowners Association (NOTE: This is not an association of lake shore
owners!) put out a document(see excerpt in attachment II) in which their Board fears the population of
boats will soon be over 522 with future development. (These fears appear to some people to be as
unfounded as the ability to catch a ride behind the Hale-Bopp Comet!)
** The credibility and the actual intentions of the Board of the "Friends of Long Lake Homeowners
Association" are in very serious question on several counts. For example, they publish and distribute false
and misleading statements about Long Lake water quality history and unfounded negative water quality
predictions(see attachment III) which are in direct conflict with the actual data presented at their meeting
March 13, 1997 and later faxed to me by Mark Doneux, Washington Soil and Conservation District. The
2
.
.
.
.
correct official data, which actually suggests the lake quality(Secchi disk clarity) improved in 1996 from ''P''
to a "D" level. Note that the lake reading by DNR as early as 1982 was an "F' and all readings (except
1989) have been "F' level until 1996 where it improved to a "D" level. The 1982 DNR data was brought to
the Board's attention at their meeting, but it was ignored in their report as it apparently did not fit their
reporting intentions. Thus, there has been no degradation of water quality at all! If an)1hing, it in getting
better based on 1996 reading.(see official data in attachment IV). The Board also failed to publish the
aeration effect of powered boats introduced at their meeting and supported by Mark Doneux.
3
A TT ACHMENT I
(Known lake shore owners who currentlv. or have used motorized boats on Lon2 Lake) .
Boatin2 Permit Candidates
NAME GENERAL TYPE OF POWERED CRAFT
Bill Proetz Speed boat/runabout
Leah and Dick Peterson Speed boat/runabout
Marsha and Ron Woessner Speed boat/runabout
Candace and John Braatz Pontoon
Deb and Mike Schlosser Fishing Boat
Lori and Kerry Mildon Speed boat/runabout
Kay and Jim Ehrhart Pontoon
Diane and Mike Putnam Inflatable, Personal water Craft
Pat and Ray Kennedy Speed boat/runabout, Personal Water Craft .
Susan and Jon Engelking Pontoon, Fishing Boat
Dick Huelsmann Fishing Boat
110 and Jim Staloch Fishing Boat
Nancy and George Hof Speed boat/runabout
I . Karen and Rick Reidt Pontoon, Fishing Boat
Paula and Bob Kroening Fishing Boat
Deb and Hod Irvine Jon Boat, Fishing Boat
Rosemary and Don McKenzie Pontoon, Fishing Boat
.
4
~) I,I ~ I
- ATflIcHNaJT:JL - .
Water Surface Use -- Boating
.
Current Use --The issue of appropriate lake use must be addressed before the developments
occur on the western shore. Currently there are 31 shorefront land owners, and no public access to the
Lake. Four or five residences have maintained as many as six powered boats on the Lake. In addition,
approximately 12 residences have unpowered boats (canoes and sail boats) on the Lake. This level of
use has not yet done irreparable harm to the Lake and habitat, although the power boat operation
created some shoreline erosion during the recent high water levels, and reduced the number of
waterfowl nesting near exposed areas of the Lake.
Potential Use--The planned developments will bring about a significant change. There will then
be 66 lake shore owners, and access provided for as many as 456 additional residences via association
docks/ram s. If all these residences with access rights each had an average of one bo we would have
522 boats on a 96 acre an average of 5.4 boats per acre. This would make opening day on Mile
Lacs pale in comparison. This analysis does not include possible additional users if public access is
provided. It is essential that we address this issue before hundreds of additional homeowners are
granted rights that will destroy the Lake. Current shoreline homeowners, including 4 members of the
Board, may need to reduce their current rights for the good of all.
Boatin2 Ordinance-The City of Stillwater has the responsibility to set ordinances governing
water surface use. The DNR will then review the ordinances and approve them, or request the City re-
evaluate.
. The permitted boating use can range from "no boating", to "no powered boats", t~ "powered
use" with a range of allowable engine sizes. The current City ordinance classifies Lily Lake as a "no
powered boats" lake, although to date, the use of electric motors has not been ticketed on Lily. No
ordinance exists for McKusick Lake.
DNR Review--In it's review, the DNR considers factors such as lake depth, surface acres
versus shoreline, bottom and shoreline soils, potential obstructions and hazards, and property and
habitat risks. We recently asked the DNR for an informal review of the quantitative data on Long Lake.
The DNR felt that an appropriate classification would allow powered operation with electric motors
only. Their rationale for electric power was driven largely to allow disabled operator access to the Lake.
Y Oll Board 'ecommends that we seek a City ordinance for "no powered
boats", wit ceptionfor electric motors for disabled operators.
flflbJJs.~:f 411 1Affc h9H1r1: DIJ/AfERs ~'ClIJi;oJJ
.
-
.~ .4~.' ..-:..... ..~~_ ._..._.................... -
ATfACANENT -rrc
~.-:----'....~~_.. ..,. '$1' ),~q...
......
/
Long Lake Homeowners Association
Newsletter...March 25, 1997
Flash!!!... We were told that the DNR denied permission today to clean the .
Lake outlet channels until the environmental studies are complete. This could
delay lowering the Lake to a safe water level until next winter!!! In addition,
Trout Unlimited petitioned the DNR to close the outlet gate May 1st, as
required by the permit. If the gate is closed, the Lake may operate at a
dangerous level until the gate is opened in October.
Many thanks to those who braved the snow storm on March 13th to attend our
. information meeting!
Mark Doneux, Water Resources Specialist, and manager of the
-WashIDgton Soil & Water Conservation District, and
Klayton Eckles Stillwater City Engineer,
provided valuable insights into Long Lake water quality, actions necessary to improve
water quality, and plans for controlling the Lake height.
r
Water quality of Long La~e.... Mark Doneux discussed water quality measurements of
Long Lake, and actions necessary to improve water quality. lit::. ,.JIIJ.tr!
~ Long Lake is already in a state of decline, and has ~orsened in recent year2." Mark's
organization, aided by Dick and Leah Peterson, has maintained readings on water clarity (a
measure of suspended silt and algae) and chlorophyll content (a measure of algae). Over the la~
10 ears Lon Lake's ualit ratin shave dro ed from D's to F's, the lowest ratmgs, while
Lily Lake has gone from C s to B s.
rMtA _11a ik noted that the silt bottom contains fertilizers, which would further worsen the
~ proble ~ tirred up by powerboats. He has observed and measured such damage in an 8-foot
deep la n northern Washington County. Long Lake's shallow water basin (which heats up
quickly), extensive development in the watershed, and large influx of silt and fertilizer, will
make clean up difficult. However, the Lake quality will worsen at an increasingly faster rate if no
action is taken.
itJs~
I
I
I
.
Methods to improve water quality.... Mark said typical actions for lakeshore residents
include:
. the use of non-phosphorus fertilizers only,
. minimal fertilizing in general
. planting of low maintenance lawn grasses or indigenous plants
. maintaining a broad, no-mow area with grasses, indigenous plants and trees along all of the
shoreline.
Also, upstream sources of fertilizer and silt must be reduced, especially sources that are
not filtered in separate holding ponds. For example, the Croixwood yards along Northland,
Nightingale, and Interlachen drain directly into the Lake via the storm sewers, bringing fertilizer
and other nutrients. Silt from construction should be controlled before entering the Lake because
the nutrients tend to bind to the silt and are thus deposited in the lake. This is a particular .
problem due to the extensive, continuing development in the Lake watershed. Finally, natural
vegetation should be encouraged in the Lake. Plants such as cattails, water lilies, and underwater
plants provide natural cleaning of the Lake and reduce algae by blocking the sunlight.
P.07
. . ~ ~ . -. .. -' '. _..~ )-.. .. .... -~~''l>4 "" ,""',,;;""';;" ""~~. ~... "
A7T/lcIfM&NT J1C 5. (/17
Long Lake ICJ96
Stillwater, Washington Co.
SurfAe. TP (ug/l)
1-&0
-s...c- 'tP
120
IV
100
80
.
t
0 100 200
. I .
Mille",
eo
40
20
o
May June July Aug. Sopt. Oct.
Ollto
Lake 10: 620021
WMO: Browns Creek
Volunteer: Washington Co.
SWCO
Seeehi Depttl (meters) Chlorophyll-a (ug/\)
o '40
- a.wo 0...,
-0.2 - cv. 120
. Sampling lite
Con1ours In meters
-0.4
100
.0.6
eo
-0.8
60
-1
40
.1.2
20
-1.4 0
May June July Aug. Sept. ()Qt.
Oat.
5
'"
~
0
i!
Data Table 1! 3
8
r = MMropolitan Council qu.l~ cMd<) 1j
iii 2
Oale 'Time 01 4urt- TP CLA &oc:cN Phya. Reo. li' ' . CryStal Clear
Day 1ell'\9. Co) CugII) CUOIll (malera) COrlCl. SUI. D.. 2 .. Some -'Jgae Presenl
.&(24 12~ Cl.O 70 1..0 1.11 2 :s a .. Definite Alga' Presence
" .. H;gh AIQaI Color
5/& 1230 14.0 70 :n.o '.2 2 3 5 .. SoVOl'l Algal Bloom
6/23 1830 . 21.0 ',0 :15.0 '.1 3 :) 0
ell, May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.
1.,11 to.O 70 30.0 t.1 . 3
Date
t/2S 030 21.0 00 36.0 0.8 . "
1/Cl uo 24.0 '00 71.0 0.' 3 4
5
7/'l2 1000 25.0 120 120.0 0.3 . 4
(Sou foes: Metropollan Council and 6TORET data)
S(f~ /Y~t fJI1J6 d'/l1/lJr~M6Ntff
~ 4'
j
~ 3
"iii
c
~ 2
!
K
a:
--.-/
Lake Water Quality Grades Based on Summertime Averages
. ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ .
D
I>
D ·
I>
, - Beautiki
2 .. Minor ,,"lhelic Problem
3 .. &wlmmlng Impllir~
. .. No &wtmmi",,; ~ing 01<
5 .. No AMthetICII PcotalOl'
o
,
~
M.y Jun. .July Aulil. Sept. Oel.
Da"
Data Table
(" = tMtropolitan Council qu.l~ ~)
0.,. Time 01 Gur1.QlI TP CLA Secchl Phr-. Ree.
Day Temp. (e) ( ug/I) (1J0Il) (mat.,..) COncl. SUIl.
~2" t230 0.0 70 14.0 1.1, ~ ~
Sfa '2~ 14.0 70 :n.o '.2 2 3
512' tUO . 21.0 110 35.0 1.1 S 3
e{c. ,.,15 to.O 70 38.0 1.1 .. 3
e/2S 000 21.0 go 3&.0 0.8 .. ..
1/0 t40 2(.0 100 17.0 0.8 ! .
7/'l2 1000 2S.0 120 120.0 0.3 .. ..
, . CryStal Clear
2 IE Some Algae Pre5ent
a ., Deflnlte Algal Presence
4 ~ High Algal COlor
S ., Severa A)gaJ Bloem
y
0
:e
"0
~ 3
8
~ 2
Vi
~
n...
1
0
May
June July Aug.
Date
Sept.
Oct.
6-
~ 4- /
~
:J 3-
U)
e
c
~ 2-
!
i
a: 1 -
0
M&y June
. tI
.. D .. . .. .,
Lake Water Quality Grades Based on Summertime Avera~e~
I '(7 " I fJ I J9 ~ J I 7.::? 9 ~
..
,.., ....,..
CN.t.__~..
..... D-"
o..c
~
~
. ~
COPl i5 d,fJlctALr-CrJ lel'JJ . I~
he, r At:t:. i0?#6S zfl1,,,,, /J.?,). t/,~ r) /7~~,(} 1?6 f? /116 j ~ J "F fI LE u.d- (r:-A'r~1i9.!hs" " ~
rml1/(f&;1{ IJ?6' /M///?IU5.S j ~ ?D I) J..G~L. . ZJj
('(J/,/cLu,&/dA) ~ (,./A16/( C,L./I,f/f..;S .GS5c::;~L9-- C~#97#NTs/AlCE' l?g,;2 w/?)J ~~
rU//v:A;YY:::: d:f //VJ;1~JI~/W~ 7/{6/11~#7~, /.;v' //'76 B -.,..
.. . ICl II
, ., Beautiful
2 ., Minor MeIMtic Problem
G . Swimming lmpair~
C . No Swtmmingi Boating 01(
6. No AMtMtiCII PoellCfe
o
,
,
F
,
p
July Au;.
06~
Sept.
Oct.
(Souron: Me~lI1an Council and &TORET data)
~
~h~'
~ ~ C:::;;,~;>;-
<;'''9<~
~
/9 ~ A)'v;f W;/<A~
/Vo/r:;;d b/ rl1'l\Efr:z./~--
~t10~ 2),IlJ,I( J./IKe p;'f-e..;
.
~
~
~
i
l
~
~
~
t
i:
~
. "
.
.
.Jk . ~~~ ~~
. ~i~-/~/~~
,-dL.,. (~~ ~ ~
,~ ~~ Ic:?(,//J t~nct Sf.,{j.
.~Mrd ~ L7Iff~ /~~O ~.-
.W-ub MttL ~ ~ (I-unu
. MtL
. I?Ovv Mtd 'f1z:
&twtMtd ~ ~ ~bd.
, 7'Juk ~~ //(,~ . 4~.
.~Cl/JUL ~ g~ 7t17d 7JtJZ ~~
,1fI7l/t/fAUJl ~~ '7t~ 7/ltJ 7Jud ~
.~ cvndCl! ~~ . /~/,/tJ 707//0" ~ '77.
MMtd ~. Id5S-O 7.:?~d k;1C.
_ ~ cvncZ (h ~ /~50?5 '7;1 71d xb 7?
&~ ~ ~ /~ntJ 7,;?ndxf;.~.
.~~~~U7/$5 ~&.
- ~ 7l1l/Jtlff ~ 7/~ /J{~ tZ:
,~trm.d4' ~~ tSas-'/ /7!~ titeUJ
~crfl4td~ 0~tW /~39~ ~6< 7Ut' #.'7!.
.
Richard A. Peterson
7160 Mid Oaks Avenue
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
.
March 25, 1997
Mayor Kimble and the Stillwater City Council
Chair Gerald Fontaine and the Stillwater Planning Commission
City of Stillwater
Stillwater MN 55082
Re: Boat Traffic Regulation on Long Lake
Ladies and Gentlemen:
You are considering the adoption of an ordinance regulating boat traffic on Long Lake, and you
have received public comment at hearings and by mail. I write this letter as a property owner on the lake
since 1985, to make sure that you know that there are property owners on the lake who are in favor of
an ordinance prohibiting or strictly limiting high speed watercraft operation on the lake. You should
consider the following points as you make your decisions:
1.
The surface of the lake is a public, not a private, resource. One of the largest property
owners on the lake is the City, because of the parkland. The public has the right to use
the surface of the lake, and the rights of the public should not be diminished by
inappropriate use of the lake surface by other members of the public or by property
owners on the lake.
.
2. Most of the property owners on the lake recognize that the lake is too small for high
speed watercraft, and have decided not to operate such watercraft on the lake. I and
others did try it, and it was obvious that the lake is too small for it. I also have had the
unpleasant experience of trying to canoe on the lake with speed boats, water-skiers and
jet skiers tearing around, and have observed boaters chasing water fowl and working in
tandem with small boats and jet skis to create large wakes for jet skiers to jump.
Regulation is needed for the people who lack judgment or simply don't respect the rights
and safety of others. -
3. The City has a responsibility to regulate the use of this public resource so that the
resource is protected and made available for safe use by everyone. This is not different
from setting speed limits and prohibiting the operation of some kinds of vehicles on
streets, and the reasons are the same.
4.
If the City does not restrict watercraft use on the lake, or adopts regulations that are not
effective to limit speed, the City will have a never-ending problem dealing with
inappropriate use, especially after the planned home construction is completed. The best
way to avoid an enforcement problem is to adopt regulations that are easy to enforce.
.
.
.
.
.~;/~ }:srJl
Dear Park and Planning Commission Member,
This letter was submitted to the city in March and apparently not
distributed. I do not know how many other's wrote and had the same fate.
Please consider the real facts.
3/22/97
Dear Parks Commission,
This letter is concerning the boating proposals for Long Lake.
We would like to suggest that the commission keep a consistent
position with all the city lakes. Good city management is usually
consistent management.
Long Lake is an extremely shallow and narrow lake. I t becomes
hazardous when motor boats frequent the lake. It becomes dangerous
to be out on the lake when there are two motor boats or jet skis out
there now. It becomes impossible to canoe, sailor swim when there
are boaters out there.
We have seen a decrease of wild life over the past 4 years since
motor boats have frequented the lake. The ducks, geese, eggretts, and
herons are seen only occasionally now where they used to be
around all day long.
There is also noise pollution with the constant hum of motors.
Quite often the boats are driven by young teens who have not learned
boating courtesy and drive close to shore causing the shoreline to
erode. They have also been documented chasing the wildlife and disturbing
the nesting habitats with the boats.
With the proposed developments and the increase of people near
the water it would be safer for everyone to put a limit on boating
before it becomes a problem.
We hope you will consider these suggestions when you make your
proposals.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dave and Sandy Fabio
2946 Marine Circle
N/~
Srl.fr./,3
1<'14 f %"1
l\kl1\h~rs ul th~ Park Board,
I would like to voiu: Iny opposition to am' sorL'> of gas-powered motors on Long Lake. Please allow me
to all~l1Ipt to illustratc hOlh lhe pros and lhe cons of gas-powered moLOr usage on Long Lake employing
list It ) rIll
Pnb:
l.Th~ amountth~ city can tax people will go up if lhe lake is zoned recreational. This means more
money lur education. roads ell.:.
2.P.:opk will hc ahle In have fun'in boals lhat make an awful lot of noise. l1leir enjoymem of the lake
will incr~asc.
Cons:
l,rir-,t and llll'cnwsl. It will have a malevoklll effect on the native wildlife. This should be our major
eonc.:rn SIll",': lhis lak~ is these creaLUres' home. As I recall, people boo the aliens in the movie
Indep~ndcncc Day as they piotto conquer EarUI and reduce itLO raw materials. Yet we're willing LO do
exactl:- thc sal1l~ thing here to anouler species. At least ule aliens were doing itLO survive. PUlling the
;ulimal- ~It mk Illl a le\\ indiviuuals' enjoyment is unacceptable from a basic eUlical. moral. and spiritual
Pl lInl ell \'I~\\. nut tu m~ntion hypocritical. In shorl. if one calls oneself human they should act in a
humanll:lnan lashlllll.
2..-\lready Ule Dl'iR says they may not be ahle to open the Hoodgates because of pollution. 1 have seen
Ule oil ,licks sum~ 01 t11.::>e boats leave on the water. not to mention all of tile runoff muck that sits at the
hOllllnl 01 U1C lake that Ull~y stir up (The pesticides and lawn treatments from Croix wood have to go
Some\\ Ih.:re') II tilL' D;\R cannot open the 1100d gates, and we have more development (And more runoff)
\\hcr..: '.\ 111 ~dllllC watd glJ.' Well. people in Croixwood may want to use their motor boats. but I doubt
Uh::- meanl III UsC lhem 1lI1lKir 0\\/11 back yards. I don't imagine that 110nding would have 11 good effect
on ellller hUllSC sales '>1 taxes.
3.Thh lake is one 01 Stillwater's treasures. It should be open to use by everybody. There is public
access. and p~ople should be able to take their chiluren and their canoes down to the lake without having
tn worry ahl1ut someon~ in a jet ski or a motor boat hogging the lake. The same should go for local
resid....l1t, As l' m goil1.~ to point out later. the lake is very small. A large lake may be able to handle a lot
ul lrat lil':. hu t a small lakc cannot. People shouldn't have to sign up on an appointment sheet to use a
naturallr~asur~ .
..Ul's good busin~s:>. Anyone in power who backs an ecological issue of this magnitude is sure LO get a
bett~r puhlic illlag~. Rellll:mber tile outcry from tile bridge, or from Ule destruction of Krueger's tree fann.
Surely LIlL' J~slfucllon ,II our I~Lst Oak Savv;U1ah will stir up emotions.
:; L"ln~ Ul....se hoat' is Illlcrly pointless. Maybe on a larger lake I could see the point. It would be a
nccc:s,IIY OIl I:ir!2cr lal-..,.:~, to your fishing spOt faster. to isl<md jump in a place where the islands are more
Ulan :t Illllldl..:J or sO :- :lrds away. But here. you can get from one enu of ule lake LO the other in a rowboat
III m~l:- b.... a Ilall an III 11 II Why UOl:S ;U1yone need a motor boat'!
hTIl.... lakl: Is simp" Iou small. The sand bar is already pimpled with boat propellers every month of the
\....~ll liLII LI 111:-' Lak~ ISIII Inl/l:Il (Which. I admit. iSll't ulat many, but still...) I also hdieve ulatthere is a
llla\ll1lll111 dl.'\;IIIL'C r~(\ple in hoats can be from OUI~r docks anu from certain wet!,U1d areas at such speed
hCGlll'_ (d CllllC~rns ahllut wake. In a large lake or river. this would not be a problem. hut in such of a
"m;\t! \;Ik..:. :ll\d wIlh SI' many chikln.:n drivers who don'l know the laws. if lhis ordinance was lO be
prc:s.,,'J. tllc tal,\ SUits \\( lulu cr~al;,; a very ulllri.:nJly soci:!! atmosphere ahoutlhe Lake.
.
.
I \\, '111,1 ~Ihl) lik~ tlI \'(lice my opposition to the destruction of the last Oak Sav<mnah in Stillwater LO
huild :, L'II\ ,e\\ cr: n'f!/'ciu//\' since we have other alternatives. and I would like to encourage you to make
tll.... l ):,k S:I\allnal1. :1 n:llurallfeasurl:. a park 101 all p~opIe to enjoy.
TI1.tilk \llll t,ll yum llIlIC.
IL:::!!'::-':i1d Rm.:all
.
.
.
.
March 10, 1997
Stillwater City-Council
Stillwater Planning and Parks Commissions
216 N. Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear City Council and Commission Members
Thank you for the opportunity for Long Lake homeowners to express our opinions
regarding water surface use at the February 17, 1997, pubic hearing. I am writing to
reiterate my feelings and opinion on this issue.
DNR Process for Determining Water Surface Use
The DNR Commissioner has final approval on lake use classification. Minnesota Rules
parts 6110.3000-3800, Water Surface Use Management, require a process of data analysis
and submission before approval. The data include transcripts of public hearings; data on
lake characteristics; and safety and environmental impact information. Is this process
being followed?
Water Surface Use - Boating
I am opposed to the use of powered boats (including jet skis) on Long Lake, due to
safety and environmental reasons. I strongly feel that the use of only non motorized
boats will provide the most people with a safe and environmentally attractive lake
for recreational purposes. Long Lake is now the most natural, undisturbed lake in
Stillwater. It is a tremendous resource for everyone. Allowing motored boats will
prohibit access to the lake by people in non motorized water craft, swimmers, and
fishermen. Long Lake has an amazing array of waterfowl and animal life. Increased
powerboat usage will destroy nesting habitat through the construction of docks and boat
ramps, and the increased noise levels will drive animals away. The City of Woodbury
realized long ago that in order to keep their lakes for all residents to enjoy, they had to
protect and preserve at least 150 feet of shoreline and allow non-motorized boats only.
This is the only alternative that provides the most people with an oppo.rtunity to enjoy all
the tremendous assets of Long Lake.
Although several residents have been enjoying their jet skis, power boats, and pontoon
boats, it is a sober fact that many of us have been deprived of our use of the lake for
canoeing or swimming, and the enjoyment of waterfowl and aquatic animals.
Wildlife and waterfowl are also residents of the lake and waters edge. They are a valuable
part of the whole Lake ecosystem and many of us have been taking measures to improve
their nesting areas and food supplies. Allowing only non motorized boats will allow the
greatest number of people and wildlife to share the lake.
Water Surface Use - Snowmobiling.
I strongly feel snowmobiles should be banned from all city lakes, parks, and streets.
Snowmobiles travel at tremendous speeds across Long Lake. They are incredibly loud,
especially at midnight when many operators are heading home from the bars. There have
been several near misses with cross-country skiers and residents walking their dogs.
Snowmobiles trample down and destroy cattails and aquatic plants along the shoreline and
on the two islands. They are definitely detrimental to the environment and a real safety
and noise pollution concern.
.
Enforcement
Obviously, enacting hours of operation, speed limits, etc. require enforcement to work.
Who is going to enforce a bevy of rules and regulations? Limiting the lake to only non
motorized boats eliminates the need for rules on speeds, hours of operation, etc, and
virtually eliminates enforcement headaches. People will not be able to speed, or create a
damaging wake. The Washington County deputy, who will enforce the regulations on
Long Lake, said that complicated rules and hours of operation resuit in continuing call
backs and disputes between neighbors.
Noise Pollution -
Imagine coming home to a quiet, peaceful "North Woods" lake after a day of job stress,
only to find it invaded by jet skis, ski boats, or whining snowmobiles. This has been
occurring during many weekdays and weekends over the last few years. A few people
have robbed the majority of us of our peace and quiet. Allowing powered boats will only
assure a far greater level of noise as the number of powerboats has the potential to
increase from just a few to more than 50!
.
Protection for All Residents and City Lakes
I also feel it is very unfair that residents on Lily Lake can rest assured that their peace and
quiet and wildlife will not be taken from them because motored boats are not allowed on
Lily Lake. Long Lake is a much more dangerous lake for powered boats and it harbors
much more wildlife and natural areas. It is only fair that Long Lake residents (and Lake
McKusick residents) should be protected by the same boating regulations Lily Lake
residents enjoy.
Many of the people speaking Out at the pubiic hearing prefaced their comments with the
assertion that they purchased houses around the lake because they were told by builders,
realtors, and neighbors that powered boats were not allowed on Long Lake. Many
of us feel our trust was betrayed and that our peace and quiet and the beautiful natural
character of Long Lake is being taken from us and destroyed.
People with vision are realizing that once something in the natural world is destroyed, it is
sorely missed and often very expensive or impossible to replace. Last week the City
Council discussed taking measures to improve water quality in Lily Lake. Doesn't it make
a lot more sense to make visionary, far-reaching, wise decisions regarding Long Lake
now, rather than regretting the damage and disastrous results years later.
.
.
.
.
Too many of us have seen too much destroyed in this country during our lifetimes. You
have the opportunity to save what ~as become a precious little part of this town. Please
make the wisest decisions you can.
In closing, I feel that snowmobiling and motorized boat
operation should not be allowed on Long, Lily and McKusick
Lakes. Non-motorized boating should be encouraged to
maximize public use of these valuable resources in a safe and
environmentally sound way.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Laurie Maher
30 18 Marine Circle
Stillwater, Minnesota
55082
March 9, 1997
.
Stillwater Planning Commission
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Planning Commission Members,
This letter is in response to a notice received related to a March 10, 1997
meeting in which Long Lake is on the agenda. If this is related to surface
use of Long Lake we do have several concerns as well as suggestions.
Our recently purchased property was advertised, priced and purchased as
local recreational lake property. We checked the lake status with the DNR
and Washington County prior to purchase to insure recreational status of
the lake. Long Lake has been a recreational lake for many, many years.
We are aware that certain homeowners were mistakenly advised verbally
that Long lake was not a designated recreational lake. That is unfortunate
if they purchased homes based on false information, but had the DNR or the
County been consulted, the actual situation would have been clear. To .
make a decision to remove the recreational status based on false
information would be a grave error. Or to make a decision to remove the
recreational status based on the request of a tiny few individuals who have
produced no valid supporting data, when the property owners of the
majority of the lake shore desire to maintain the recreational status, is also
a grave mistake.
Boating on this lake is, and always has been, extremely limited. That is due
to there being no public access for boats and only limited property owner
access. However, the real key to the limited use is the size and depth
limitations of the lake itself. Boating on this lake is self limiting, both in
boat size and motor size. One only needs to try a large, prop driven boat
once on Long Lake to learn the expensive way how self limiting the lake can
be.
Our history with the lake dates to 1973. Anyone who has used the lake
since 1973 would be aware of the continued and even increased presence of
wildlife around the lake as well as the favorable water quality(e.g. Compare
to Lily lake.). I have looked for and found no evidence of erosion due to
boats since 1973. No actual erosion data due to boats has been presented
nor should one believe that such limited boat use on the lake would actually
cause erosion near the level caused by winds and changing water levels.
Any motor fuel contamination, if even present, would be minuscule .
compared to Market Place run off into the lake. There has never been a
.
.
.
.
known personal injury related to motor boat use on Long Lake.
Personally we love the wildlife and beauty of Long Lake. Taking out the
pontoon to watch the sunset is one of our family's most enjoyable pleasures.
A key to enjoyment of the lake by all is courtesy and acceptance.
It is clear there have been no real past problems related to the recreational
status of Long Lake. The concern is about future heavy boating use related to
potential future development. To address this, several suggestions are
presented. Please be aware, however, that we are not in support of any change
to the current recreational status because the private access and limitations of
the lake itself will continue to limit boat usage in the future as it has in the
past(e.g. The 600+ home development of the East side of the lake has had
minimal, if any effect.). However, to help deal with what may be unfounded
concerns for the future, we make the following suggestions:
. Avoid establishment of a public motorized boat access.
. Limit lake shore owners' boat size to 14 foot and 10 horsepower
combustion motor maximum.
. Limit lake shore owners' pontoon boat size to 28 feet with 30
horsepower combustion motor maximum. (Note that this lake is
ideally suited for pontoon use. Larger motor is required for safety
due to the limited maneuverability inherent with pontoons,
especially under wind conditions.)
These suggestions might help to limit to some extent the property value
loss to current significant lake shore owners compared to banning of
motorized boats. Those who purchased recreational lake property on Long
Lake could continue to use it as such albeit in a limited mode.
We anticipate that you will take our concerns into serious consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
~/~~(i2'l"tif ;;~<(
Don and R~~~ McKe~zie J ,~
12620 72ad Street North "-.: '. '
Stillwater, MN 55082-9322
2
Helen & Lee Miller
2962 Marine Circle Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
Stillwater Planning and Parks Commissions
February 21, 1997
.
Dear City Council and Commission Members
Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions regarding water surface use
at the February 17, 1997 pubic hearing. Weare writing to reiterate our position, and to
provide data that further explain our rationale.
Process for Determinine Water Surface Use
As I mentioned at the meeting, the DNR Commissioner has final approval on lake
use classification. Minnesota Rules parts 6110.3000-3800, Water Surface Use
Management, require a process of data analysis and submission before approval. The data
include transcripts of public hearings; data on lake characteristics; and safety and
environmental impact information. To my knowledge the process is not being followed.
Strongly suggest you coordinate with the DNR Boating Staff before
needlessly spinning your wheels. ~
Boatine
Although we enjoy power boating, we are opposed to the use of .
powerboats on Long Lake, due to safety, aesthetic and
environmental reasons. After the meeting I developed the attached chart that
helps explain our rationale. Any decision is a trade-off between several factors. Decisions
on one factor will have positive or negative impacts on other factors. After considering
all the factors, we feel that use of non motorized boats only, will
provide the most people with a safe and environmentally
attractive lake for recreation. The following discussion explains the attached
chart.
. Broad Public Use is a primary decision factor. Clearly, non-powered
boating such as canoeing"will provide the broadest use and
enjoyment to the entire public. As Dick Peterson explained, the water surface
belongs to everyone in Stillwater, not just those of us with riparian rights. If motors
are allowed, larger boats will reduce th-e number of people willing to enjoy the lake
from canoes and other small boats. Ifhigh-speed operation is allowed, very few non-
powered boats will be willing to risk their lives to take a wobbly ride on the lake. A
few will have usurped the rights of many.
.
.
.
.
. Docks are appropriate around large lakes. But on our long, skinny lake they will be
an eyesore, and will further damage the wildlife habitat due to clearing of the
adjoining property. We are opposed to the proliferation of large docks
around the lake and any motorized boating alternatives that require
their installation. We favor the use of non motorized boats such as
canoes or rowboats, that require small docks or none at all. Mr. Putman
wants docks as an amenity for his development. Ironically, he will damage the very
thing he is selling for a premium. Yet, he has demonstrated that he can sell premium
homes without docks in Woodbury. Seems like it should work in Stillwater, too!
. Noise Pollution Imagine coming home to a quiet, peaceful North Woods lake after
a day of job stress, only to find it invaded by jet skis, ski boats, and boat races. This
occurred during many weekdays and weekends over the last few years, as a few users
absconded with the silence. Allowing any gas-powered boats will assure far greater
levels of noise as the number of powerboats jumps from several to more than 50. We
favor only non-powered boats, or boats with electric motors, in order
to preserve an asset of the lake.
. Visual Aesthetics Bigger boats, faster boats, and numerous large
docks equals a yucky image that fills your eyes with motion and
clutter. Non powered boats will provide a pleasing view with small,
slow moving objects that blend with a natural shoreline. Visually, a
single pontoon boat fills a space about 10-15 times that of a single canoe, while a fast
moving power boat will multiply this effect by several times. Let's keep the North
Woods setting!
Snowmobiline
Although we enjoy snowmobiling, we feel the current snowmobile
operation on the lake is hazardous and should be strictly
prohibited. Further development will only worsen the situation. The purpose of
snowmobile trails is to segregate operation from other possible recreational users (e.g.
walking or skiing), and to contain i.t in a bounded 12-14 foot wide trail. Operation of
snowmobiles or four wheelers on the lake violates these safety objectives.
A sled going 100 mph will cover the length of a football field in 2 seconds. The
closure rate of two sleds driving toward each other at 70 and 100 mph respectively, will
cover the distance of a football field in slightly over 1 second. Lack of judgement and
reaction time at these tremendous closure speeds are killing people.
Comparison of Boating Alternatives on Use, Envirqnmental, Safety and Aesthetic Issues
No Boats Boats, No Boats, Electric Boats, Gas Boats, Gas Motors,
Motors..... Motors Only Motors, "No High Speed
The Right Wake" Rules Operation
Choice
. Broad Public None Most Users Some Reduction in Additional Reduction Very Few Users, Water
Use Canoe users due to in Canoe users due to Surface Monopolized by
Presence of Large Presence of Large a Few Power Boat
Boats Boats and Noise Operators
. Water Quality Positive Positive Minimal Negative Moderatc Negative Very Negative Impact
Impact Impact Impact
. Benefit to . Beneficial Minimal Moderate Negative Moderate Negative Very Negative Impact
Wildlife and Negative Impact Impact Impact
Water birds
. Enforcement None None Minimal Many, If Operators Do Very Many Enforcement
Concerns Not Adhere to Rules Concerns
. Safety Concerns None None Minimal Many, If Operators Do Very Many Safety
Not Adhere to Rules Concerns
. Docks None None or Small Large Docks Required Large Docks Required Large Docks Requircd
. Noise Pollution None None Minimal Moderate High Noise Levels
,
. Visual Very Good, North Very Good, Poor, due to Large Poor, due to Large Very Poor, due to Large
Aesthetics Woods Image North Woods Boats, Docks, and Boats, Docks, and Boats, High Speed
Image Clcaring at Water's Clearing at Water's Operation, Docks, and
Edge Edge Clearing at Water's
Edge
.
.
.
.
.
Analysis of High Risk Areas for Snowmobile Operation
Assume:
I. High-speed operation down center of lake,
2. plus other snowmobiles or recreational users
operating around shoreline, or in bays.
Dotted areas represent portions of lake' where high-speed
operator cannot see other vehicles about to . cross paths.
111e three asterisks mark areas of greatest risk. When one
snowmobile is exiting a bay and crossing the path of another
snowmobile driving the center of the lake, neither operator can
see the other until they are 100-200 feet apart. The drivers have
approx. 1-2 seconds to take evasive actions before colliding.
Lily Lake does not have such risks, because an operator can see
the entire surface of Lily from any point on the lake.
McKusick has one area of risk versus three,
and no bays or islands.
.,
I
l~
EIJT~gc.jr
ViA S/()l{lYlWItTu:...
EAS t~ENT
-z
:>
CITY OF STILLWATeil
.
J. '6JTMNcE/EJ.iT
VJA j)N~f>EIa!
.
.-----
;?,"- ;2../- l/7
/ .). j- ~ 0 7.) )u:f J;:. .A/
51-ill Lv? to/ )J~(. j'jof 2
4 ~
~ /-j(.-l._c0/td1~ /~i'~~v7
d/l-< <-~t a/t,A /:)c?./! d -.
/,:1
,r .'
Lr;~-7v';;z,~
(k/_-<-riLVl7 a,afy / c.[,& L{,yc.C /?'~I-{
r c1. U,-- 1.$- ?fj/n-d..- ,J -/',{L- Y; I-. / 1 "-
-' / ...,./' vI
~-1L-<-_L---G-Z-~?! (?, ~x et! !/Xjr,?/ t,:'i)' C'/7 J /7 t'l../:.-6 .
(/ /) I' 1-:-. .
iVL U.r(L/~,c.~ p/c..e-. u _~y~~..;2. ~ c-t-fA.-
.
~ (""---1-'./ ".&.~ ~.L2 t~.-L
~~ltft ~L ~ ,.;LV:- ~Zl-?1 / d( ~/!.;-Z/7.U
o:.ellJ.--t.,v'-1...-d. uy[A.c,c C,I/7~u(-t./' ft--;'~C LV. ..~
~
'i'lL
- /
~.~ jL- _?c'7't.-1j-~ /-c?~ c
(1 /
A
1.L I / ,/' / ___ . /, L~, 7'.;... ~,t.,1 /
~criJ~ TV in.-- "',~': ,;/>:~ ,- u:'~
fr~L T'I...--' a>'l-e... /.-4:?:LLJ/f /..". C?-
rru ,;;
. sJ-" ato'?, ~ 1 _ _
L~ ;d,C Y /:)c.-.!- /J& I..~c:..{..t/~f
/' t/
?:c./\-A
vA/--~
.
.
.
.
Jon H. Engelking
1220 Nightingale Blvd.
. Stillwater, tvIN. 55082
February 20, 1997
Stillwater Planning Commission
Stillwater Parks Board
Dear Commissioners and Board Members:
This letter is in follow-up of the public meeting held February 17, regarding the surface use issue
currently before your joint committee. I appreciated the opportunity to speak and to hear the
variety of opinions and concerns expressed regarding the formulation of surface use guidelines for
Long Lake. After considering the whole of the information and opinions, it is obvious that there
is considerable diversity as to the desires of the public and private property o\vners around Long
Lake. However, there did seem to be a consensus that the resource that Long Lake affords to
everyone should be preserved for the common good. It is with that frame of reference that I am
writing this letter to express my opinion, and to make what I feel could be a reasonable and
acceptable compromise for all concerned parties.
The strict conservationist desire for no motorized use, and the ultra conservative view of no
governmental rules or restrictions both have valid argwnents. We all value the wildlife and scenic
qualities of the lake. Water recreational opportunities are also a valued resource. Therefore, I
would ask that you consider the following compromise for the surface use of Long Lake when
making your recommendations to the Stillwater city council:
1. 25 mile per hour speed limit. This would allow boating and water
skiing, as well as meet legal guidelines governing restrictions on
water surface use.
2. Water skiim?: restricted to llAM to Sunset. This would insure an
undisturbed time for canoes and other non motorized boats, as well as
preserving quiet time for area wildlife.
3. No Wake restrictions at times of hi2h water. This restriction could
coincide with the publicized no wake restrictions the DNR places on
the St. Croix River.
4. No restrictions on snowmobile use other than those already establish~d
by the DNR and the State of Minnesota. (This did not seem to be an
area of concern.)
5. No restriction on motorized horsepower. This would allow the use of
personalized watercraft which are ideal for water skiing in this
particular lake. Also, the potential abuse by these craft would be
minimized by the above speed limit.
.
In considering the above it is important to keep in perspective that Long Lake will self-restrict use
by its very nature and design. As a shallow, irregularly shorelined lake, it is not conducive to
large boats. Basic economics dictate that boat owners will not repeatedly expose expensive craft
to the potential perils of this lake mindlessly.
Finally, the question of water quality in Long Lake must be addressed. I believe that the above
proposal for boating use produces significant benefit to the quality of the lake water by reducing
stagnation and thus reducing algae and weed build up. I don't think anyone wants Long Lake to
become the next Minnesota mosquito mecca. However, it must be further recognized the true
water quality problems of Long Lake come not so much from the surface use, but rather from the
run off waters coming into the lake from the surrounding properties. Chemical and fertilizer use,
as well as the larger problem of effluent coming from the entire watershed area around and finally
into Long Lake impact water quality much more severely. Obviously of special concern is the run
off coming from the new Market Center development and the areas of impending development
around Market Center and in Oak Park Heights, as this is the source of the majority of new
pollutants and water volume coming into Long Lake. Not until these problems are faced will the
issue of water quality in Long Lake, and subsequently Brown's Creek, be resolved.
I appreciate the consideration and time you are giving to the above problems, and would be happy
to discuss and help with any questions or other concerns you may have. The- above
recommendations I think represent a middle of the road compromise that all parties could fmd
acceptable for the future surface use of Long Lake.
11
Respe2tfullY,
.~
Jon H. gelking
L./
.
cc. all Board and Committee members
.
.
.
.
February 12, 1997
Stillwater Planning and Parks Commission
City Hall
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Commission Members,
It is with regret that I am unable to be present at your meeting to be held Monday February 17,
1997 due to a critical business trip that is impossible to be rescheduled due to international
visitors. We have heard, indirectly, that this meeting may include discussion of, or possibly
decisions made, related to surface use of Long Lake. Hence the purpose of this letter and
enclosure. We homestead ten acres on the North end of Long Lake which includes over five
hundred feet of shoreline and also encompasses the north outlet.
We have made our current concerns related to lake use known to the City as early as July 8,
.1996 with a letter to, as well as discussion with, City Attorney, Mr. David Magnuson. We
are making a copy available in the enclosure to re-emphasize our concerns and those of others
we have discussed this with. In addition, we have written on this topic and other related
issues to Mr. Clayton Eckles in a letter dated September 16, 1996.
Although we have had no response from the City relating to our offer to survey the lake shore
residents and provide resultant data to the City, we did begin the effort and would be happy to
complete this if desired. Regardless, we did request a survey of lake shore residents be taken
to determine the other owner's inputs to lake use issues.
Besides taking into consideration the concerns expressed in the enclosed letter, it is also
requested that any and all meetings related to Lake issues be diligently brought to the attention
of lake shore property owners well in advance to allow time for their inputs or to schedule
their attendance.
Thank you for taking our enclosed concerns into serious consideration.
Respectfully, //_/
/1n~4JA~- / Y
Don McKenzie /
12620 720d Street orth
Stillwater, MN 55082-9322
encl.
t
July 8, 1996
.
Mr. David Magnuson
Stillwater City Attorney
City Hall
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Long Lake----Surface Use
Dear Mr. Magnuson,
As Stillwater Township residents living on Long Lake in the phase I annexation area, we
have a great concern regarding assurance that no further restrictions be placed op water craft
surface use of Long Lake.
We are in very strong support of the current County and DNR position, as well as the past-
stated City position that only the standard existing published rules relating to use of water
craft in Minnesota be applied to Long Lake. In other words no additional restrictions should
be imposed for surface use of Long Lake.
Several months ago we purchased the property at 12620 72nd Street N. because it included
considerable lake shore(approx. 500 feet) suitable for establishing a part of that area for a
dock and boat landing so that we could continue to enjoy the lake. That property was
promoted and presented for sale as suitable for swimming, boating and fishing on the lake. .
The property also carried quite a premium price for those very benefits. Prior to that time we
had property near the east side of Long Lake and have been enjoying use of the lake with a
variety of different types of boats since 197 4. We made that extra investment basically for
the lake use benefits.
We are aware of many of the other Township residents in the annexation phase I area, as well
as City residents, who also support maintaining the current surface use of Long Lake.
Many, if not most of those Township properties, are of quite high property value. This is
due to the nature of the attractive lake shore benefits, which, coupled with increased land
size, tends to promote increased investment. Any change to those lake benefits in the form of
any additional restrictions would have an adverse affect on those property values. There
would need to be extreme justification, not to mention compensation, to allow that to occur.
Our concern, and that of many other Township residents on Long Lake, is that not only are
our properties being annexed, and our taxes being raised with no real resultant benefits, but
also that our current rights to enjoy the benefits of the lake may also be taken from us, and
our property values, as a result, would be adversely affected.
Loss of these rights would also negate the main reason that many of us chose to make the
considerable investments to own property on a recreational lake in Minnesota. Loss of these
rights, besides resulting in a decrease in our property values and decreased salability, would
more importantly, result in loss of personal enjoyment of our own property. In our particular
case we are currently in the midst of making an additional sizable investment in security,
boats, dock and land preparation for dock and landing facilities in addition to the sizable
premium that we already paid for the property.
.
.
.
.
Since living at this lake since 1974, we are not aware that there have been any documented
safety or environmental problems related to the current surface use of Long Lake by water
craft. If you spend the necessary time monitoring the lake you will become aware that the
actual boat usage on the lake is extremely limited. Also due to the minimal depths, the types
of useable water craft are self limiting. As a result there is no proper justification to change
or restrict that recreational status.
If there should be any reason to pursue the issue further, which there does not appear to be,
we request that a survey be carefully taken of each property owner on Long Lake to
determine whether they support continuation of the current State rules for use of water craft
and the current Recreational status of Long Lake, or on the other hand, now that the City will
control the land surrounding the lake, would they support the City applying yet additional
governmental controls on the lake with the likelihood of resultant loss of property values.
We would be happy to help to get that effort undelWay to gather the data at no city expense.
Respectfully submitted,
Don & Rosemary McKenzie
12620 72nd Street North
Stillwater, MN 55082-9322
2
-
.
Laurie Maher
3018 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Laurie -
We built our home on Long Lake 20 years ago. At that time, there was an organization called the Long
Lake Property Owners Association - which consisted of those of us on the northern end of the lake. It
was our understanding, back then, that gasoline-powered motors were not allowed on Long Lake. There
was no legislation preventing motorized traffic - just an understanding among the property owners. More
homes gradually appeared and existing ones changed hands. The understanding disappeared about 5 or 6
years ago - along with water quality and the wild life.
If you want to live near a lake or river, flooding is always a risk. It is the responsibility of the homeowner
- not government - to protect their invesnnent. High water was a concern 20 years ago, so we imported
fill to make sure our basement remained dry. Concurrently, the Association worked wit.h t.he City tu get
the current outlet installed.
Because we dealt wit.h t.he flood risk up front, high water has never been a concern for us. Our emphasis
has been on quality - not quantity. We believe that motorized traffic and impervious surfaces (roofs,
driveways and parking lots) are polluting the water and destroying wildlife habitat. We were reluctant to
join your Association at first because of the narrow focus (high water). We were told that you were going
~ to expand your scope - and deal with our concerns too. The content of your survey seemed to support that
conclusion. The results of the survey seemed to support that conclusion. Your letters to the local
newspapers, however, did not support that conclusion - nor the interests of the majority (70%) of those
you were representing. We agree, the subject is contentious. The noise coming from the 30% isn't just
their motors. Your effort on the high water issue was uncontested. This is a little tougher.
Twenty years ago, we fought off an annexation attempt by the City. We invested a lot of time trying to
stop the current situation. We flooded the newspapers and government (state and local) with paper - and
e-mail. We went to every meeting. It wasn't that we were against annexation. Rather, we feared what it
represented - higher taxes; lower water quality; destruction of wildlife habitat; and a deaf, intrusive
government. The former and latter have already happened - -but we haven't given up on the middle two.
The Association's unwillingness to take on the tough ones leads us to believe our 10 bucks would have
been better spent on more postage stamps. Please remove our names from the Association's membership
list (you can keep the $10).
.
o
b 1..1-
.0
fJf..~-"
.t\~ ~~
\~~~d
Bob and Teri Bureau
7010 Mid Oaks Ave N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
cc: Stillwater Planning Commission
Leah Peterson
.
~
.
.
RICHARD L. HUELS:MANN
12610 62ND STREET NORTII
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
CC(Q)~1f
February 14, 1997
City of Stillwater Planning Commission
City of Stillwater Parks Board
City of Stillwater Community Development Director
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
The "surface water use" of Long Lake is just one of many problems associated with
development in the area -- development that is different from the long-time "rural" character of
the area. The proposed high density development on the western shores of Long Lake creates
all kinds of issues that must be carefully identified, evaluated and then dealt with in a manner
that does not unduly benefit nor penalize those Long Lake residents who acquired their
properties in times when conditions and development standards were significantly different
than those contemplated by the proposed "annexation" area Phase I developments.
I would expect that the comments at the subject hearing will range from the extremes of (1)
absolutely no motor powered craft of any kind to (2) unlimited, uncontrolled use. The "no
motors" extreme unduly penalizes those who acquired their Lakeshore property under
conditions and with expectations different from those associated with high density
development. With the planned high density development of the western lake shore, the
,
City of Stillwater Planning Commission
Page 2.
February 14, 1997
.
current "unrestricted" usage cannot be continued as the lake is two small to accommodate
unlimited usage.
As the city develops its policy position for the surface water use of Long Lake, there are two
major factors that must be considered as foundations for any policies:
(1) Long Lake is a "meandering lake" without a legally defined shoreline. The legal
property descriptions of all owners of lakeshore property include specific lands
underlying the lake. Accordingly, the lake is totally privately owned and is not in the
public domain and has never had public access to it.
(2) Approximately 60% of the lakeshore has been developed under rural/township large
lot guidelines. Only a small portion, off Mari.1;\e Circle, has been developed to date by
"City" density standards (see attached map).
Any use policy must consider and respect the above factors.
My recommendations for a surface use policy for Long Lake are as follows:
.
(1) No public access for the launching of water craft of any kind.
(2) No public beaches or other areas that~alter the existing natural landscape within 50 feet
of the shoreline.
(3) The western shore city style developments be prohibited from forming associations or
other forms of organizations that would grant all property owners within the
developments access to and usage of the lake -- only those residential property owners
with lots abutting the shoreline would have access (as is the current situation). This
prohibition is necessary to preserve the rights and values of current residential property
owners (which constitute over 60% of the shoreline) and to protect this small lake from
over crowding and consequent environmental damage.
Alternatively, it would be acceptable to have no more than two associations that
collectively are limited to the number of "boats" (see below) that does not exceed in total
the number of boats that could have been on the lake had the western shore been
developed along rural! township standards (assuming one "boat" per 2 1/2 acre lot).
(4) Watercraft use should be limited to "boats" -- as that term is generally understood
(excludes jet-skis, ski-doos, etc.) -- that are either not motorized or are motorized by not .
more than ten (10) horsepower. This effectively eliminates excessive noise nuisance,
excessive speed and water "skiing".
.
.
..
.
.
.
City of Stillwater Planning Commission
Page 3
February 1~, 1997
(5) Docks should be prohibited -- water craft would be restricted to that which is "pulled
onto the shore". A proliferation of docks significantly detracts from the aesthetics of the
natural shoreline. The present practice of unrestricted dockage has resulted in some
large docks protruding into the lake that include benches and other additions creating
the appearance of a "deck" in the lake.
(6) Snowmobile and other similar usage should be prohibited, because of the noise
nUIsance.
The above policy recommendations reflect significant compromise for all involved. However,
in my opinion, they represent a reasonable solution to some very difficult issues. No one wins;
no one totally looses; there IS "give and take"; the traditional serenity and character of the
pristine area for the most part is preserved, while at the same time, allowing new homeowners
on the western shore with lake front property (or via the alternatively described limited
"associations") access substantially equivalent to that of existing lakeshore property owners
who purchased their lands under different conditions and with different expectations.
I have a small 14 foot fishing boat with a 25 HP motor; the boat has generally been used 5 or 6
times a year. I do not have a dock. If my recommendations are adopted, I will have to dispose
of the 25 HP motor (at a loss) and purchase a motor with 10 or less HP. I am willing to do this.
There are trade offs for all concerned. Again, the extremes of (1) "no motorized craft" of any
sort to (2) unrestricted use are not the answers. My recommendations provide a reasonable
solution.
Finally, I want to specifically state that I am not a member of The Friends of Long Lake
Homeowners Association, Inc., and I do not consider that organization to be a representative of
my interests.
Thank you for considering these matters.
~,~
Richard L. Huelsmann
CAK
Copies to:
Gene "Taco" Bealka, Councilman
~avid T. Magnuson, City Attorney
h
f ..
i 7
-
~ _' i I
a ~
~ I U
"
.
i
~-if~~~;, .
~ ,-,.... -..." ~ ,," ........ I \
, fT"l 'oj .-
< , ')ll1J..- ~ JJ~
,. )...~
\ '? t_
v
../
.1. ..L tn.' (n~' '-, ;:J'
! ~~ -~-
I~ ~ 'xN,).
, ~
· ~\>- 0.
. I
.
i I
'~-i
,A.,
"'~1
~...
~
fC'~ \.
"
"
r
~
~
~
"rl~
-
~ . ' ~ ~ i i ~IUI!~~~< ~I~ ~ ~~~~ '. /' \~ '~"" .
1- ..\ IS' Ii s g i 11ft1! ~~~ ' ~ ~~It~~J ~~~~; ~Q~. J r:'J" . ~
i . ~ M ~~~\~ 5 . I . J
I ~ \~ ~ "cL I! i- C
i L ~ ~ ""cL "tio . R! aIR R :..1 . r. ." , -.
t;; 'I ~'( c.cL J, . . ~ ~ ~
it :,; J!..cL:'~'!".-.(,~ !If! Q I B !J~ " . '.:7. .,. .I"~ ~
1 ~~. . i~~:; a \ ;~ ti ~ 1;5 ~'I.~' . · :~. :~. . ., ;.z. ~.r:;
~ III Ii! f n *1 ~~ ..../~ '. ~~~~.l.'" "f7
r::; ~ >< ",-..::t. i l 111 .\ Mol )D4 - -... . . . c:::- . \.:.,.... '" 1 :--=
VI r - ~:iJ ~ ~~ D ~ ~\\II - -rr: . ,..:..~ ~ ~. "
i i J 1 ~ r4.'t-.~ ~l6~ ~~~i1I!'al.~IW' : ~ ::t~1~ ~::;: ~
. ~, i,':: 1" ~ ~ ~ I! a ~ rJ III HTI./~ ./.. ':' -;-:-~ ~ ." ~ r.J'':''_
.....".- . t\:" t' D t~ ~ ~ ~^ ~'/!~:CI:-;o:r/:~~ r I I . ..YJ'IJ r7~ 7""7 ~...
~ ..;"'~A'~
\\ ,,- rf- ~ f. ~ \ ~ ~
" I~ --- % ~ -1 ::t:-- ,.' :>
'{ ~ "':>.. - ~ {?, <',
~'~ ~ (\ ~ ;:! 0
~ ('. ~ \-: ~
~. t [~t ~
~ ,~ rl ;. ~ ~
.
.
.. .'
...
"-'
.
RICHARD L. HUELSMANN
12610 62ND STREET NORlH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
July 29, 1997
To The Mayor and Council Members of
The City of Stillwater:
It is my understanding that the Council at its meeting on August 5, 1997 intends to consider
and act on an ordinance relating to Surface Water Use of Long Lake.
It is my further understanding that no comments from the public will be allowed at the
August 5 meeting. Without knowing any of the specific matters that may be covered by the
possible ordinance, it is most difficult to comment thereon.
However, I want to point out the following relative to the surface use of Long Lake:
AUAR Study and Report
. The City, at considerable cost, commissioned an extensive study -- referred to as the AUAR--
which was recently completed.
As to the surface water use of Long Lake, the study's findings are summarized as follows
(extracted from page 65 of the Report):
"While motor boat activity was found to affect turbidity and water quality in lakes on a
temporary basis, research in Wisconsin and other areas indicated that wind and
seasonal changes in lakes are a far more important factor in reducing water clarity, even
in shallow lakes. The increases in motorized boating with development of the
Annexation Area would be unlikely to impact the quality of Long Lake in a
significant, permanent way. Wind and seasonal changes to Long Lake will have far
greater impacts on the lake and downstream waters than increased motorized
recreation, if this occurs. Based on research available that suggests only minimal
temporary impacts to water quality due to water surface use, no mitigation strategies
to prohibit motorized recreation are included in the AUAR Mitigation Plan.
.
"The other potential environmental impact noted in the research on boating activity is
erosion and damage to shorelines caused by boat wakes. Research noted that
establishment and maintenance of health aquatic and shoreline plant communities is
the best method to prevent erosion damage from boats or wind. The AUAR Mitigation
Plan includes recommendations that public and private lakeshore landowners establish
and maintain buffers of native vegetation along the shoreline of Long Lake to reduce
erosion potential.
',.
.
.
.
2
"No research was available to estimate the potential impacts of motorized recreation on
wildlife populations. Research reviewed for this study noted that a variety of types of
recreation on or around lakes may affect wildlife, but that research has not been
completed to describe or quantify these effects, or suggest the need for mitigation
strategies as a part of the AUAR."
In Appendix B to the May 1997 "Draft", on page 18, the Mitigation Plan included the following
"protection strategy":
"3. Implement City water surface use policies to minimize recreational impacts to
water quality and habitat in the Long Lake area."
It is very important to note that in the "Final AllAR" dated July 21, 1997, the above cited
"protection strategy" has been eliminated, as stated on page 22 of the July 21, 1997, report as
follows:
"This item was deleted, to make the section consistent with the earlier portions of the
AUAR."
In summary, the studis findings were that" ...based on research available that suggests only
minimum temporary impacts to water quality due to surface use, no mitigation strategies to
prohibit motorized recreation are included in the AllAR Mitigation Plan." In other words,
there is no problem; there is nothing to fix!
February 14,1997 Letter To Planning Commission and Parks Board
Attached is a copy of a letter I sent to the Planning Commission and Parks Board for
consideration at their joint meeting on February 17, 1997. While I urge you to read it in its
entirety, I have summarized my recommendations included therein below.
Recommendations For Surface Use Policy For Long Lake
If after all the testimony, letters, comments, and particularly the results of the AUAR study, the
Council still deems it necessary to establish a use policy, I recommend the following:
1) No public access for the launching of water craft of any kind.
2) No public beaches or other areas that alter the existing natural landscape within 50
feet of the shoreline.
3) The western shore city style developments be prohibited from forming
organizations that would grant all property owners within the developments boat
, .
..
3
.
access to the lake -- only those residential property owners with lots abutting the
shoreline would have boat access (as is the current situation). This prohibition is
necessary to preserve the rights and values of current residential property owners
(which constitute over 60% of the shoreline) and to protect this small lake from over
crowding and consequent environmental damage.
4) Watercraft use should be limited to "boats" -- as that term is generally understood
(excludes jet-skis, ski-doos, etc.) -- that are either not motorized or are motorized by
not more than ten (10) horsepower (not more that 25 horsepower for "pontoons" that
do not exceed 20 feet in length). This effectively eliminates excessive noise nuisance,
excessive speed and water "skiing".
5) Docks should be prohibited -- water craft would be restricted to that which is
"pulled onto the shore". A proliferation of docks significantly detracts from the
aesthetics of the natural shoreline. The present practice of unrestricted dockage has
resulted in some large docks protruding into the lake that include benches and other
additions creating the appearance of a "deck" in the lake.
6) Snowmobile and other similar usage should be prohibited because of the noise
nuisance.
. Please keep in mind two significant factors:
1) Long Lake is a "meandering lake" without a legally defined shoreline. The legal
property descriptions of all owners of lakeshore property include specific lands
underlying the lake. Accordingly, the lake is privately owned and is not in the
public domain.
2) The south, east and north shores of the Lake have been developed primarily under
ruralj township large lot guidelines. Only a small portion, off Marine Circle, has
been developed to date by "City" density standards.
Any ordinances will be directed to privately owned property where governmental intrusion
seems unwarranted and, based on the facts and views of the experts that prepared the AUAR
study,~ecessary.
Very Truly Yours,
.
'.
.
.
.
RICHARD L. HUELSMANN
12610 62ND SlREET NORlH
STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082
February 14, 1997
City of Stillwater Planning Commission
City of Stillwater Parks Board
City of Stillwater Community Development Director
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
On Wednesday, February 12, 1997, I received in the mail an undated and unsigned "Notice of
Public Hearing On Surface Water Use of Long Lake" concerning a meeting on February 17,
1997. I do not recall seeing any publication of this meeting notice in either of the City's official
newspapers. Due to a previous commitment, and the untimely short notice of the subject
hearing, I may not be able to attend the meeting. Therefore, I am submitting my comments in
writing.
By way of background, I am a major property owner, with significant shoreline, on the south
end of Long Lake (see attached map). Had I known in 1990 (when I acquired the land) what I
know today, it is highly unlikely that I would have purchased the land and built the house that
we moved into on April 1, 1993. Since 1995, I along with other former Stillwater Township
home owners, have had to devote countless hours to governmental meetings and hearings in
order to try to preserve the character and property values of an area that was substantially
developed along large lot (2 1/2 acres plus) guidelines, and is now threatened by high density
development, primarily on the western shores of Long Lake. In addition, the developments of
Market Place and the Highway 36 corridors of Oak Park Heights and Bay town have caused
significant water runoff and related problems for the Lake in question.
The "surface water use" of Long Lake is just one of many problems associated with
development in the area -- development that is different from the long-time "rural" character of
the area. The proposed high density development on the western shores of Long Lake creates
all kinds of issues that must be carefully identified, evaluated and then dealt with in a manner
that does not unduly benefit nor penalize those Long Lake residents who acquired their
properties in times when conditions and development standards were significantly different
than those ~ontemplated by the proposed "annexation" area Phase I developments.
I would expect that the comments at the subject hearing will range from the extremes of (1)
absolutely no motor powered craft of any kind to (2) unlimited, uncontrolled use. The "no
motors" extreme unduly penalizes those who acquired their Lakeshore property under
conditions and with expectations different from those associated with high density
development. With the planned high density development of the western lake shore, the
.
.
.
City of Stillwater Planning Commission
Page 2
February 14, 1997
current "unrestricted" usage cannot be continued as the lake is two small to accommodate
unlimited usage.
As the city develops its policy position for the surface water use of Long Lake, there are two
major factors that must be considered as foundations for any policies:
(1) Long Lake is a "meandering lake" without a legally defined shoreline. The legal
property descriptions of all owners of lakeshore property include specific lands
underlying the lake. Accordingly, the lake is totally privately owned and is not in the
public domain and has never had public access to it.
(2) Approximately 60% of the lakeshore has been developed under ruralf township large
lot guidelines. Only a small portion, off Marine Circle, has been developed to date by
"City" density standards (see attached map).
Any use policy must consider and respect the above factors.
My recommendations for a surface use policy for Long Lake are as follows:
(1) No public access for the launching of water craft of any kind.
(2) No public beaches or other areas that alter the existing natural landscape within 50 feet
of the shoreline.
(3) The western shore city style developments be prohibited from forming associations or
other forms of organizations that would grant all property owners within the
developments access to and usage of the lake - only those residential property owners
with lots abutting the shoreline would have access (as is the current situation). This
prohibition is necessary to preserve the rights and values of current residential property
owners (which constitute over 60% of the shoreline) and to protect this small lake from
over crowding and consequent environmental damage.
Alternatively, it would be acceptable to have no more than two associations that
collectively are limited to the number of "boats" (see below) that does not exceed in total
the number of boats that could have been on the lake had the western shore been
developed along rural/township standards (assuming one "boat" per 21/2 acre lot).
(4) Watercraft use should be limited to "boats" -- as that term is generally understood
(excludes jet-skis, ski-doos, etc.) -- that are either not motorized or are motorized by not
more than ten (10) horsepower. This effectively eliminates excessive noise nuisance,
excessive speed and water "skiing".
~.
.
.
.
City of Stillwater Planning Commission
Page 3
February 14, 1997
(5) Docks should be prohibited -- water craft would be restricted to that which is "pulled
onto the shore". A proliferation of docks significantly detracts from the aesthetics of the
natural shoreline. The present practice of unrestricted dockage has resulted in some
large docks protruding into the lake that include benches and other additions creating
the appearance of a "deck" in the lake.
(6) Snowmobile and other similar usage should be prohibited, because of the noise
nuisance.
The above policy recommendations reflect significant compromise for all involved. However,
in my opinion, they represent a reasonable solution to some very difficult issues. No one wins;
no one totally looses; there is "give and take"; the traditional serenity and character of the
pristine area for the most part is preserved, while at the same time, allowing new homeowners
on the western shore with lake front property (or via the alternatively described limited
"associations") access substantially equivalent to that of existing lakeshore property owners
who purchased their lands under different conditions and with different expectations.
I have a small 14 foot fishing boat with a 25 HP motor; the boat has generally been used 5 or 6
times a year. I do not have a dock. If my recommendations are adopted, I will have to dispose
of the 25 HP motor (at a loss) and purchase a motor with 10 or less HP. I am willing to do this.
There are trade offs for all concerned. Again, the extremes of (1) "no motorized craft" of any
sort to (2) unrestricted use are not the answers. My recommendations provide a reasonable
solution.
Finally, I want to specifically state that I am not a member of The Friends of Long Lake
Homeowners Association, Inc., and I do not consider that organization to be a representative of
my interests.
Thank you for considering these matters.
~
Richard L. Huelsmann
CAK
Copies to:
Gene "Taco" Bealka, Councilman
David T. Magnuson, City Attorney
-r- 1V~"J~\
...~ ~ ~ 3 '~''''
~ ~f~ -.':. ~ ~~
to-'~ ~ ~ ~I....
~ -t:~. '"j .> ~. '.
~ t~.~ ~ -;.; _~ \J
-]-..~ ~1L~'.:lo"'i:(]:j~-" tJ ~- -.. = '~E~~i~ ~ ~ ~.~ &-4.,..-.1 ~. -"..~~~- .~"'C 'V ~
~ l:.:::: 0 ~ p~ 'J. .r. ~)'IJ"i/l' D ~K... f ~ ~I\i ~ ~. ~ i ~ ~ " ~ ");...~
f)t+- t~. :::. t~ '7- ~ 'O/i/l a II 8\i ~ l?b:<lM "i \l.~ .~.~~ ti :.t:. ~ f'! .I} g '~~
~t;:' 'I'~ ..:... ~.;.j 0 . .:..ii ~ ~ ~ rJ~. rS ~ ,v) ~.~. ...... ...........
~..... - == y. J oJ~.:e~.f.i- :..: ~ t !~ ~a It\ll ::t ~.~ '" \.~ I
.'o;a:. .. :- -'-.-- ~~ ~,..., ~~ ~ I I i! I '.. lu 'lJ.. I. "..
"I . .1ol.lol'I.'~ ~ .;.;'" ;I 11 ...v I all ~ .1.......
~ 0 . . 0.: ..:.. L1\1 ~ ~ ~~ . \. .
~ ~.cYl:l....... " ~..Illil!~'$y.~~..i
:::> . _ " .' . j . 1.1.: I' 8 ; I "." .,.~ ~ ~I h !
. '/~j./ ~ Ii'~ .,.~~ ~ ~ ~ . - I
~ ~~ -~ ., ~~ ~1)c J "" . -
"' . . 0 0 .....~, 0 . 1!J '. '''S ~ ~ ):.< [\1 ill i ! ~ ; I :
_. oiL: i! ~fi ,rill~~ ~ 2 I
- . .~ ;7' II II ;\.p:~ >-; :~~ i I
o
I I
7
I it
,
J~
I · i
I
.I 1 t.!1 ". T
"..
"
-1 ~\
i(~ ~
_~ ~11T'0 ' ' ~)
\ ' ., t-~
I, .' ~1 '5lSi? 'tl~
. J
J'iA I
~
. .
~ ) l~ 0
~~V~
1,,,ltL , (
t"7' r \ )()(~'
~ - ~- I ,
f........ ,,~ . ,l...I..
I
'- <. ~
.
.
.
Stmwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followini! restrictions appIv to Loni! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
.
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~t~Q
.
3026 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowim~ restrictions applv to Lone Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~~~
.JotJ? >>~~
~~
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation wiJl have serious consequences on safety, water and noise poJlution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that wiJl best serve aJl residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shaJlow, narrow, and silt fiJled to aJlow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely smaJl organic matter that remains suspended for oays-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which wiJl suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followiD!! restrictions applv to Lon!!: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
.
.
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points wiJl present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of undenvater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. PropeJlers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
.
.../"/
/--.."-/ /~
b~~~~~~
/A.0b If i~ /.. 1.,J=-cxs.vtF5
3017 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIIowiD1~ restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
J~Y~
.
3009 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followinS! restrictions applv to LonS! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
LfIt~tV
.
2929 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the following: restrictions apply to Long: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
· Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
· Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
· Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~~O~~
2929 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise poIlution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that wiIl best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely smaIl organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kiIl the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which wiIl suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowin!! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake, and all lakes in Stillwater:
.
.
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points wiIl present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys. .
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. PropeIlers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
all owed under state ordinances. HopefuIly, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
.
2930 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followin2: restrictions applv to Lon2: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~~~ ~uh-tD
2946 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
StilIwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowinl! restrictions applv to Lonl! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~J~ J3; 1-1
.
2946 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followine restrictions applv to Lone Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
ke~c~e ~~~(J
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followinS!: restrictions applv to LonS!: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
.
~'~
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboa~s to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the follow inS! restrictions applv to LonS! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle ofthe Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
/ vi 1bvfi~
.
2908 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followin2 restrictions applv to Lon2 Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
2908 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
~
~
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We -Propose the foIlowinl! restrictions apply to Lonl! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~ dl7r:Luuu-r--/
808 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followinS! restrictions applv to LonS! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people ""rill understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
,~(l~
..
.
764 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowim! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
V~ ~ r.
756 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
.
..
.
Sti'llwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up eA1:remely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the folIowin2 restrictions apvlv to Lon2 Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad sterns. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
\~ ~ 8J#
\ 'r \r{\~ 1Z/;V
}~Y}vt\ \\ w ,yv:r#J/
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboa~s to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weel(s, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowin2 restrictions applv to Lon2 Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
(&~ f)~
.
2922 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followin!! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
e.
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
.
7160 Mid Oaks
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operati'on.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowiD1! restrictions applv to Lone: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
· Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
· Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. TIlls may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
· Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
#~~
7160 Mid Oaks
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential ,vater use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operati'on.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followin2 restrictions applv to Lon2 Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
.
.
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
T~~ undersigned residents of Stillwater
.~ P/vY2-;/L;--<-~v/
7010 Mid Oaks
.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailbo~ts to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux., current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIIowin!! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
· Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
· Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. lbis may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
· Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~~
10971 Myeron Road N
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailbo<l;ts to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followin!! restrictions aoplv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersi~idents of Stillwater
q~~ '~
/.?
600 Eagle Ridge Trail
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We DrODose the followiDl! restrictions aDDlv to Lone Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. TIlls may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. TIlls
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
/11 E r fuel--
1124 ~ingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailbo<l;ts to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followiDi~ restrictions applv to Lon!!: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
.
~~~
1124 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowin!! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
-~ ~ --nz~ Cf--~
3001 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
~'XL- ~Ol 1991
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We DrODose the folIowin!! restrictions aDDlv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
.
.
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
.
qawr ,*, (;;fl~,z;
3033 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followinS! restrictions applv to LonS! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
lo <" <<t \ \
.
3034 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIIowiOf! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
.
.
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned resi er
/ {-2;LJ/r
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
~ d-.IJ IY?l'
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and.Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followin2 restrictions applv to Lon2 Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
Theun~Sig;W:
(J.,ltVl z- (J/J
3033 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
.
..
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followinS!: restrictions applv to LonS!: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followine: restrictions apply to Lone: Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
. Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
. Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom \\ith prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
. Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cuttiD.g lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~~~J~
.
2970 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater. MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation wiII have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followinS! restrictions applv to LODS! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people \vill understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents Qf Stillwater
.
~~ )11~
2962 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operatibn.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the folIowin!! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
· Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
· Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
· Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
t
2962 Marine Circle
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any eA-perts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followine restrictions applv to Lone Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
.
~0--
2916 MarineCircle
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIIowin!! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
· Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
· Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
· Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned resi nts of Stillwater
o
,~
.
1018 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIIowim! restrictions applv to Lon!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigne residents of Stillwater
.
JJ
1026 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followine restrictions applv to Lone Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
· Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
· Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
· Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
m~ T ~ ~
1034 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
. Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followin2 restrictions applv to LoU!! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
..
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
~ ;(LWUL
.
1102 Nightingale Blvd.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
.
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
chums up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the followint:! restrictions applv to Lont:! Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
· Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement .
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
· Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to chum the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only I to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
· Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
gTh~~l~dnr;:~~
708 Nightfngale Blvd. .
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
..
.
Stillwater City Council
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We have great concerns about the potential water use regulations for Long Lake. Improper modes of
operation will have serious consequences on safety, water and noise pollution, and the environment of the Lake.
We propose a solution that will best serve all residents while not destroying Long Lake, nor further damaging
McKusick, Brown's Creek and the River. It is the only solution that allows fishing boats, pontoons, canoes and
sailboats to safely co-exist, while minimizing the very serious environmental impacts possible from gas
operation.
We believe that Long Lake is too shallow, narrow, and silt filled to allow safe gas powered operation.
The AUAR study incorrectly used studies from deep Wisconsin lakes to conclude that the environmental effect
of motorized boats would disappear in a few hours. A 3M expert in particle suspensions has tested this assertion
through an independent lab and found that gas powered operation on Long Lake in water 3 and 4 feet deep
churns up extremely small organic matter that remains suspended for days-to-weeks, rather than a few hours.
These muddy particles also contain nutrients, which will feed the algae and further kill the Lake.
The Planning and Parks Commissions, by a narrow vote in their May meeting, proposed that motors be
restricted to 10 hp or less. Unfortunately, the Commissions failed to consult any experts, including Mark
Doneux, current manager of the Brown's Creek watershed. Mark is concerned that Long Lake and Lake
McKusick are shallow, silt bottom sloughs, which will suffer significant environmental damage if stirred.
We propose the foIlowin2 restrictions applv to Lon2 Lake. and all lakes in Stillwater:
Motors should be limited to electric only. Electric operation will minimize enforcement
issues, and improve personal and property safety.
.
Operation should be limited to areas deeper than 3 feet to minimize bottom
churning. Shallow operation with an electric motor was demonstrated to churn the bottom with prop
wash. To avoid this, electric powered boats must operate in the middle of the Lake, rather than the many
shallow bays where the bottom is only 1 to 2 feet deep and susceptible to churning. This may require
installation of channel buoys. The two narrow points will present particular safety hazards and must be
marked with buoys.
.
Operation should not be allowed in areas of underwater vegetation, in
accordance with State laws. Propellers are particularly effective at cutting lily pad stems. This
restriction will require clearly marked, narrow, access lanes for boat owners on the vegetated bays as
allowed under state ordinances. Hopefully, all people will understand that these plants are currently the only
source of water quality improvement and are to be protected.
We strongly request that the City manage the water surface use of Stillwater's lakes as proposed.
Sincerely,
The undersigned residents of Stillwater
Jill. ?~
916 Marine Ci{)le
Stillwater, MN 55082
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Steve Russell, Community Development Director V
DA: August 16, 1997
FR:
RE: PHASE I COMMUNITY CENTER
Plans and specifications for the Phase I community center project are being prepared. With
council authorization, the project will be bid August 30 - September 31 and return to the council
October 7 for decision on project authorization.
The plans have been organized in three bid options as described and shown on the attached
pages. The estimated cost of the bid packages are from $5,245,669 for the total arena/fieldhouse
project without deductions to $3,037,757 for the arena with deductions.
The basic project has been changed by the architects to reduce costs. The field house has been
rotated to eliminate the need for a retaining wall. This is estimated to reduce project costs by
S150,000 but practically eliminates the option of providing space for a public work facility (see
attached letter from city engineer).
Also, in an effort to reduce costs, a pre engineered roof system is proposed. This reduced the
base project cost by $95,000 but will effect the interim useable space and result in a reduction in
building quality.
The cost of the current project are similar to previous cost estimates. Actual cost will be
available as a result of bidding. At that time performa information will be available.
Atmeeting time, the three options and deductions will be presented for council approval.
Recommendation: Authorize bid letting for community center sports complex
Attachments: Plans and estimated costs
MEMO
August 15, 1997
.
TO: Steve Russell
Community Development Director
FROM:
Klayton H. Eckles
City Engineer
l(~
SUBJECT: Recent Proposed Modifications to Sports Facility and Public Works Facility
It has come to my attention that the architects working on the Sports Complex are
proposing changes in the design of the sports facility that would have serious impacts on the
Public works facility site. It is my understanding that the architects desire to further reduce the
size of the Public works facility land in a effort to reduce costs for the sports facility. I find this
development very disturbing and I question the judgment of this decision based on the following
facts:
1. The City Council has directed city staff and the architect to complete the sports
facility on the land designated for that facility without further impacting Public
works.
.
2. The Public works facility requires four to five acres based on the BWBR study two
years ago. The layout approved by Council had reduced that land to three acres
which we deteimined as the absolute minimum area.
3. To determine that using additional land for the sports facility will reduce the sports
facility costs is inaccurate and short sighted. When looking at the cost of the total
package, the values of the land used to construct the facility should be included. At a
value of aEProximately $4.00 per foot the additional land used could be worth more
than the proposed savings.
4. Such a change would make the public works facility not feasible at this location. We
currently have no other options. Therefore, the cost difference in locating public
works at a different location needs to be considered as well.
This issue was discussed with City Council approximately three months ago and a
decision made to my knowledge. City Council has not changed their view on this topic.
Therefore I can not understand why the architect is proposing changes that have not approved by
staff or Council.
.
.I
.
WHERE WE STARTED.....
.
Original Plan
Arena Cost
Fieldhouse
Site Costs
Total Cost
$2,553,000
$1,547,000
$ 475,000
$4,575,000
.
St. Croix Valley Sports Complex
Stillwater CITY COUNCIL 8119/97 Minnesota
~
DESIGN PROCESS RESULTS.....
.
Original Budget
Arena Cost
Fieldhouse
Total Cost
$2,553,000
$1,547,000
$4,100,000
.
Items Added to Project
Arena Seating $ 200,000
Large Fieldhouse $ 426,000
Total Building Cost $4,726,000
Orig Site Costs
Additional Site
$ 475,000
$ 75,000
Total Budget Costs $5,276,000
.
St. Croix Valley Sports Complex
Stillwater CITY COUNCIL 8/19197 Minnesota
WHERE WE ARE TODAY.....
.
Total Budget Costs
Cost Estimate
$5,276,000
$5,245,669
Cost Reduction Options (ADD ALTS)
1. South Side Seats $ 275,000
2. Aluminum Seats $ 12,000
3. Monument Sign $ 18,468
.
Total Base Bid Costs $4,940,201
Cost Reduction (Design Changes)
1. Pre-Engineered $ 95,000
2. Metal Wall- North $ 59,000
Total Base Bid Costs $4,786,201
(with all deducts)
.
St. Croix Valley Sports Complex
Stillwater CITY COUNCIL 8119197 Minnesota
"
.
ARENA ONLY Phase I OPTION.....
Total Base Bid Costs
(with all deducts)
Deduct Fieldhouse
Site Deduct for FH
Phase I Arena Only
.
I.
$4,786,201
$1,698,444
$ 50,000
$3,037,757
St. Croix Valley Sports Complex
Stillwater CITY COUNCIL 8119197 Minnesota
+2122132324
9"1 P02
HUG 19 '37 16:24
~
~
" .
M.K.D. Capital Carp.
. 114 East 32r.d Sftcet - Suite 1701
:-iew Yo~k. New York 10016
Tel. (212) 213-2777
FAX (212) 21:;-232.1
August 19, 1997
CITY OF STILL WATER
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN. 55082
Re: Stillwater Radisson Hotel & Suites Project
To the Honorable Mayor, City COWlcilmen and all City Staff
At the request of John Lang and Mike Borum, I am sending this letter to you for the
purposes and giving you a status report.
.
On July 7, 1997, Territorial Coalition, Inc. completed an application and submitted the
required fee to M.K.D. Capital Corp. for the funding of a Radisson Hotel and Suites
located at 606 North Main Street, Stillwater Minnesota. I have visited YO~lf fine City for
the purpose of a site inspection. We are very excited about this project and are moving
forward, we are attempting to complete the diligence process with alacrity.
As part of our due diligence process, Tel has forwarded to US a number of items which
we have requested. We are currently in the process of reviewing all documents and
information in order to move forward. Our company has requested an appraisal to
estimate the prospective market value of the fee simple interest in the to. be-built hotel in
order to establish a market value for funding purposes. We are also awaiting an approval
ofthe historic reuse design by the National Park Service, which is responsible for
allocating Federal Ta.,,< Credits. Fortunately, the real estate market is coming back to
good health but a part of that good news means that everyone is quite busy and to obtain
certain third party reports and information takes longtlT than we prefer and unfortunately
is not within ow' control or within the control of Tel.
A project of this magnitude takes both time and patience. A significant amount of work
is necessary in order to bring a development such as this to fruition. The parties involved
become apprehensive if they are 110t permitted a sufficient amount of time to complete
their duties.
.
.
.
.
..
~.. G. :. ,,~.1.j~.j,'':::'~
';: i.~ /"'~r..:.
f-I,.I.;I :''':'' ..) ( :. b: 2..
...
We ask that the City of Stillwater give Territorial Coalition. Inc-. an extension to mid
November at the very least. to close on this property. It is imperative and beneficial to all
parties involved to extend the closing date so that we may move forward. We appreciate
the City's consideration in this matter and look torward to working with you in order to
bring this development to fruition.
If you have any questions and would like to discuss any of the details please feel free to
gr,,.e me a call.
V ery truly yours,
AL:tm
cc: John Lang
Mike Borum
c: \ w i.'1word\mkdcap\stillwat.doc
.
.
.
TO:
FR:
DA:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Steve Russell, Community Development Director I~
August 16, 1997
UPDATE ON TERRITORIAL PRISON
An update on the territorial prison hotel project will be provided at meeting time.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director /('~
DA: August 14, 1997
RE: WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY ROAD 15 EXTENSION
STUDY
At your July 1st meeting, Don Theisen from Washington County Public Works presented a status
report on their study for extension of CR 15. At that meeting, staff was directed to notify the
county of the city's position regarding the extension. The attached letter was sent to the county.
On July 16th, a CR 15 Task Force meeting was held (minutes attached). The task force and
county staff discussed new information presented by the consultant (attached) and developed
options on how the study should progress.
The public works department has decided to have a workshop with the county commission and
present three alternatives for continuing the study as listed below:
1. Complete the environmental assessment (EA) now on Alternative A-2, a C Alternative and
the No Build Alternative.
2. Determine the No Build Alternative is the appropriate alterative (and end the study), and
3. Place the EA on hold until after completion of the TH 36 study (by MnDOT) and remove the
project construction for the 1998-2002 CIP.
County staff is recommending obtion 3 to the board.
City planning staff feels it is critical for the county at this time to designate the corridor for CR
15 extension so landowners will be on notice and the right of way will be available for road
improvement when needed in the future.
Recommendation: Direct staff to attend county commission workshop on Tuesday, August 26,
1997 and represent city's position.
Attachment
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
WASHINGTON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PARKS. HIGHWAYS. FACILITIES
11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH. STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-9573
612-430.4300 Facsimile Machine 612-430.4350
Donald C. Wisniewski, P.E. I
Director Pubhc Works/County Engineet
John P. Perkovich, Deputy D"ector
Operations Division
Donald J. Theisen, P.E., Depc.'7V .
Technical & Administrative Orvis.
Sandra K. Cullen, P.E.
. '.,ralficrrransportation Engineer
Edward Kapler,
Facilities Operations Manage.
MEMORANDUM
Manning Avenue Task Force Members
City/Township Administrators/Clerks for Bay town Township, Grant,
lake Elmo, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Stillwater Township
Sandra Cullen
August 1, 1997
August 26, 1997 - County Board Workshop on
Manning Avenue Connection Corridor Study
We have scheduled a workshop with the County Board to discuss the options for .
continuing the Manning Avenue Connection Corridor Study. You are welcome to attend:
When:
Where:
Time:
Tuesday, August 26t 1997
Washington County Government Center Board Room
To be announced in the Board Agenda previous to the meetingt - estimated
time 11 :00 a.m. to noon. Call 430-4300 on 8/25/97 to confirm.
The workshop will also be televised on the local cable TV channel.
Along with this board workshop notice you will find the Manning Avenue Connection Task
Force meeting summary for the July 16t 1997 meeting. If you have any questions about
the studYt please call me at 430-4330.
~~
cc:
County Commissioners
Jim Schugt County Administrator
...\man.mem
Printecl on ReCYCie(l Paper
.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
"
.
.
.
MANNING AVENUE CONNECTION
TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY FOR
JULY 16,1997
8:00 a.m. -
WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
,"
Attending:
David Beaudet, Oak Park Heights, 439-2582
Sandy Cullen, Washington County, 430-4330
Wyn John, Lake Elmo, 777-5510/770-5960
Mark Krebsbach, Mn/DOT, 582-1115
William Lohr, FHWA, 291-6122
Brian Nichols, Bay town Township, 439-7224
Steve Russell, Stillwater, 430-8821
Dave Schaaf, Oak Park Heights, 439-9501
Don Theisen, Washington County, 430-4304
Sheila-Marie Untiedt, Stillwater Township, 439-6476
Glen VanWormer, Grant, 490-2045
Don Wisniewski, Washington County, 43.0-4300
Charleen Zimmer, SRF, 475-0010
Agenda Items
1. The group quickly reviewed positions of the local cities and townships to date:
Grant, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater Township have not taken a position.
Lake Elmo and Bay town Township have passed resolutions advocating No Build.
Stillwater has asked that "the County continue the Manning Avenue connection
corridor study and select an alignment for the extension of that road."
Glen V. went over the study with Grant city council in early June. Their sentiment was
that Alternative A 1 does not provide any benefit and should be dropped.
2. Charleen Z. went through the draft memorandum on No Build impacts (attached for
those who were not at the meeting).
After Charleen was finished the following comments were made:
Wyn J. - He was concerned about preserving ROWand felt that it was a personal
disadvantage to the land owners. He also felt that there was too much emphasis on
the "greenway" and that the trail system can go somewhere else, it will have to with
the No Build alternative anyway.
Page 1 of 2, 7/16/97 mtg sum
Brian N. - He questioned exactly how ROW is preserved and what is an official map.
It was explained that once an alternative is chosen, the ROW needed will be outlined .
on the plat maps and whenever someone comes to develop their property or sell it, the
County will have the option buy the ROW needed for the road. Brian would like to see
TH 5 go to four lanes. - ,~
Steve R. - He believes that the traffic demand on the connection is underestimated.
Traffic growth in Stillwater has_already reached the 2010 forecasts by the Met Council.
The study needs to look at how much traffic is being taken out of the local street
system of Stillwater. Any traffic that would be rerouted to the new connection would
help traffic flow through the city because there are no real direct routes through the
city. Steve also mentioned that a frontage road to TH 36 on the south side similar to
the one the City of Stillwater is planning on the north side would be beneficial
connecting TH 5 and CSAH 15.
Wyn J.- Lake Elmo is concerned about TH 5 needing two additional lanes through
town. It would destroy downtown Lake Elmo. The City would like to realign the
southern connection of CSAH 15.
Mark K. - TH 5 is handling many divergent trips from TH 36, 1-694, 1-494, and 1-94
because it is easier and faster. Mark's fe-eling is that Mn/DOT would not widen TH 5
through Lake Elmo to four lanes before they address other problems in the system.
There are a limited amount of funds and TH 5 is not being considered for expansion in
the long range plans. As TH 5 becomes congested, traffic will focus back on the
primary routes. .
3. The group discussed what's next. There is a need to consider what happens with TH
36. Will it be a freeway or an expressway? Will CSAH 15 be an interchange - full
access or partial access? The TH 36 study was discussed.
The coordination of the TH 36 study and the possible annexation of the area of
Bay town west of TH 5 into Oak Park Heights affects how the Manning Avenue
Connection Corridor study proceeds.
It was decided that at this time, there is not enough justification to construct this
connection within the current 1997 - 2001 C.I.P. However, there is enough
benefit/cost ratio that we should consider creating an official map in order to preserve
right-of-way for a future road corridor in the area. We should postpone completion of
the environmental assessment for the Manning Avenue Connection until Mn/DOT
completes their study on TH 36 (which is expected to be completed by 1999). Of all
the build alternatives, staff would recommend completing the environmental
assessment on one of the "c" alternatives and Alternative A2 in addition to the No
Build. This recommendation may change depending on the outcome of the TH 36
study.
If Oak Park Height does annex part of Bay town, the environmental assessment work
could be done within four months in order to complete an official map for preservation
of right-of-way. .
Page 2 of 2, 7/16/97 mtg sum
.
.
.
The County will set up a Board Workshop to discuss the possible options for continuing
the study. All the Task Force members will be invited.
Options to be presented to the County Board are:
..
1. Complete the EA nov.; on Alternative A2, a C Alternative and the No Build.
2. Determine the No Build_ is appropriate and conclude the study.
3. Place the EA on hold until after completion of the TH 36 Study. Remove the
project construction from the 1998-2002 C.I.P.
Staff will recommend Option 3.
...man797.sum
Page 3 of 2, 7/16/97 mtg sum
SRFNo.:
0972523
-DRAFT FOR REVIEW-
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: Don Thiesen, P.E., Washington County
Sandra Cullen, P .E. , Washington County
FROM: Charleen Zimmer, AICP, Principal
Dave Montebello, P.E., Associate
DATE: July 14, 1997
SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND NO BUILD
AL TERNA TIVE ON MANNING A VENUE
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to document additional analysis requested by the
County and the Task Force regarding the impacts, benefits and costs related to the No
Build alternative for Manning Avenue. This information will help to determine the need
for a connection of Manning Avenue between T.H. 5 and T.H. 36, an existing gap in
CSAH 15. The No Build evaluation and needs assessment addressed the following issues:
.
._ Future growth in Washington County
. County highway system continuity
. Increases in traffic on other routes with No Build
. Travel time and user costs
. Transportation benefits and/or impacts
. Benefit/cost analysis
. Potential environmental impacts
. Bike trail and greenway connections
For purposes of this analysis, the "No Build" alternative was assumed to be a
reconstructed local street on the existing Manning Avenue/55th Street connection between
.
.
.
.
TH 36 and TH 5. This assumption was made because existing Manning Avenue/55th
Street is in extremely poor condition and will need to be reconstructed in the near future.
FUTURE GROWTH IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
The 1994 traffic counts and 2018 No Build travel forecast(existing Manning with a new
St. Croix river crossing) are shown in Figure 1. These travel forecasts, as well as others
presented previously, are based on population, employment and household projections by
the Metropolitan Council for the year 2020. Based on these forecasts, the Manning
Avenue connection is expected to cany approximately 6,000 vehicles a day. While an
ADT of6,000 may seem low compared to regional Trunk Highway (TH) routes, it is
considered to be a significant volume for a County State Aid Highway (CSAR). In fact,
this ADT would put Manning Avenue in the top ten percent of all CSAH routes in the
state.
The forecasts are based on what we feel are conservative estimates for long-term growth
in the region. Figure 2 illustrates the regional growth policies assumed for 2020 for the
communities in Washington County. Note that eastern Woodbury as well as several other
areas in Washington County are in the "urban reserve" category. These areas are assumed
to have limited growth and limited density within the next twenty years but are reserved
for urbanization beyond the twenty year time period. If some or all of these areas develop
more rapidly than currently planned, the forecasts for the roadways under consideration in
this study will be higher than currently predicted for 2018. Future roadway volumes could
also be higher if development in western Wisconsin occurs more quickly than expected.
Therefore, it may be prudent to save right-of-way for the Manning Avenue connection
before development precludes the extension as a future option,
COUNTY HIGHWAY SYSTEM CONTINUITY
Good transportation system planning includes designation of one or more roads within the
planning area as through routes, providing continuous routes north-south, east-west or to
accommodate major travel patterns. TH 36 and other roads provide east-west
connections and TH 5 provides a northeast-southwest route connecting to S1. Paul.
CSAH 15 provides a north-south route.
As discussed previously, CSAH 15 (Manning Avenue) is the only north-south roadway in
Washington County that can be continuous between the county's southern and northern
borders. As such, CSAH 15 is expected to play an increasingly important role in the
county's arterial highway system. Its central location in the county and the fact that it is
already a nearly continuous route make it a backbone route in the county's transportation
system plan (see Figure 3). The County's transportation plan has long included a
recommendation that the CSAH 15 connection between TH 5 and TH 36 be constructed
to make the route continuous.
Currently, north-south travel on the segment ofCSAH 15 between TH 5 and TH 36 is
accommodated by one or more circuitous moves as shown in Figure 4. The most
common route of these circuitous movements appears to be the CSAH 15/TH 51TH
36/CSAH 15 move. Not only is this a backward move for the traveler, but it adds
unnecessary local trips to a regional interchange. However, the 2018 forecasts indicate
that only about 1,000 trips per day are making a truly north-south trip on this section of
Manning. That is, only about 1,000 trips are using both CSAH 15 south ofTH 5 and
CSAH 15 north ofTH 36. The question to be answered is if these trips, as well as those
that use TH 36 or TH 5 for part of a north-south trip, need to be accommodated on a
more direct route.
.
The No Build alternative would maintain the existing circuitous Manning Avenue
connection in the TH 36/TH 5 area with the majority ofCSAH 15 travelers using a shared
segment with TH 5 to/from TH 36. Generally, shared segments, especially with left turn
moves required to make through connections, are not desired due to the potential for
increased congestion in the shared segment and operational and safety concerns at
intersections.
INCREASES IN TRAFFIC ON OTHER ROUTES WITH NO BUILD
AL TERNA TIVE
One test of the need for a Manning Avenue connection is to determine the long term
traffic impacts on other routes that must accommodate the trips that would use the
connection ifit were provided. A comparison of the No Build and Build forecasts
indicates that CSAH 17 and TH 5 are the routes that would be most affected by not
constructing the connection. The expected impacts are shown in Figure 4. The No Build
alternative is expected to add approximately 3,000 daily vehicles to TH 5 south ofTH 36
and approximately 2000 vehicles to CSAH 17 north ofTH 5. Other streets that would
have small increases in traffic (less than 1000 vehicles per day) include 40th Street North,
CSAH 17 south ofTH 5, Northbrook Blvd. North and Osgood Avenue.
.
Future traffic volumes on TH 5 indicate a need for increased capacity, with or without the
construction of the Manning Avenue connection. If capacity improvements can be
provided on TH 5, the additional 3000 trips associated with the No Build can probably be
accommodated. However, no improvements on TH 5 are included in Mn/DOT's twenty-
year plan at this time. Therefore, TH 5 may experience increasing congestion and
associated problems for many years into the future. In this case, the additional 3000 trips
resulting from a No Build condition would increase congestion and delays.
While the projected volume on CSAH 17 would approximately double with the No Build
option, the daily traffic volume would only be 4500. There would be no capacity
problems on CSAH 17 with this ADT. This is approximately the traffic volume counted
on CSAH 17 in June, 1997 with traffic diversions due to the closing of the TH 5/TH 36
interchange for reconstruction (see Figure 5). The majority of the traffic diverted from
.
this interchange used 58th Street which is the signed bypass route. This is consistent with
. the strong northeast/southwest travel pattern in this area.
Traffic volume impacts on the remaining streets are not large (less than 1000 vehicles per
day). However, these streets are primarily residential in nature where any increase in
traffic is unwelcome. Even small traffic diversions to CSAH 17 south ofTH 5 would be
undesirable due to the potential impact on downtown Lake Elmo.
TRA VEL TIME AND USER COST SAVINGS
.
An estimate of travel time and user cost savings or costs related to increases or decreases
in vehicle miles of travel can be calculated using the regional travel forecasting model.
First there are benefits to users of the new connection in terms of shorter travel distances
and reduced travel times (more direct route). The model estimates indicate that there
would be an average decrease in vehicle miles of travel for Manning users of 824,000
miles per year if the connection were constructed. This results in an estimated user time
savings of 8600 hours per year. In addition, there are secondary benefits to adjacent
roadways which can accommodate traffic better due to the trips being routed to Manning.
These benefits were also estimated using the regional model. The total present value of
both the direct user benefits to Manning and the secondary benefits to adjacent routes over
a 20-year period is estimated to be $7.2 million. Seen in reverse, this can also be stated as
the 20-year user cost of a No Build decision.
TRANSPORT A TION BENEFITS AND/OR IMP ACTS
A comparison of transportation benefits and impacts for No Build and the Build
alternatives is provided in Table 1. The primary benefits and impacts have been described
in the previous paragraphs,
BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS
The construction costs and user benefits were compared for No Build and the Build
alternatives as shown in Table 2. As noted above, the user benefits for the Build
alternatives is estimated at $7.2 million per year. $2,9 million in benefits is related directly
to Manning Avenue trips. The remaining $4.3 million in benefits is related to secondary
benefits resulting from slight travel time improvements on TH 5, TH 36 and other routes,
The cost for construction of a local street on the existing alignment is approximately
$500,000. This construction cost would be offset by approximately $250,000 in user
benefits resulting from travel time savings or operating cost savings. The resulting
benefit-cost ratio would be 0.50.
.
The cost for construction of the Build alternatives would range from $4.1 to $9.1 million.
These construction costs would be offset, at least in part, by user cost savings. The
resulting benefit-cost ratio ranges from 0.50 to 2.64.
.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A comparison of potential environmental impacts of No Build and the Build alternatives is
shown in Table 3. While the right-of-way impacts are small, it should be noted that even
reconstruction as a local street will require some right-of-way acquisition. It also results
in wetland impacts comparable to some of the Build alternatives because the existing
alignment is located within a wetland basin. Since no realignment would occur to move
the roadway away from this wetland basin, the impacts on wooded areas would be less for
No Build than for all of the Build alternatives.
BIKE TRAll.. AND GREENWAY CONNECTIONS
The CSAH 15 corridor is part of the County's planned countywide greenway system
which will include a multi-use path, as shown in Figure 6a. If the Manning Avenue
connection is not constructed, the continuity and directness of the greenway/trail system
will also be negatively affected.
...I
The Washington County Trail Plan also indicates a shoulder bike trail along Manning
Avenue for much of its north-south alignment (see Figure 6b). The trail is shown on
existing County maps as following Manning Avenue south ofTH 5. The trail stops at TH
5, re-starting again on Manning Avenue north ofTH 36. This leaves a gap in the north-
south county trail system. The No Build Alternative and some of the Build Alternatives
would perpetuate this gap in the trail system. Some of the Build Alternatives would
provide a trail route that would continue along a new north-south Manning Avenue
connection between TH 5 and TH3 6.
.
CORRIDOR PRESERVATION
Even though it may be agreed that there is not an immediate need for constructing the
Manning Avenue connection, it may be desirable to identifY a preferred Build alternative
now -- for future implementation -- so that any right-of-way required for the Build
alternative can be preserved. This strategy, called corridor preservation, is being used
more often in transportation planning, especially in rapidly developing areas like
Washington County where availability of right-of-way for planned projects can diminish
due to increasing development of land within planned corridors. The strategy of
protecting planned road corridors for future use is desirable because it makes corridors
available for future use that are:
.
.
.
.
. In locations agreed to by all relevant levels of government (in the case of
Manning Avenue - through the Environmental Assessment process),
. Free of severe environmental constraints (by identifying and protecting a
corridor with less environmental impacts),
. With minimum disruption to established and future community and business
patterns (by identifying and protecting the corridor that has minimal
community impacts and by planning future development around the protected
corridor),
. In a cost-effective manner (since right-of-way costs decrease if the land needed
for the corridor has not been developed), and
. In a timely fashion when construction is ready to begin (because right-of-way
and potential lawsuits/condemnations etc. are avoided by early planning and
consensus).
For the Manning Avenue, as well as for the planned greenway pedestrian/bicyc1e trail
corridor, continuation of the alternative review process and implementation of corridor
preservation techniques to ensure that the desired corridor is available when the need for
construction arises is an option which should be seriously considered,
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
.
Manning Avenue is forecasted to carry 6000 ADT in 2018, While an ADT of
6000 is not high for a trunk highway it is a significant volume for a county -
state aid roadway (in the top ten percent of all CSAH routes in the state).
/
. Other local roads (especially TH 5 and CSAH 17) will experience increased
traffic volumes in the future if the Manning Avenue connection is not
constructed. There would be capacity on CSAH 17 to accommodate an
expected 2000 ADT increase. However, TH 5 will be heavily congested with
or without Manning unless additional capacity is added to TH 5. The 3000
trips added to TH 5 under the No Build will increase congestion and delays.
. The growth projections for southern Washington County are conservative. It
is possible and perhaps-likely that growth will occur at a faster rate than that
assumed in the Metropolitan Council model.
. Manning Avenue is the most continuous north-south road corridor in
Washington County. The discontinuity of Manning in the vicinity ofTH
36/TH 5 is the only major gap in the north-south connection. This continuity
will become more important as both the north portion of Washington County
(Forest Lake area) and the south portion of Washington County (Woodbury
and Cottage Grove) develop. The const~ction of the Manning Avenue
connection is part of the approved County transportation plan.
.
· The Manning Avenue corridor is identified by Washington County as a north-
south pedestrian/bicycle corridor in the Washington County trail plan. The
routing of Manning Avenue pedlbicycle traffic to TH 36 and TH 5 is less
desirable than a Manning through-route would be.
· Operational problems and circuitous routes increase travel distance and time
under the No Build scenario. This results in local and regional transportation
system user costs. Although construction costs are greater for the Build
alternatives than for the No Build, the No Build results in a negative net benefit
(transportation benefits/costs). The Build alternatives all have positive net
total benefits with total benefit-cost ratios ranging from 1.24 to 6.55. The
benefit-cost ratios using only the Manning benefits range from 0.5 for No Build
and Al to 2.64 for C3.
. Environmental impacts for No Build are less than for Build alternatives;
however, the No Build is not without environmental impacts. In particular,
wetland impacts are comparable to and, in some cases greater than, the
wetland impacts of the Build alternatives.
.
· Corridor preservation of a preferred Build alternative concept is often a wise
transportation planning decision and should be seriously considered for the
Manning Avenue connection so that the option is not precluded in the future
by development.
.
\ I '--',/. I' ,,," . .
?}49,4QO 0':i 57,?00~ _ !/~. S9"8001~9,,OpO)'/1 ~(~ ,,,l..,,l,~! <' r.':'.:~, I~,." ~" }l ",: ~~~~'t{f~\~"\" '<,," ,.. ''', '~\\,
"'::,olF(2'-9"5'0sr-0)~'" =""-_'~' '-"il(-2--6"--5-0'0)---:-'-"1"":-'''''-'''-''''''-;':'c-'j'~'''"--:'',, -.-;1,6'-2> J .--.---'-'-' r -',0". "t-l ' "-" ..... ,
, -- I f:t--...." ", ", '" "'i'-' ~,';;;'l:Y.""'. j- ';~:..,-~ '. ,'" ',})
, ," I . - I .J,. I I' -- - I ., ' 1" \ '''' '.' - ,"':,
_~ ~ 15,000 :\.. ~' " 14,00q(1 0,000) ;';i ;;~,;: ,~,:t, S~" ' : HI,; "" ,'", '-:/cc.'.>
~ ~ (7200) (I,) ~ -'~ ' 1 ....I~lr.-.--:--l"7':1--...' ~-,," "'\,1-'\,'''''''' ,~:---,' '..'-
co ' co <or-;;: ~ · . -"", - '1,,/ >"';'6' " ..,>,; -Y"!"'>'I ~ I" ,,:, ",,' :,' .~: \' \; ,\ '.'. ,': .', \,
~ 'V ;:)' . 'f ' , ~ ," I . 0.....,...,.., , ,"', ". \,
00 F ~ ' ,,',," ;G" -10' .", !--k-i"";'- 1-0" ~ ,."e: ''{f,:'':_~'' ; '\". '
~~O ,,1.:': _' _ n,y <:s ' ". ~ -\O'r---.~-,.,-::'''.:, '-0\0.' !.- ; ,; ~,' ,'" ;'\,\' '"~'-''' ,'" "\":< \
/'-"1 / lev I..."'''' '1, ':L' ):rrj -iI' ' ,I '1' \' '.,-c '-'-:;,~>\' -,' 't \ .. \
... \.~... '-.' '" ,'_ '," I n;~i, II Ofd' 1';,.IU: dEIl,Jl'I:'V: ':! ' ',,:- ,,-,'., ',,;', \
'- '1 't":;:::\,- ~ Q~' -. \ ':'\ ',:. \ \' .'11 ,
I r'- - _01 ,,\. ~ i \."i: ~ ~J I ~ L~' ~lr~ '. '" ,'~ \ I 'I, ~ \
... ... ,< ~ ~/ ~,:" ..,c,-~~,_ / : " 1\ ~ 7~"'" n ,.1 I, \ \'~, '..:~~.\ \<t '\1 " \
, ,__ " / ,/ I' ! ,..,.I I ,A( I " .^, . ",' '\' <,"
A 5 -'__...' )( .0 ,~ / ",.......~..... . ~';" \'\ \' \\ "\1
I ?'" '.. J , ';7 ___' --, j en ~ -:1. - ~-f" "'''~ \ l \1"
--~-r-', ~~. p~ J-----"~. /- _~, l....::.1>e ~.~. fl' 'I ~-_1:J\). "--,-",, "- ,"" '" '\ ".~X--("" :'\ '--\'\J .\~~
rc---' I (( _ :" r; ,'.', ,j ....."',.'.. - .--- -,--- ~r" .- , . "~I '\'>0,- - ,,\ \': 'II
1-1 ,;...\ \\.\ \,(\\\ 4/\"'" .k">~J:""---l'''!'1 I....,W~ i' ,,'~':::f.,__,-';\"\" "I.. \'~ ,J',! j'
" ,\ '" \, \"l, '." 'y" , o;O~ v :',,-_, .--,...:!~-'~'\\ \\\ \1' :'f:
.....;. I .'", '",,-I ,V" ..",-..,.,1 0 7600 .=: ...1. r; \\..~,\"z' \' 1,,/:,
~..... ",..",",' ' d, ,", i' ..,0' ~ \, ..",;-/ . 11'""\ ~4 85h) ~-, ""/; ,,^"''--', ':,\ '\".'.'/
..... .'_'._' '" ",,/!, '. "",,,,,,~J" ''''J ,', ~ ~, \1 '''_''''__Tm_,..,mm.'-, \ .\, "."""" I
~~~c.o ~'I=" ,'j .r.);\ t-;, "'/ ' ,/;:;:..-- , I ;~}I~!'r~"";':;;""\\<"" \\\\\\/J :::/
Q' 0 (,', " , I ;r ,',/ ~ ",>," .>,.' ; \ ".-,~,'h< ", '\h'
qO \:l: 0 '''''''' ":ii" \. or'0 H' ,-' ":-- \' ,1'.:::"1' ,;l,A '- \ii\ :;j
~O :1r "':. '"'~''''' lC\ ,_I $/ - ,,,,,.", \~~:{ ,"X~\,'.".i!:i v" /
_, --1. N ~~.'I' 7. 400 (4 90~~.")\\}' j /J)j :)/';/ , \ d ; ltj -,:\~,,~;~ ),~j _,.4/) :ill"..,;:.!!,!
1~~<(}~C>' ,,: . 1';1" 9 900'(2 J~o' '0/)' / ,/ "~v,,/r \\@ "~'Ii,/i ( ,/./1,/
'}.'}., ><,;Y i\';/ R i:' ''II /' / 6 800 > @:' [ \ ,,'" ",: i1' I'JIH 'v:
!O~~~ ~~(;:) j--.-" _"-'-'-___<tQLt!,9LN.+,,....."m-.--.-.- ... im("'3'2'---5-0",,-)ccr/ ,I ')> \', J ," '.. '-I" .' ] ',".'; ! "'/: ,: ; iii
'-','''' ~'" 1\' ,-,,' 'il 1'1 il~ \,;r ~ Ii if( r !~
~', ~L '" ," , -/~jl; , ' /' '"" 'I' \'\ -', \:.. ", r: ,\\!\\ j~ / ,,' /1/1/
"'~~::-;:'f,:.~,~(,.~.;~.:\;"~,,0r::~'" '~,~. ~"",,/// l ' l\~\\\ . .Ii
"if a'" ," " " co" "," "''' \ ,; \:~
p.;;~_~ll: 1,,~,~:~'~:,~ 1;- ?\ (,Ir > cr . 1 ,[ (\ ,.I,~ \, ~ \~i\ \ \ '\1\,\1')
'j7j,i"{t\(2fP2m,J . "'''~---~J.11']1~c.o- .___ ".~ . _ _~;_ j , _"i" 'I_L '" ,,""oS',-", /L~~~\ ...., r .'.\).'".,~,,;~,:'. \, (,,',:,','.:,','
\;\ ( ';')~ (i t '" ' . .'
'!r+..',. ,1.",'lj' ::, --'
; '. , or""", ".":;';;-,,. I .;\ \ "i)") \ \'..\
Iii! /IIi d. " ,,)i 'lj-""-._/ ' I", ( , \ii!
')11, Iii! 18 'i',1 .',',"~.;'.I._..,,;\ i'~ :) \.l\\~~\,>:" ,/ H,.i,~
./~,l .!:. ,c" \. (,1:.."1' " . .
.. . '__. .1:\1'\" \ ." .
'l'sour~'~\~FdonSlllli;g'~;~Up Inc
-
-
~~'\{l
t:~fj:t~~~t
Urban Core
Urban Area
Illustrative 2020 MUSA*
Urban Reserve
Rural Growth Centers
Permanent Agricultural Are
Permanent Rural Area
ColumbUI Twp.
c=J
r:-::7:J. . . . . .
~
c=J
N 2000 MUSA Boundary (as of 1995)
:\: 2040 Urban Reserve Boundary
. #
* The official 2020 MUSA
will be determined by local
governments and the Council
as part of the 1997-98
Comprehensive Planning
process.
SOURCE: Metropolitan Council Regional Bluprint Figure 7;
Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas, Dee. 1996
Proposed Functional
ClassificationS ystem
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
-----
Future Principal
Arterial Candidate
Grey
Cloud
Island
Twp.
~
!\
'\
N
~
i
l}
,
~,I
~.:-:::""
~
f'
}-
PROJECTED ~f
VOLUME ON ;p ","
MANNING AVE. :-~-'
CONNECTION IS ,
6,000 PER DAY.
w 5j)th?t,N,
r N
~ 0
CI> 0
m 0
3"
o
)>
<
CI>
Z
,.....
.,"
~~~~.1;;
>i:ili'~(J~~(.
".l:.~.~_:...i~; .-1.':...-;
IiJ.1',\,I;',.:.:..
/;::":':-:::'~'i .
Pl i l~~(,j'
'\'(\\ \\~
I,;; /Ii:
\ p (it'
Illi 1\\1
\, Y'- Iii)
/? II II
ti'l iui
;'1!!
///I"i..
'fj
..:.. .t;.......
..~...
.!.1!..Ii.
f-f' <1000
il
36
:/;.' ~~, 1": "I ,'" I 1 i.'" V f' .-' 10",) 'J d" f,",\,,'~~ilr\ '- ' "-,
. -~*"("~::",i,,;1:-;,l,';;;:1~~';;1f~~;~~r~']Y"r;:5rE1~1~1~~\;~: \ ' "';" '''-",
Fr ;;( f,' "j,liJ\),;'r~t~, ,;:\ -C~:i;I;""."'{'}~\':.' ;':! ":~>"
~ ", 'i~-'---""-J-"--r''''''''\ ;:::;':0"':":;' ";'I,d-II"'\,,,,'\ " "<-",,-,
~~, ?:.. V 'J:';~_~>,~{'7:;~;k,i'~'" :~\~.:.I~:' ~-<.d, :'1, \,J~, ~i'~~~~::;i'~~~~~'..~~\,,~~ ::~~, "\~'
'\,.J. -'f"::E' /,( /: ." I" ,," ... " " rf,...{.,' ',:-"" . . ',..
~ll~~\L:':~')i:J>. ' ,:'?;~:;;-:: :' ~:1 ',' " ~~~~:~\:~':,<~Z~~::;>;' ,,"""~\l"
l;:;,::1.~j,1 :M,I: PA,IU: ,jEWll~I~' / , "\ (i,:~','~\i,. \\\\
.__~LJ I @ r r'l ' 'c.' ,', \ \ ',:'
"j.,{ ".::.:\.:~J ~." ~ v.. f~~, ~<r:-. !~... \. \'~:\ "\\\ \~ \\\\
~~.._ l' I'vl. J 11 '.:1 \ '\\ \~. '\ " \ i I
.:i '0', ~,~ "~'\ '. '\1 '.Ie, \ \ 1:\\
'" ~', ~-"~"L\~'1""'" "\ '\ \ \ ,I: \
r : ,'7, ,: '_ -~~ ~\~7':"- \\\ \:';.. v :Ji,
t:; " , : ;:1, '~}"'" \, ~" 'II
:;, :~ '~."", :,[~.---1:.,~J'~':'\\~ ;\ '\4'; /
,1 'I~ "'~';" I" ,', 1,\,/)
'," "', . y 1:~I" ~ ,~., !. ..~\~ ~~... '::\'.\' ~
\("":l'o~ll 1 . \,~. \ I ." 'I
~ I n, l /i.l" \ .d
""~I ~I 'I f,~ X'\"\\. \\i'l
- -:- ~ -'.:'~,' \ .-."
~ "I -, \ .~,; 1'1, h'I :
;\ .. ,~... " ".1 ..: ,\ I , I
I -\" - J- ~'1 !," t,f"
""",,,,,,'" '~,:.\/ .":Ii!
CHANGES IN
DECREASE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
\1"1
JI:!
/: ..;:
':~\,
i !)
//~,:
s:!
~. ..;,.",_..,'
",
. ,/
-...t.~:,!_.._..;:,
"it
'<',:
"-
"
,
\
-:I
,
,
,
\
\
,
\
':i"".".;,,,J,,
'':\. m.... "'\.1
" \': ,,',,;. :1
..t~._.._..._..~:x:.
J .,.,(.' '~\
;:~<;~ . ,~:J!r'_~,','~,-.;'.,-"__.,;,~,',',,}.-.,.,..:t).~~,,f,~~:",-.,.'.~.'.'".. ;_,..:.'"
~'~~Xl,;,:~"'i_ ......~': -'.:
/~/'';'~
\~)I
'\.. \. ~ \
1('",
'.;. "
'~, ~.... \
\~'.
(
/
,
;;.. /
1-.,
?-'/'
/,
..J,
1
EA', ;')WN
T'iVitL"IIJ'
\
"-
J
:'j
,
, I
'-'1' /
~ :~:,:~;_,
,,1,
~ I ~:.
INCREASE
f(;
!,!;
:.:,
~J
f- /
;;1/
;::-:' J
!~, I
ti
:1
2,
<1000
~:v
".1'
'"
-
0- 1,000
,:?
,/
5: /"
~ /.'
:J ..~ //
:J ',,<, _ ~/
~.~~ ~ '~':,/;// L d,t.?
, <
v,~
'~
_.~~.5.:_'..~.....
~
1,001 - 2,000
-
MORE THAN 2,000
-
F1'IH)
:I
:t:
-I
I
?'-
!l )"
......___..__'_1.........
)>
<
!1l
/:..~; 'f)(' r t
,~.
,/
,(
. ~Qth $LN.
.\'
"
("~i2c!:,...,)/
'.'1.' .,f ""'"
\ ,::' 't
,~I ,Io".!:-S-':'
'~ "t
\;
Note: Assuming Based on 2018 forecasts,
New Sf. Croix River Bridge Is Built
'\ IJI({'I \\\\
\--n'\ \,',
) \\\ ) }I~.
! '), \:\:':-", I if;;
Source: SRF Consulting 'Group Inc,
. \ \t,~~I?~red:~J:>~il, 1997
::1
;}jt,,~,tJ
~:\
;'1
}'..:.;..".!,~.,,:.:,)
, i
~
Loke Elmo
Airport
WE511 LAKElAI'Il
OWNSH)P
Grey Cloud Island
Regional Park
Mississippi National
River Recreation Area
Linear Park
System Plan
I Washington Parkway
Greenways
.......
Qff.Road
Trails
-
Trail Search Area -
New Alignment
Possible
~ Parks
"* Rural Centers
~
SOURCE: Washington County Linear Park System Master Plan - Feb. 1996
Point Douglas
Park
Grey Cloud Island
Regional Park
Mississippi National
River Recreation Area
'Major Parks.
and Trails, 1995
~ County and State
Parks
00000 Willard Munger
State Trail
...... Off-Road Paved
Trail
County Designated
Shoulder Bike Trail
Designated On-Road
Bike Trail
Square
Lake
Park
Pine
Point
Park
~
Washington County Linear Park System Master Plan - Feb. 1996
Point Douglas
Park
PRELIMINARY EYALlJATIONiBASED ON TRANSPORTATION QB JECTIVES
MANNING AVENUE CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES
TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVES
Serve future travel needs and accom-
modate future growth
Provide north-south route continuity
Maintain through movement on TH 5
Improve tr,lffic operations on arterial
roadways
Decrease traffic on TH 36fTH 5 inter- No
change
NO BUILD
No added capacity or preservation
of right-of-way
Gap remains
Yes
Tr,lffic congl'stion will increase on
arterial road\vays in future
Provide adequate intersection spacing No changes from existing
on TH 5
Provide reasonable access to
prop('rties
Improve saiety conditions on trans-
portation system
Reduce v('hicle miles travel
Minimize construction imp,lCts on TlI 5
Coordinalioll wilh pl'llllIl'd pl'd/bikl'
UJlHH'ctioIlS
No changes from existing
Minimal improvellll'nt ('xpecll'd
No change
Minimal construction impacts since
110 common sl'ction '
lJis( 0111 i II111Jl IS pl'd/bike' Ir.til
"A" ALTERNATIVES
Provides future capacity; preserves
ri gh t -of-way
Most direct north-south route, pro-
vides through movement on
Manning
Yes
Diverts some tr,lific irom TlI 5 and
other roadways
Yes
Al: 5100 fl. minimum
5700 fl. average
A2: 1100 fl. minimum
3800 fl. average
A3: 1350 fl. minimum
2110 fl. average
Minimal property access desirable
ior din'clthrol/gh route
Slight improveml'nl due 10 decreased
congestion and accident exposure
Decrease in vehicle miles traveled
Minimal construction impac'ts since
no common sl'clion
. _Co:. ':::)):U>:'.;:::.:HfL
;.:.....:}:;::{"::'.;....-
"B" ALTERNATIVES
Provides future capacity, preserves
right-of-way
Somewhat circuitous north-south
connection, provides through move-
ment on Manning via shared section
wilh TII 5
No
TABLE 1
.-...-.-.-:~:.. :-,..:-:.,:.:-:-:-:-
\u"\::,:::.:::.?:::~m>~,~~!?~. rp;"::
~.:"-(~
--'-~'JIol.
"C" ALTERNATIVES
Provides future capacity, preserves
right-of-way
Somewhat circuitous north-south
connection, Manning stops at TH 5
Yes
Diverts some traffic from Tit 5 and Diverts some traffic from TlI 5 and
other roadways; continues short seg- other roadways; continues short seg-
ment of shared roadway with TH 5 ment of shared roadway with TH 5
Yes
81: 1700 fl. minimum
2600 fl. average
82: 1700 fl. minimum
2150 fl. average
83: 1000 fl. minimum
1500 fl. average
Properly access accommodated
Slight improvenll'nl due to decreased
congestion and accident exposure.
Weaving in commoll TlI S section
may be Ullsafe
Decr('ase in vehicle miles traveled
Construction impacts due 10 recon-
strllclioll or shared section of TlI 5
Continllolls norl"/~(Jlllh p('c1/hikp Ir.lil Dis(()nlinllolls pI'd/hikp tr.lil
Yes
C1: 1000 fl. minimum
1450 ft. average
C2: 600 ft. minimum
1600 fl. average
0: 1000 fl. minimum
1 500 ft. average
Property access accommodated
Slight improvement due to decreased
congestion and accident exposure.
Weaving in common TH 5 section
may be unsafe
Decrease in vehicle miles traveled
COllstruction impacts due to recon-
struction of shared section of TlI S
DiscontillllOllS IH'd/hike Ir,lil
.
TaE2
.
Manning Avenue
Costs and Benefits ($ millions)
Factor No Build Alternatives with Manning Avenue as Through Route Trunk Highway 5 as Through Route
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3
Construction costs: north
alianment $0.5 $5.8 $2.9 $3.0 $1.7 $1.6 $1.0 $1.4 $1.7 $1.1
Construction costs: south
alignment 0 0 0 0 $1,8 $1.8 $1.8 0 0 0
Total costs for Manning
Ave $0.5 $5,8 $2.9 $3.0 $3.5 $3.4 $2.8 $1.4 $1.7 $1.1
Manning trip benefits $9.25 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9
"
Regional benefits 0 $4.3 $4.3 $4.3
Total benefits $0.25 $7.2 $7.2 $7.2
Net benefits 1 (-$0.25) $1.4 $4.3 $4,2 $3,7 $3.8 $4.4 $5.8 $5.5 $6.1
Total benefit-cost ratio2 0.50 1.24 2.48 2.40 2.06 2.12 4.40 5.14 4.24 6.55
Manning only benefit-cost
ratio3 0.50 0.50 1.00 0,97 0,83 0,85 1.04 2,07 1.71 2,64
INet benefits = Total benefits - construction costs for Manning
ZBenefit-cost ratio = Total benefitslManning costs
3Bcnefit-cost ratio = Maiming bcncfitslManning costs
Notes:
Construction costs assume $600,000 per mile for Manning Avenue No Build construction,
Construction costs assume $1,5 million per mile for Manning A venue construction for Build alternatives,
TABLE 3
Manning Avenue
Environmental Issues
Factor No 8uild Alternatives with Manning Avenue as Through Route Trunk Highway 5 as Through Route
A1 A2 A3 81 82 83 C1 C2 C3
R.O.w. required* 2.1 acres 103 acres 53 acres 50 acres 54 acres** 48 acres** 49 acres** 34 acres 36 acres 30 acres
Prime Farmland impacts 1.7 acres 95 acres 45 acres 45 acres 45 acres 46 acres 47 acres 32 acres 34 acres 28 acres
Structures requiring 0 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
acquisition
Reported potential 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
contaminated sites
under I
Storage tank sites 0 review 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 4
Woodland impacts 0.45 acres 3.9 acres 5.5 acres 6.4 acres 3.0 acres 1.3 acres 1 .4 acres 3.0 acres 1.3 acres 1.4 acres
Wetland impacts 0.63 acres 0.96 acres 0.13 acres 1.5 acres 1.5 acres 0.57 acres 0.57 acres 1.5 acres 0.57 acres 0.57 acres
Greenway connection No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
Potential cultural resource 1 under under 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
sites review review
*Existing Manning ROW not included, existing TH 5 ROW also deducted where alternative follows TH 5 ROW
"Includes CSAH 14 west extension to TH 5 at south end of project
Notes:
All impacts are approximate and based on preliminary conceptual alignments,
Wetland and woodland impacts based on boundaries depicted on aerial photographs and National
Wetland Inventory Map,
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
I, .
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director f~/
DA: August 14, 1997
RE: ST ATE MONEY FOR REPAIR OF PRISON WALL
It is suggested the City Council consider authorizing the city legislative representative to
represent the city's interest getting state funding support for the repair of the prison wall (on the
National Register of Historical places). With hotel improvements to the site and the increasing
deterioration of the wall, it is critical the city attempt to get state support to preserve this historic
resource and accommodate drainage through the site.
It is estimated that $1,500 - $2,000 will cover costs of preparing such legislation for next year's
bond act.
Recommendation: Authorization for city legislative representative to prepare legislation and
. attempt to obtain state fund support for restoration and repair of the historic prison wall.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director ~
DA: August 15, 1997
RE: UPDATE ON CELLULAR AND PCS TOWER ORDINANCE
The enclosed ordinance was reviewed at a public hearing by the planning commission at their
meeting of August 11, 1997. After review of the ordinance and hearing comments, they formed
a subcommittee to further review the ordinance with representatives from the tower companies
and to report back to the full commission with possible changes at the September 8, 1997
commission meeting. '
The moratorium on tower construction will conclude September 3, 1997. The planning
commission recommendations on the ordinance should reach the council at your meeting of
September 14, 1997.
. Recommendation: For infom1ation only,.
.
Attachment: Ordinance
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: Planning Commission
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
DA: July 29, 1997
RE: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGULATING LOCATION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF TO\VERS AND ANTENNAS FOR \YIRELESS
PERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Background
The telecommunications act of 1996 changes the way cities can regulate telecommunications
service providers. The federal government, through its actions, has increased the demand and
competition for telecommunications sites.
In developing the proposed Stillwater regulations, other city ordinances and information from the
League of Minnesota Cities was reviewed and adapted to Stillwater conditions.
The ordinance limits the location of towers andantennas in residential districts to vacant sites of
1\\.0 acres where towers would be 350 feet away from a residential land lIse. The height of a
tower/antenna in a residential district is limited to 75 feet.
.
In the Stillwater West Business Park, towers are limited to 100 feet in height and located 500 feet
from residential land use. Other requirements address setbacks, landscaping and spacing of
to\\'ers.
The city council has adopted a moratorium of tower/antenna development. The moratorium will
end September 3, 1997.
Recommendation: Approval of ordinance.
Attachment: Ordinance regulating commercial use of towers and antennas.
.
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OFTHE CITY OF STILL\VATERAMENDli'lG THE CITY ZOi'lING
ORDINANCE REGULATING COMMERCIAL USE TO\VERS AND ANTEl'NAS
Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs ofresidents and business
while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, the council finds
that these regulations are necessary in order to:
a. facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and
businesses of the city;
b. minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and setting standards;
c. avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural
standards and setback requirements; and
d. maximize the use of existing and approved towers and structures to accommodate new
wireless telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to
serve the community.
Subd. 2. Definitions.
a. Antenna. Any structure or de\'ice used for the purpose of collecting or radiating
electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas, such a panels,
microwave dishes and satellite dishes and omni-directional antennas, such as whips.
b. Personal Wireless Communication Services (PWCS). Licensed commercial wireless
communication services including cellular, personal communication services (peS),
enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services.
c. Public Utility. Persons, corporations or governments supplying gas, electric,
transportation, water, sewer, cable or land line telephone service to the general public.
d. Tower. Any pole, spire, structure, accessory structure or combination thereof, including
supporting lines, cables, \vires, braces and masts intended primarily for the purpose of
mounting an antenna, meteorological device or similar apparatus above grade.
Subd.3. Location Preferences for Antenna and Towers.
a. Water towers.
b. Collocations on existing telecommunications towers.
c. Sides and roofs of building over two (2) stories.
d. Existing power or telephone poles.
e. Government and utility sites,
f. Golf courses or public parks \\"hen compatible with the nature of the park or course.
g. Regional transportation cOITidors.
.
Subd. 4. Antenna and Towers in Residential Districts (RA, RB, RCM, RCH).
Any person, fiml, or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in a residential district shall
meet the following requirements:
A. Communication towers and antennas are subject to the following conditions:
1. Satellite dishes for television receiving only are subject to the accessory structure
requirements for residential districts.
2. All antennas shall be designed and situated to be visually unobtmsive, shall be
screened as appropriate, shall not be multi-colored and shall contain no signage,
including logos, except as may be required by the equipment manufactures or city,
state or federal regulations.
3. An antenna placed on a primary structure shall be no taller than 15 feet above the
primary structure. Any accessory equipment or stmctures shall be compatible with
the design and materials of the primary structure or located so as not to be visible
from a public street.
4. Mono poles only shall be allowed in residential districts.
5. Minimum land area for free standing mono poles site in residential districts shall be
two (2) acres.
6. A tower and any antenna combined shall be no more than 75 feet in height;
7. A tower shall not be located within 350 feet of any existing or planned residential
structure.
8. A tower shall be set back a minimum of the height of the tower and any antenna; and
9. Antenna may be placed on public buildings or structures in the residential district if
they meet the purposes of this ordinance and receive design pennit approval.
.
Subd. 5. Stillwater Business Park Districts (BP-C, BP-O AND BP-I)
Any person, finn or corporation erecting a tower or antenna in the Stillwater West Business
Park shall require a Conditional Use Pe1l11it and meeting the following requirements:
1. Communication antennas attached to an existing structure shall be no taller than 20
feet higher than the primary structure.
2. Communication towers and antennas are subject to the following conditions:
a. A tower and antenna shall be no more than 100 feet in height.
b. A tower shall not be located within 500 feet of any residential zoning district.
c. A tower shall be located no closer to a property line than a distance equal to the
height of the tower.
d. Minimum lot size shall be 1 acre for a primary tower use.
2
.
.
.
.
e. Towers shall be located no closer than Yz mile to closest tower or other collocation
PWCS transmitting facility.
f. If a tower is erected on a site with an existing primary structure the site shall have
a space of 10,000 square feet set aside exclusively for tower use. The tower shall
not be located in the front or corner side yard of the primary stmcture.
3. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Towers must be self supporting without the use of
wires, cables, beams or other means. The design shall utilize an open frame design or
monopole configuration.
Subd. 6. Prohibited Locations.
a. No communication antenna or tower shall be located in the bluff1and/shoreland,
shoreland districts or flood plain districts.
Subd. 7. Perfornlance Standards.
a. Co-location Requirements. All personal wireless communication towers erected,
constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements:
1. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower shall not be
approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications
equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or
approved tower or building within a one-half mile radius of the proposed tower due to
one or more of the following reasons:
a. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or
approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced or
modified to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost.
b. The planned equipment would cause interference \\"ith other existing or planned
equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable
cost.
c. No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a
half-mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria.
d. Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a
one-half mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at height
necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional radio frequency (RF) engineer.
3
e. The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to co-locate existing
towers and structures within a one-halfmi1c radius was made, but an agreement
could not be reached.
.
2. Tower Construction Requirements. All towers erected, constructed, or located \vithin the
City, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the following requirements:
a. Monopoles are the prefelTed tower design. However, the City will consider alternative
tower types in cases where structural, RF design considerations, and /01' the number of
tenants required by the City preclude the use of a monopole. 1\0 guy wires shall be
used.
b. Towers and their antennas shall comply with all applicable pro\'isions of this Code.
c. Towers and their antennas shall be certified by a qualified and licensed professional
engineer to conform to the latest structural standards of the Uniform Building Code
and all other applicable reviewing agencies.
d. Towers and their antennas shall be designed to confolm with accepted electrical
engineering methods and practices and to comply) with the provisions of the National
Electrical Code.
e. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with cOlTosive resistant material.
.
f. Any proposed communication service tower shall be designed, structurally,
electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and
comparable antennas or at least one additional user. To allow for future rean-angement
of antennas upon the tower, the tower shall be designed to .accept antennas mounted at
no less than 20 foot intervals.
g. All towers shall be reasonably protected against unauthorized climbing. The bottom
of the tower (measured from ground level to 12 feet above ground level) shall be
designed in a manner to preclude unauthorized climbing to be enclosed by a six foot
high chain link fence with a locked gate.
h. All towers and their antennas and relative accessory structures shall utilize building
materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that effectively blend the tower
facilitics within the surrounding natural setting and built environment to the greatest
extent possible.
No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or
other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information
signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state, or local authorities.
.
4
.,.
.
.
.
J. Towers and their antennas shall not be illuminated by artificial means, except fOl
camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) l
the illumination is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or
other authority.
k. No pmi of any antenna or tower, nor any lines, cable, equipment, wires, or braces
shall at any time extend across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street,
highway, or sidewalk.
1. All communication towers and their antennas shall be adequately insured for injury
and property damage caused by collapse of the tower.
m. All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be
removed within 6 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time
extension is approved by the City Council. After the facilities are removed, the site
shall be restored to its original or an improved state.
n. In addition to the submittal requirements required elsewhere in this Code,
Applications for Building Pernlits for towers and their antennas shall be accompanied
by the following infornlation:
1. Written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal
Communications Commission, and any appropriate state re,.iew authority stating
that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or
that the to\ver is exempt from those regulations.
2. A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which does the
following:
a. describe the tower height and design including a cross section and elevation;
b. demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and
electrical standards;
c. documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions ,-or
co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas;
d. describes the tower's capacity. including the number and type of antennas that
it can accommodate; and
e. documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with
established public safety communications.
3. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow-the
sharecluse of the tower. as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the
tower, and there is no disruption to the service provided.
5
..
Subd. 8. Existing Antennas and Towers.
A. Antennas, towers and accessory structures in existence as of July 1, 1997 which do not
conform to or comply with this division are subject to the following provisions: .
.
1. Towers may continue in use for the purpose now used and as now existing, but may
not be replaced or structurally altered without complying in all respects within this
section.
2. If such tower is damaged or destroyed due to any reason or course whatsoever, the
tower may be repaired or restored to its fonner use, location and physical dimension
upon obtaining a building pem1it, but without otherwise complying with this division.
Subd.9. Obsolete or Unused Towers.
All obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within
six months of the cessation of operations unless a time extension is approved by the Council.
If a time extension is not approved, the tower may be deemed a nuisance pursuant to
Minnesota Statute, Section 429. In the event a tower is detem1ined to be a nuisance, the City
of Stillwater may act to abate such nuisance and require the removal of the tower at the
property owner's expense. The owner shall provide the City with a copy of the notice oft11e
Federal Communications (FCC) intent to cease operations and shall be given six months
from the date of ceasing operations to remove the obsolete tower and all accessory structures.
In the case of multiple operators sharing the use of a single tower, this provision shall not
become effective until all users cease operations for a period of six consecutive months. The .
equipment on the ground is not to be removed until the tower structure has first been
dismantled. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or to an
improved state.
.
6
.
.
1t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: City Coordinator
SUBJECT: Second reading of ordinance amending
Ord. No 695 - Hosp/med insurance for Retirees
DATE: August 15, 1997
Discussion:
As previously requested (and tabled) at the last Council meeting, I would ask the Council to
consider the first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 695 Hospital/Medical
insurance for Retirees by changing the years of service requirement to 10 years (from the present
15 years). When Ordinance No. 695 was adopted in 1988,15 years of service was written into
the language. However, some contracts had 10 years of service in the language. The proposed
change would make the requirement consistent with the contract language and would standardize
the benefit. And as previously discussed the change would have a minimum impact on benefit
costs.
Recommendation:
Council have first reading of an ordinance amending Ord. No. 695.
./
1!;ft
Proposed Ordinance No. _
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING HOSPIT AL/MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR RETIRED CITY
EMPLOYEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILL WATER DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1.
Any permanent, full-time employee of the City of Stillwater hired prior to December
31, 1988 and who retires after ten (10) years of City service and who is eligible to
receive PERA retirement benefits at the time of retirement, shall be allowed to
continue their hospital/medical insurance coverage at City expense. If the City
provided dependent coverage for hislher spouse at the time of the employee's
retirement, the City shall pay said dependent's coverage until death.
Section 2.
Any permanent, part-time employee hired prior to December 31, 1988 shall also be
eligible to receive hospital/medical coverage as provided in Section 1 above, except
that the expense associated with the insurance shall be prorated between the City and
the employee on the same cost-sharing basis as was in effect at the time of
retirement.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according
to law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota on the
,1997.
day of
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
.
.
.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director V
DA: August 16, 1997
RE: APPLICATION FOR TIF ASSISTANCE BY ST. CROIX BUILDERS INC FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A 65-80 CONDOMINIUMS (UBC SITE) AND 320 SPACE
PARKING STRUCTURE (EAST SIDE OF SECOND STREET BETWEEN OLIVE
AND CHESTNUT)
The city has received a preapplication and application for TIF assistance for a combined
condominium - parking structure. Housing and parking for the condominium would be provided
on the UBC site and the developer would build a three-level plus roof320 space parking
structure on the Olive Street site (see enclosed plans).
Both the condominiums and parking structures would be privately owned. The developer is
requesting 90 percent of the TIF increment from the condos and parking structure site to help
finance the parking. In addition, the Olive/Second street parking lot land would be donated for
the parking structure. The developer would pay $5,000 per unit for the condo project. Based on
the proposal this would equal $325 to $400,000. In addition, the city is requested to provide
engineering for relocation of utilities that run through the UBC site and necessary assurances that
both sites are free of hazardous material (the city has authorized test drilling on the Olive Street
lot).
At this time, the applicant is requesting council approval of the development and TIF assistance
concept.
If conceptually approved, then planning and design approval from the planning commission and
historic preservation commission will be applied for. A variance will be required for the
condominium building height and both sites are located in the downtown historic district. All
project financing is provided by the developer. TIF assistance is pay as you go.
Recommendation: Review and approval of TIF assistance request concept and authorize the
applicant to proceed with planning reviews (on city owned land). Any final city TIF assistance
approval would be dependent on the project design and use being approved by the historic
preservation commission, city planning commission and city council.
Attachment: Application for TIF assistance.
.
.
.
ADDENDUM TO
APPLICATION FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING ASSISTANCE
This Addendum is concerning the proposal of Croix
Builders, Inc. (John Roettger) for a proposed condominium and
Parking structure project on South 2nd Street in the City of
Stillwater. As part of this proposal, the Developer would purchase
the former UBC property owned by the City of Stillwater for the
condominium site. The purchase price would be an amount equal to
the number of units approved for the condominium times $5,000.00
(Purchase Price = No. Units x $5,000.00) and would then be paid out
of the proceeds from the sale of each condominium unit as they are
sold.
Dated this 15th day of August, 1997.
CROIX BUILDERS, INC.
(J ,
I, 6' ...-f I .
'/./ /I?; ..,'-
By: ~ ,~. LJ\?/C>;:&;.7
(Jphn E. Roettger /p"
'Its President
....
.:.111
..
.
1.
.
.
APPLICATION FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING ASSISTANCE
Qualifications of developer, including prior experience in
similar or other developments. Qualifications of principal
member of development team, including the architect,
construction company, and financial advisor.
See resumes attached as Exhibits 1 and 2.
2. "But for" letter describing need for TIF assistance.
Croix Builders, Inc. is proposing to construct a residential
condominium building and a parking and retail structure in
downtown Stillwater. Both buildings are located within a TIF
district and will generate real estate tax revenue.
We are requesting that the City provide TIF financing to
assist with the parking structure portion of the project. The
present parking fee structure in Stillwater will not support
the development and operating cost of a parking structure.
3 .
Financial information, including developer participation, and
public and private funding.
The project financing will be handled through several means as
noted below.
Construction Financing: Both the condominium project and the
parking retail building will have construction financing
provided through private lenders.
Condominium Financing: Each unit will be individually owned
and financed.
Retail Space: The retail space in the parking/retail
structure will be set up as retail condominium spaces and
privately financed.
Parking Structure: TIF funds provided by the taxes paid on
the whole project will assist in financing the parking
structure. Additional financing, as required, will be
obtained by the developer from private sources. The developer
will maintain ownership of the parking facility.
4. Description of present ownership arrangement of project site.
The parking/retail site consist of two parcels, one is owned
by the City of Stillwater and the other by the owners of
Shorty's.
\0-
~
.
.
.
...
The condominium site is owned by the City of Stillwater, with
a small section owned by Cub Foods.
5.
Describe project. If project is a building, or addition
building, specify number of stories, square footage,
related parking. (Attach site plan, landscape plan,
building elevations indicating building materials) .
to a
and
and
The proposed project consists of the development of two sites
on South 2nd Street in the City of Stillwater. The first site
is on the west side of 2nd, between Chestnut and Olive Streets
and is proposed as a parking and retail development. The
second project includes the old UBC Lumber Yard property and
is projected as a high density housing development. The
projects are tied together as a single development due to the
need for public parking addressed in the documentation on the
UBe site provided by the City of Stillwater.
The parking/retail development is envisioned as a multiple
level parking structure with street level retail space. We
expect Shorty's Laundry to anchor the retail with a 5000 sq.
ft. facility. The remainder of the first level will be
approximately 6000 sq. ft. of retail space and 16 short term
parking stalls. Each level of the parking structure above
will provide approximately 80 stalls with the total including
the roof of 320 spaces.
The housing development proposed for the UBC site consists of
65 - 80 condominium apartment units with enclosed parking.
The City's requirement for public parking on this site a part
of the development is being satisfied in the parking/retail
development previously described. Each unit will be between
1200 and 1600 sq. ft. with private deck and view of the
downtown and river valley. Party rooms, meeting rooms and
exercise room will also be provided or building residents. It
is strongly believed that the project must provide vehicle and
pedestrian access to 2nd Street, and must have a pedestrian
connection to 3rd Street. To accomplish this connection, it
will be necessary to acquire the City owned land on 3rd Street
and some additional property from Cub. Cub has already been
contacted regarding the purchase of the required property.
See attached Exhibits 3 and 4.
6 .
Describe use in building, i.e., industrial, office,
commercial, and number of new employees resulting from the
project.
The proposed proj ect use consist of housing, retail and
parking. Although taxes from the entire project will support
the TIF fund, the parking structure will be the only TIF
recipient. The parking structure, retail spaces and
condominium building will provide 10 to 15 new jobs but the
~
...
.
.
.
~
major benefit of the project to the City will be the
development of the parking spaces.
7. Estimated project costs:
Estimated project cost, based on similar projects we
estimate the development cost for the project to be $12 -
14,000.00. A more developed budget will be generated as the
scope of the project is defined through the City approval
process.
8. Will project be occupied by applicant after completion? If
not, state name of future lessees and status of commitments or
lease agreements and amount of space. (Attach lease
documen t s . )
The Parking structure is scheduled to be owned and operated by
the developer upon completion of the project. The retail and
housing will be sold.
9. Describe amounts of City assistance being requested and
discuss for what purpose.
The developer is requesting the City provide 90% of the TIF
revenue generated by the project to assist in the development
of the Parking structure. It is also requested that the City
provide the engineering required for the relocation of City
owned utilities on the sites. The developer also requests
that the seller provide a site free of hazardous materials.
10.
Are there any significant environmental impacts signs that
impacts to the site or area that may result from the project?
Both sites have been used for commercial development for over
100 years so no significant environmental impact is
anticipated.
11. Present schedule showing dates for design, construction and
occupancy of the project.
We anticipate the start of construction of the parking
structure by September 15, 1997, to be completed by March 30,
1998, and the construction of the condominium units to be
started by October 1, 1997, to be occupied between October 1,
1998 and July 1, 1999.
12. Applicant:
a. Name Croix Builders, Inc.
b. Address 9376 St. Croix Trail North, Stillwater, MN 55082
c.
Phone
(612) 439-1095
~
~
.
.
.
,1
d.
Authorized representative
John E. Roettqer
e. Business Firm (Partnership, corporation, etc.)
Croix Builders, Inc.
f. Date the Partnership or Corporation was formed
13. Names and addresses of principal partners, maj or stockholders,
etc.
14. Names, addresses, phone, and contact person for firms
providing consulting services for the project.
a. Architect/Engineering Jerrv Runk, KMR Architects, Ltd.
2501 Wavzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55405
Structural Enqineer: Hanuschak-Kowalchuk, Inc. ,
Winnepeg, Canada
b.
Financial
Cathy Schroeder, C.P.A.
Eau Claire, WI
c. Market Edina Realtv, Stillwater, Minnesota
d. Legal Robert G. Briqqs, Eckberq, Lammers, Briqqs,
Wolff & Vierlinq, 1835 Northwestern Avenue,
Stillwater, MN 55082
e. Other
15. Financial History/References
a. Have you applied for conventional financing for the
project?
List status
6800 France
attached as
Yes.
and details Amer US Bank
Avenue S., Edina, MN 55435.
Exhibit 5.
See letter
b. Have you or any of the principals in the project ever
filed for bankruptcy? No.
..
e'
..
C.
.
d.
Have you or any of the principals ever defaulted on
property taxes for property in the City of Stillwater?
No.
Are you or any of the principals currently delinquent on
property taxes for property in the City of Stillwater?
No.
e. List three financial references
Brian Kemnetz, Lake Elmo Bank
Lori Johnson, Central Bank
Gail Loland, Central Bank
16. A statement indicating the developer's willingness to
undertake the development of the proposed project if:
a. A satisfactory agreement can be reached for the City's
commitment for the requested public improvements;
b. A satisfactory mortgage and equity financing for the
proposed project can be secured; and
c. The economic feasibility and soundness of the proposed
project have been analyzed and confirmed to the
satisfaction of the City and the developer.
See attached Exhibit 6.
.
17. Statement of willingness of developer to enter into an
agreement, after project planning has been completed, which
would require developer to provide appropriate guarantees
prior to the City's provision of assistance to undertake
public activity related to the proposed project.
See attached Exhibit 6.
18. Any other pertinent data developer wishes to propose.
None.
19. The City reserves the right to require additional information
and supporting data from the applicant after the filing of
this application.
Applicant understands and agrees that the information contained in
this application and the information contained in items above is
intended for use by the City of Stillwater, its officers,
employees, and agents in connection with the City's consideration
of possible tax increment bond financing for applicant's project;
however, the City gives no assurance that this information may not
be disclosed, in whole or in part, to persons other than City's
officials, employees and agents.
.
..
.
.
.
The undersigned, the President of applicant, hereby represents and
warrants to the City that he has carefully reviewed this
application, and that herewith are accurate and complete to the
best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief.
, i ---
Dated: p;.. /!/
__i
, 1997
crlb' x Bu_ilder~!~nc.
.Y' .--, / ~
,/ ~: '" ~~ '~- ,~_:!' ,--:-: /".--
/ /~ - ., ;J /1 ~ _- )'-~-7C:,jd:;~//
! J9hn E. Roettger '
'- Its President
"
.
.
.
,~
EXHIBIT 1
Confidential Resume
of
John E. (Big John) Roettger
9376 St. Croix Trail North
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(612) 439-1095
OBJECTIVE
EDUCA TION
Employment as a Construction Superintendent in the Construction Industry.
Graduate - Stillwater High School, Stillwater, MN - 1952
Graduate - Utilities Engineering School, Chicago, II.. - 1954
Graduate - Minneapolis Vocational, Minneapolis, MN
Blueprint Reading - 1955
Estimating - 1956
\,
MILITARY
U.S. Navy - Seabees - 1952-1954
+ Instructor in Building and Heavy Equipment Operations
+ Trained Reserves at Great Lakes, II..
+ Construction Battalion School
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
I have 45 years in the Construction Industry as a General Superintendent, Project
Superintendent, Superintendent and Foreman.
I am known as "Big John wherever I work - a room gets smaller, when I walk in. I
have a very good reputation and am a leader, self-starter, an optimist, organizer, scheduler
and most of all a "builder".
I have the reputation of being a pusher and I am hard, but fair with Tradesmen and Staff.
I have trained 1000's of Tradesmen to know their trade. I make people who work with
me fit into the requirements of the industry and much better by the time they leave, than
when they came to me!
I have 30 years experience in the Supervision of concrete forming, flying forms, placing,
finishing, and curing concrete. I have supervised structural steel, precast, tilt up, poured
in place concrete buildings.
I have built one story shopping centers to 57-story highrise buildings. The major highrise
buildings in the Minneapolis skyline have been supervised by me. I have worked in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Texas, Washington S tate, Colorado, Illinois and Missouri.
I am an honest, forceful, hard-driving individual. I am known as one-in-a-million. I enjoy
working with professional builders, engineers. architects, and tradesmen. People in the
industry must be "trained to work" and "work to be trained."
,>
John E. Roettger
Page -2-
..
.~ I have never laid off a person who could not do a task. I
have trained them, sometimes on their own time, nights and
weekends to help them learn and do their trade. Those who do
not perform, do not stay! I try to get 8 hours work for 8
hours pay from all personnel that I work with.
.
EXPERIENCE
SePtember, 1994 to Present
Croix Builders, Inc.
9376 St. Croix Trail North
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Owner:
Autumn Wood Addition, Twin Homes, Stillwater, Minnesota
Rose Garden Addition, 1300 South Fifth Street,
Stillwater, Minnesota, Victorian Homes
November 1993 to Auoust 1994
J. S. Alberici - St. Louis, Convention Center
and NFL Stadium concrete structure.
June 1981 to July 1993
Employed by J. A. Mortenson Company, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
January 1991 to Auoust 1992
Built a paint hangar for Boeing in Everett, Washington,
a $41,000.00 project - construction completed August
1992.
.
October 1990 to January 1991
Estimating and making proposals to owners with Sales Team
M.A. Mortenson. Proposed and received contracts on
$700,000,000.00 worth of projects that were tabled
because of the economy!
.
July 1988 to September 1990 (26 months)
Built Target Center Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball/
Hockey Arena in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a $70,000,000.00
project. I was on the Bid and Proposal Team and was the
Construction Superintendent. Sold the owner on our 26-
month completion schedule. Opened the doors in 26
months - "on time and within budoet". A profitable job
for M.A. Mortenson Company. Owners Harvey Ratner, Marv
Wolfenson and manager Bob Stein were very happy and told
me I was a man of my word. Competition wanted 36 months
to do the project.
Auoust 1986 to July 1988
Supervised construction of the Norwest Bank Building in
downtown Minneapolis, a $200,000,000.00 project. This is
a 57-story, plus 3 lower levels of parking. We had the
first tenant move in on the 23rd month as proposed. This
is probably the nicest looking building in Minneapolis
and makes the skyline beautiful - a Caesar Pelli design
project. This is a structural steel frame with 4 super
columns to the 47th floor, metal electrified floor system
to L-20. Balance of 37 floors have metal deck. Light
weight concrete was pumped up 7700 and we used a Schwing
mini-placer on a "Bio John" design Track system. Worked
great. Saved many hours of labor. Placed concrete
~
John E. Roettger
Paoe -2-
b
.
on metal deck floor every 2nd day. Completed project in 23-months, "on time and
within budget". A very profitable job for M.A. Mortenson/Schal Joint Venture. Mr.
Mortenson would tell you that I put the Mortenson Company in the highrise business.
I am one Superintendent who can make money building highrise buildings.
J anuarv 1985 - AU21lst 1986
Supervised construction of a 37 -story Plaza 7 Radisson Hotel project in Minneapolis,
Minnesota - a $55,000,000 project. This is a 17-story hotel, 360-bed hotel and 20-
story office complex above with 3 levels of underground parking.
We set the first structural steel column on ground level, 28 days after we placed the
fIrst cubic yard of concrete in the foundation. Very tight site. Open on only one side,
which is the busiest street in Minneapolis. Designed a swinging scaffold in the 17-
story atrium and saved the owner over $1,000,000. Opened "on time and within
budget", at a profit.
April 1982 - January 1985
.
Supervised construction of a $70,000,000 V.A. Medical Hospital in Seattle,
Washington. Plans were 60% complete at time of bid. Forced A.E. and V.A. decisions
to complete project on time. Schedule and built the hospital, even the owner could not
keep up with his CPM schedule. Completed in 32-months with a profit - unheard of
on a V.A. project.
June 1981 - April 1982 (11 months)
University of Minnesota Hospital project - $290,000,000. Implode Powel Hall, 6-story
building located on the "New Hospital" site. Prepared site for new building. Worked
with "A.E." to design a constructable hospital.
The University of Minnesota had budget problems and project was postponed for 18
months. I moved to Seattle to build the V.A. Hospital. Many of my cost cutting ideas
were implemented into the construction of the new University of Minnesota Hospital.
A great medical center, known worldwide!
September 1. 1978 - May 1981 (32 months)
.
Project Superintendent for Kraus Anderson Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota on
the Pillsbury World Headquarters for Gerald D. Hines of Houston, Texas - a
$100,000.000 project. Pumped 110,000 cubic yards of formed concrete in 24 months.
In a 23-story and a 40-story highrise tower with three levels of underground parking.
Poured concrete every day for 2 years, except for 2 days. These 2 days the
temperature was -400. K.A. Company receiv:d a bonus of $775,000 for having the
concrete completed 3 months early. Flying decks, 250 x 420 with a drop spandrel,
using manufactured fiberglass pans and aluminum system were used. Floors were
John E. Roettger
Page .4.
~
.
22,000 square feet each. We had an 8 day work schedule and averaged a floor every
6 days. Designed a workable forming system! Each tower had 1.Pecco 2000 tower
crane, I-placing boom, and I-double well hoist. The 40-story building had a mat of
2600 cys. under the core. We placed this concrete in 10 hours with 3 Schwing
concrete pumps.
In 1979, Krause Anderson Company promoted me to General Construction
Superintendent. I traveled to Dallas, Texas taking over a 29-story office complex that
had fallen behind. I tried to get the existing team enthused about building a highrise.
They were on a 14 day schedule and could not see how I could expect to do the same
24,000 sq. ft. floor in 5 days. I layed off the crew, kept the Superintendent and did the
next floor in 5 days. He stated he could not do it and was replaced. The "New
Superintendent" took the building to the top on my 5-day schedule with half of the
original crew. Kraus Anderson and the owner were very pleased with my performance.
Turned this project around!
In 1980, I helped estimate and bid and Krause Anderson was awarded a $70,000,000
IBM facility in Austin, Texas. We had 18 months to build the project. It was finished
"on time and within bud!:!et" with a profit
.
I helped price, schedule and sell projects for Kraus Anderson around the country -
Republic Airline hanger project, Minneapolis, Minnesota - Radisson Hotel, Dallas,
Texas - Phase TII Lincoln Properties, Dallas, Texas - St. Paul Hotel renovation
project, S t. Paul, Minnesota.
August 1968 - AUEUst 1978
.
Employed by Sheehv Construction Company, Sr. Paul, MN
Projects completed:
· Larry's Manor - 10th & Wabasha, Sr. Paul, MN
· Arden Hills Library, Arden Hills, MN
· University of Minnesota - remodel of Coffey Hall- Sr. Paul Campus, St. Paul, MN
· University of Minnesota - add to heating plant - St. Paul Campus, St. Paul, MN
· Hennepin County Jail - remodel, Minneapolis, MN
· Centennial Building - reset granite, Sr. Paul, MN
· Elk River High School - estimate and superintendent - Elk River, M1'l'
· YMCA Shoreview
· YMCA White Bear
· Arctic Enterprises - factory, Brooklyn Center, MN
. Holiday Inn, Brooklyn Center, MN
· Earle Brown Farm - spec buildings, Brooklyn Center, MN
· Theater 1, 2, & 3 Brooklyn Center, MN
· La Belles, Brooklyn Center, MN
· K-Man, Brooklyn Center, MN
· Stout State - Home Economics Building, Menomonie, WI
· Shingle Creek Tower Apartments, Brooklyn Center, MN
.
.
.
John E. Roettger
Page -5-
· Medtronic Office Building, Brooklyn Center, MN
. Northwestern Bell Telephone Building (1976), St. Paul, MN
· University of Minnesota - Health Science Bldg., Minneapolis, MN
. Medical Building - Exchange and St. Peter, Sc. Paul, MJ.'\(
In 1970, I became General construction Superintendent of Sheehy Construction
Company. I handled all field hiring, firing, and directed all field superintendents for
Sheehy Construction. I resigned in August of 1978 to take ajob with Kraus Anderson.
1967 - 1968
Western Wisconsin Builders, La Crosse, WI
Owner and operated - built homes, apartments and light commercial.
1961 - 1968
Centet. Lumber Company - Manager, Blair, WI
1955 - 1961
Bluff City Lumber Company (Central Lumber) - Yard Foreman, Stillwater, MN
1955
Streater Lumber Company - Assistant Manager, Mound, MN
1954 - 1955
Ziegler Heavy Equipment - Equipment repair, St. Paul, MN
1952 - 1954
U.S. Navy - Seabees, Great Lakes, IL
Korean Veteran
1951 - 1952
Bluff City Lumber - Cabinet Shop, Stillwater, MN
REFERENCES
.
Mr. Len Middelton P.E.
Middleton Engineering Assoc. (612) 560-8099
MinneaFOlis, MN
Mr. Larry Sowles L. H. Sowles Company (612) 872-4656
Mr. Jack Furst Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mr. Terry Palmer Skilling, Ward, (206) 292-1200
Magnusson, Barks hire , Inc.
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Wally Sells Patent Scaffolding (206) 767-0210
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Tony Kammerer Harris Mechanical (612) 688-9292
. Mr. Ron Harris S c. Paul, Minnesota
Mr. Tim Henson Ralph's Concrete Pumping (206) 485-6519
Seattle, Washington (206) 954-0190 Mobile
Mr. Ralph McCoy M.A. Mortenson Company (612) 522-2100
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mr. Ed Calcaterra 1. S. Alberici (314) 261-2611
Construction Company
S c. Louis, Missouri
Mr. Dean Haug Advance Shoring (612) 489-8881
& Equiprent Co.
St. Paul, Minnesota
'Ihor Becken, President Cemstone Products Co. (612) 686-4222
.
.
.
.
..
Location:
Telephone:
Fax:
Incorporation:
Principals:
Staff:
Registration:
Capabilities:
Experience:
EXHIBIT 2
A QUICK RESUME OF THE FIRM
KMR Architects, Ltd.
2501 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405
(612) 377-8151
(612) 377-8156
State of Minnesota -- 1 984
Alan J. Kimpell
Paul D. Miterko
Gerald J. (Jerry) Runk
4 Registered Architects
2 Technical Support
1 Clerical
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Mississippi
Arizona
NCARB Council Certification
Complete Architectural Services, including:
· Project Evaluation &. Programming
· Design and Development of Project Documents
· Interior & Graphic Design
.
Contract Administration
Scale Model Construction
Inspecting Architect Services
.
.
The staff at KMR Architects has extensive experience in all
phases of commercial design and construction ranging from small
additions to the 95-million dollar Target Center Arena in
Minneapolis. The range of projects in the staff portfolio include
health care facilities, offices, retail stores, banks, video production
studios, hair salons, air-supported structures, over 2000 multi-
family housing units, and more than fifty projects in the
recreational and sports field.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 3
PROPOSED PARKING / RETAL DEVB.OPMENT
SOUTH SECOND STREET
STLLWATER,MNNESOTA
CROIX BULDERS "C.
.
j.;
;.1
.~
.
.,
..
.'
.
i '
i ~
I
, "...... ~
t~: "-'~_____
" -----=
,.-
i i __
" ' ---------
-------
.
I I
. ,
I I
, ,
.
....;:.;
..... ... Pr.
,.....'
I~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~I - ~- - I &
II '--- I
-- I
I ,
, -L--
2ND 6TJIi!EET
. (Ie .ACIi&J
'I~'-~' - 'I"-~
...-. 1- ELEV. FT
L......... '''.6'' &a. .
CiIRO&6 AREA
.
I
i
i
i ___
----~I
------
-J' --
--
-~------- I
I __
----I -
--------
........K I
I
I
,
FF<EL IMINARY FLAN
-'M'PT'l"Y"r11111"l @
~- ~ .
. . ..
~ I
lit
-I
II
..
I
III
nl
2g ~
...
..
z..v:
..
II
I.
hi
I ~
~ '" <<ot el
~~.~..llr"
_111____
'l::t '09 iMl2'I. . ,X WGJ''i€ 'lf3i!!i'lf ~9
(9lit:)'lfe19 'N) .GI-,fia. . .GI-,t1L '^!I"t!1 - t "1!IAS'
(9~~ <N) .c21-,ft:L - .Gl'-,9a. "~a - CI-lI',V Ii: 1a.\a1
(liIiiPlT..19 9'i/) .0.,Lt1. - .Gl'-,9G:L "^a1il - (w9) to 1a.\a1
!
~
,
N'11d ACS'V"NIWI1:R:bl
...
,0D1l II I
I <?
I
I
. ..----
I
,
-----
I I
~
~___________--l_ _
JJ. 'fr
.
't
i i
.
.
.
" , f '
. . . .
01 I
I I fI)-
, .
!
! ! -I
i ~ II
~
..
111!8 0D1l
IlDD
~ if
EII:I1I
ElDJ
lIJ:3
CI:III
IImJ
~
~
I I
~ ft
I
I~
I
i
-----1- -
,
III
i
i
c=:> I
l1tJD I
I
t1t~
III
!~ I
2~ I
I
l.!EV2L & (~) - f;L.EV '''''4 - 1&8'-'" ( "2 &f"ACE6)
~ AREA l&ID" &a. PT.
FF<EL IMINARY PLAN
III m ~J'I"!"nTn'm ~
OJ ~>> . ~
.
.
.
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I IUv. - II
I
I I
I I ..... - .
.......... I I I
...-"... ..
~ I I I .... W' .
I I
I I
I I .... - .
I I I I I
.......... . I ~ I ~ I I
~ I I .~-
I -, - -- I ..~.
9 I!A6T I ueeT DJlLDINCir 6I!CTI<lN - 1.00ICHG ~H
-,- II
-,..... II
....,,- .
_.W .
...- .
..,... .
_.....
EA&r I ue&r 8U11.PIHCir e.eCTION - 1.00K1NGoI NO(ItTH
Q
1"'N1.IM/NAAY ~~...~r."1"l"f'I"'n
D2 1D a M
~ I
III-
-I
IJ
..
Ii I
~~ I'
i~ ~
J
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I .
Ii I III ! ! I I I I 1
I I i
""1 ! ir ! ! 1 . . 1 .
II i I
...,1 , . I I I 1 ,
I I
. 1
. I III I I 1 I 1 1 .
I I I I I
I I
.
... I
...., - . III-
....,...... . -I
II
...,. Wo' e II.
.... .- .
....... .
.
.
9 &O\./TH I HOPtTI-I HCTlON - Loat<INI3 u.e6T
!i I
~i I
2~ .
I . I I 1 1
! I I I I I I
I l I ! i .
s ...., - I I
.
I. ! , I ! ! !
61 -..... I I
I! i ! - ! i i
61 _.- j 1
. I
. I I . I i
61 --- I
I i
I IIi " ;1 I
1 i i i
I
........... , i I I
I I, I I I
J
1'"f:5L./MINARr
FOFl: ~CIHG
Q EAeT I u.eeT l5lJ1L.D~ HCTION - LOOK~ 6OUT1-I
~, I I I .'T'i'T'rI .. A-I
01 10. 4G,...
EXHIBIT 4
.
PROPOSED CONDOMNUM DEVELOPlENT
SOUTHSECONl SmEET
STLLVWATER. IINNESOTA
CROIX BULDERS ~C.
.
.
....
.
\".
"
.
..
o
.
p
(
IN
LEvEL ONE
ELEVATION 12c:z>
.
PROPOSED cotI)OMlNIJM DEVB.OPMENT
for the
use SITE IN STILLWATER, MtR30JA
.
136
down
135
134
133
.
131
1.31
LEVEL TWO
ELEVATION 131
.
PROPOSED COtl)~ DEVELOPMENT
for the
UBC SITE IN STl..LWATER, r..NESOTA
~
.
r=;up
cloUln
.
PA~Y ~0Cl1
E><ERCISE
FA~"" ~OOM
LEvEL TI-JREE
PARKING, L066Y . FU6L1C AREAS
ELEvATION 142
.
PROPOSED CONDOMlMUM DEVaOPIENT
for the
use SITE IN STILLW A TEA, PttNNESOT A
.
.
.
.
:1 6R
26R
LEVEL FOUR
ELEvATION lSS'-~'
13 UNITS
2 aR
eLeYAT~
ELEvATOR L066Y
26R
21!!lR
JaR
2 E3R
PROPOSED CONDOMltlUM DEVELOPIENT
for the
UBC SITE IN STILLWATER, MltN:SOTA
.
.
.
.
26R
2 BR
2 6~
EJ..eVAT~
aeVATOR L.Oeey
26R
2 BR
2BR
LEvEL FIvE
ELEvATION 164'-4'
1.3 UNITS
2 BR
PROPOSED CONDOMltlUM DEVaOPIENT
for the
use SITE IN STILLWATER, IttN'ESOT A
26R
26R
.
2eR
EL.EVATORe
EL.EVATOR 1.066'1"
26R
.
:l 6R
26R
LEvEL SIX
ELEVATION 113'-8"
13 UNITS
:l 6R
.
PROPOSED CONDOMlNIJM DEVB.OPMENT
for the
use SITE IN STILL W A TEA, MNNESOT A
~
.
.
!
i:
!'.
.
26R
2 BR
LEvEL SEveN
ELEVATION 1e21_~"
11 UNITS
2BR
El.EVAT~
ELEVATOR L,066Y
, BR
2 aR
\.......
..........
.....'L
-,
I
2 SF<! I
I
I
I
I
,...-'
I
2 SF<! I
I
I
I I
L______________~
PROPOSED CONDOMlt<<JM DEVaOPMENT
for the
UBC SITE IN STlLLW A TEA, MlNNES()T A
~
.
.
.
26R
:2 BR
2 BfIi:
26f1i:
EL5YATO~
ELeVATOR L066'l"
2 efIi:
26R
:2 6R
LEvEL E IGJ4T
ELEVATION 1':11'-4'
Ice:::> UNITS
PROPOSED CONlOMlNUM DEVELOPMENT
for the
UBC SITE IN STillWATER, MNNESOTA
\
........
........
......
.....,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
'-"
~
.
.
.
26R
2 eR
26R
El.EYAT0R5
EL.EVATOR L.06eY
26R
2 eR
LEvEL NINE
........
....
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
I
I I
I I
L___________J
ELEVATION e~~'-e'
~ UNITS
PROPOSED CONDOMNUM DEVELOPMENT
for the
UBC SITE IN STI.1.WATER. MINNESOTA
. -,
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
(
I
I I
L___________J
LEVEL TEN
ELEVATION 81l2"-l2"
8 UNITS
18p1l2' GROSS SQUARE FEET
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVB..OPMENT
for the
use SITE IN STILLWATER, MNNESOTA
."
",
. " . .
.
<1 L .
"-l () tL
o .
~Q(.G
~ Q 0)
Z ill <i.)
11l<i.)
~ "t...
~N_
'-
~J
~
. fj
. ..,~' ~
,~ ~
, ',II
.,~ :8
:.~~ ;~
. . iA
. ~
",
...
... (\ ~,
..
.
.'
I '7f~t
.. " h~7;~~
~ I' ~I /) ~~ l
BEDROOM
" p. r .
~ t]o~o .
'T"1
~ I
..
I I
j
~[Q] !:J!:J
~ LIVING 0 ~ EJ .
~
8
o ROOM [) CD tr='il
~ <) Q := - u ~
II
0' Q~ I
'-6 :,.:' ::-..' "-~'. ".: ,:,':' ::;'~ '. ~.,.:: :..:.:'''~''',,:: "
, . ."'.,':' :F?bRci4 '1:0ECK:,~ ',.~: BEDROa1 Jj
"~"'.": :.: .:.::' ::,><:. ::;::<'::':'0'"< Qj>
. ......~ .:.:~ ::..... .0. '" ~ :.:..... _' o. .....::. ..':' ':..:' ~ .... m . 1= =:!I,
"
UNIT B
2 BEDROOM
1,566 SQ. 'FT.
r
.
. ,
. ~~'~~ :1a#",
~. :i:!:. ~--- z:::.:: ~. ~ lle' SE: -::::t~
. , .1
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 5
AMERUSBANK
6800 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
EDlNA MN 55435
612/929-8081
June 27. 1997
John Roettger
9376 St. Croix Trail North
Stillwater MN 55082
RE: Construction Financing
Dear John:
It was so nice meeting with you at the Edina Realty office last Friday (6/20/97). Our "One Stop Shopping"
concept will really work well for you. Although we have many details to work out yet. I wanted to give you a
summary of what AmerUs Bank can offer you,
Regarding your Victorian Homes:
If you need any construction financing for Spec Homes or Model Home we have a program where you can
borrow up to 80% L TV based on the appraised value, The rate we can offer you is 9.50% (prime plus 1%).
The origination fee is 1%. We can give you a term of 24 months,
If you have a P A on any of the lots, we can put the construction fmancing in the buyers name and the costs to
the buyer for both closings are only slightly higher than with one closing. The origination fee for the
construction portion is reduced to 1/2% if the end loan is with Edina Realty Mortgage. We will use the same
appraisal and title insurance to keep costs down.
Regarding your Condominium Project:
We can offer you a rate of Prime plus 1% (9.5%) and a 1% origination fee. We can be very flexible on this
and if it works better for you we can charge a higher rate with no origination fee. The L TV is 80%
I am really looking forward to working with you for your financing needs. Your choice of Listing with Edina
Realty has allowed us to offer you our full line of services.
I will call before our meeting on July 8, 1997 to go over the items I need for your loan approval.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 612/929-8081.
Sincerely,
JeanneS~~~
C~tion & Development Specialist
.
"
.
.
.
-
EXHIBIT 6
Croix Builders, Inc.
9376 St. Croix Trail North
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
August 15, 1997
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Re: Proposed Condominium and Parking Structure Project
South Second Street, City of Stillwater
Dear Sirs and Madames:
Be advised that the undersigned is willing to undertake the
development of the project described in the attached Application
for Tax Increment Financing Assistance if (a) a satisfactory
agreement can be reached for the City's commitment for the
requested public improvements; (b) a satisfactory mortgage and
equity financing for the proposed project can be secured; and (c)
the economic feasibility and soundness of the proposed project have
been analyzed and confirmed to the satisfaction of the City and the
developer.
In addition, the undersigned is willing to enter into an agreement
after proj ect planning has been completed which would require
developer to provide appropriate guarantees prior to the City's
provision of assistance to undertake public activity related to the
proposed project.
Sincerely,
Croix Builders, Inc.
L'
.
.
.
..
,
CITY OF STILLWATER
PRE-APPLICATION
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE
Legal name of applicant: Croix Builders, Inc.
Address: 9376 St. Croix Trail North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Telephone Number: (612) 439-1095
Name of Contact Person:
John E. Roettqer
REOUESTED INFORMATION
Addendums shall be attached hereto addressing in detail the
following:
1. A map showing the exact boundaries of proposed development.
See attached Exhibit A.
2.
Give a general description of the project including: size and
location of building{s) i business type or usei traffic
information including parking, projected vehicle counts and
traffic flowi timing of the projecti other pertinent
information.
The proposed project consists of the development of two sites
on South 2nd Street in the City of Stillwater. The first site
is on the west side of 2nd, between Chestnut and Olive Streets
and is proposed as a parking and retail development. The
second project includes the old UBC Lumber Yard property and
is projected as a high density housing development. The
projects are tied together as a single development due to the
need for public parking addressed in the documentation on the
UBC site provided by the City of Stillwater.
The parking/retail development is envisioned as a multiple
level parking structure with street level retail space. We
expect Shorty's Laundry to anchor the retail with a 5000 sq.
ft. facility. The remainder of the first level will be
approximately 6000 sq. ft. of retail space and 16 short term
parking stalls. Each level of the parking structure above
will provide approximately 80 stalls with the total including
the roof of 320 spaces.
The housing development proposed for the UBC site consists of
65 - 80 condominium apartment units with enclosed parking.
The City's requirement for public parking on this site a part
of the development is being satisfied in the parking/retail
development previously described. Each unit will be between
1200 and 1600 sq. ft. with private deck and view of the
downtown and river valley. Party rooms, meeting rooms and
exercise room will also be provided or building residents. It
"
3 .
is strongly believed that the project must provide vehicle and
pedestrian access to 2nd Street, and must have a pedestrian
connection to 3rd Street. To accomplish this connection, it
will be necessary to acquire the City owned land on 3rd Street
and some additional property from Cub. Cub has already been
contacted regarding the purchase of the required property.
The existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and
zoning of the property. Include a statement as to how the
proposed development will conform to the land use designation
and how the property will be zoned. Explain any discrepancies
between the proposed development and the existing land use
designation and zoning. The planned land use is in compliance
with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Applicant seeks a
Special Use Permit for the condominium project.
.
4 .
A statement identifying the public improvements requested to
be financed and why the costs of the improvement cannot be
paid by the developer.
The developer is requesting the City provide 90% of the TIF
revenue generated by the project to assist in the development
of the Parking structure. It is also requested that the City
provide the engineering required for the relocation of City
owned utilities on the sites. The developer also requests
that the seller provide a site free of hazardous materials.
.
5.
A statement identifying the public benefits of the proposal
including estimated increase in property valuation, new jobs
to be created and other community assets.
The parking structure, retail spaces and condominium building
will increase the property valuation by $12 to $14 million
dollars, create 10 to 15 new jobs and provide badly needed
parking for the downtown area. See attached Exhibit B.
6. A written perspective of the developer's company or
corporation, principals, history and past projects.
See attached Exhibit C.
Applicant understands and agrees that the information contained in
this application, and the information contained in items above, is
intended for use by the City of Stillwater, its officers,
employees, and agents in connection with the City's consideration
of possible tax increment bond financing for applicant's project;
however, the City gives no assurance that this information may not
be disclosed, in whole or part, to persons other than City's
officials, employees and agents.
.
SIGNATURE
Applicant's signature
g - /r;-~7
Date
/l ,1'
.~~
1/
L
I~
Z; 1/' p-'
.::-- l '\.4:-?z'-I-??4/r-
'"
,;
FXHIJ3I'I' .A --.-.-- .
· 3 ..
.' I tll!! i !
" Iii
a .+ I ail, J t
.. ;lf1d f I
... & I
ii
~ .- 11 J Ui!!
~ - J J~~I~ f I! I
. .. ; "ti t~ "
; ~ f silt ~e I
a .
a z ~ ~ ~ S I
i5 0 ! Ii! ill! j l
L
~
~
(j)
~
~
\d
.::.
~
~
.1-
~
..
.
~...\
. - \
\-\ '{\ {
\ \ ft{ \. \,
\ .. \" . \
\, \ ...--\
-f
~
~
U\
~
~
?
oJ
~
CJ
~
J
.
.
.
. .
Tl-IfRD &TREET
~
co
~
~
I I
I I
JHif
+{??::\<'::}F+++<>-8?
'... .... ." .. ." -,.... .. . ..... '..
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::1. :::: ,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-:.:.:-:.>:.:-:.:<<.:-:-:.:.:-:.:.: .:.:.: :':-:-:':-:-:-:':-:':':-:':':-:-:-:-.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l - I l
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I i
...
I I co
~
<0
I I ~
::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: f::::,:::::,. ::::: ::::::::::: ::::: ::::::: :::}':: :::::: ::::::::::::: ::::::: :::::::::::::: ::: ~~~~}:~: F.i: :~:~,lb3i?)i~:~~~i::
'::'<<:~~t~:~L)J:;~:~.;i:4~.~~:,:>>>>.>>>>>.:.~>>>>:~~t~~~~~\t:::<<:
. ,...... ....... .... ..... ......... .............. ...... .
"'.""""""""",',.,',Clt" '<;;r,St:nh.ila't.si::::::: '::::::::::, ",:., :::: ',:::::: ::::::::::,j::::::::::::::::::,
<<:::>.:~<::<<<<<<<:.<<<<<<<t>>>>> >>>,<<L>>>>.<<<<L<<<<<<<<:::
'::::' :-:':':P4rc:${':~':R'i$:c.wi~,4}~~i:':::':':':-:
. , ' ,., , . , .. /::~~::~~d~W:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
" ::,
&ECQO &T~Et
GRose SITE A~A 43-"13,& sa. FT.
&ITE DESCRIPTION
""""'_..,....'" J:^.
... - - - ~
PROPOSED PARKING / RETAIL SITE
. .
. 'TC906D 30 T82 BRC Tax System
Bill No. Parcel No.
R R 28.030.20.41.0081
1998
.ok~page
PT OF LOTS 1 &: 2
030 BEG AT A PT ON SOUTH LINE
OF CHESTNUT ST 49' 6 a EAST OF NW
COR OF SD LOT 1 &: RUN THENCE
SOUTH ON A LINE PAR WITH WEST
LINE Of SD LOTS 1 &: 2 65 FT
THENCE EAST AT RIGHT ANGLES
WITH SD LAST MEN- TIONED LINE
6 INCHES THENCE SOOTH ON A
LINE PAR WITH WEST LINE OF SD
LOTS 1 &: 2 35 J'T TO A PT .ON
SOUTH LINE OF SD LOT 2 ~CE
EAST ON SOOTH LINE OF SD LOT 2
25FT THENCE NORTH ON A LINE
PAR wITH WEST LINE OF SD,. LOTS
1 &: 2-21 J'T THENCE EAST ON A
TC~06D 30 T82 ERC Tax Syste~
Bill No. Parcel No. .
R R 28.030.20.41.0082
1998
Book/Page
I
.
EAST 1/2 LOTS 1 &: 2 &:
030 E 100FT LOT Nl/2 LOT 3
BLK 30 BXC PTS 1 &: 2 DBSC AS
FOLLOW- BEG AT PT ON S LINE
CHESTNUT ST 49 rr 6 IN. B OF
NW CORN SD LOT 1 & RUN THEN S
ON LINE PAR TO W LINE LOTS 1 &
2 65 J'T THEN B AT R ANG WITH
SD LAST MENTION LINE 6 IN.
THEN S ON LINE PAR WITH W LINE
LOTS 1 & 2 35 rr TO PT ON S
LINE LOT 2 THEN B ON S LINE
LOT 2 21 PT THEN B ON LINE PAR
TC906D 30 T82 ERC Tax System
Btll No. Parcel No.
R " R 28.030.20.41.0084
.'
.1998
Book/Page
I
,
I
.
PT LOT 3 BLOCK
30 ALL OF LOTS 4 & 5; PT LOTS
6-7-8 ALL IN BLOCK 30 BEING
THE E 100FT OF Sl/2-0F LOT 3
ALL OF LOTS 4 &5 & THE B 50FT
OF LOT 6 & 7 & ALSO THE B 50FT
OF S 24FT OF LOT 8 BLOCK
30 ORIGINAL TOWN (NOW CITY) OF
STILLWAT
Inquiry
Name Additional Legal Lines
JOHN J &: COLLEEN M BOURDAGHS 0
LINE PAR WITH NORTH LINE OF SO
LOT 1~26 FT THENCE NORTH ON A
LINE PAR WITH WEST LINE OF SD
LOTS 1 &: 2 TO SOUTH LINE OF
CHBSTNUT ST THENCE WEST ALONG
SOOTH LINE OF CHESTNOTST TO
PLACB OF BEG. 2ND WARD
Inquiry
Name Additional Legal Lines
JOHN BOURDAGHS 0
CHESTNUT ST THEN W ALONG S
LINE CHESTNUT ST TO PT BEG.
2ND WARD
Inquiry
Name Additional Legal Lines
CITY OF STILLWATER 0
J3l,O ~/[ 3 C>
~
.
nllflD &TR!ET
,'.'.........' 't:"..,..',...,.:......:... ':,' ,'.', .::......::..:.'::::::..: :.':....... '::. .:..,...,.... '.','.':,' .'::. '. ':::::.'.':.
':.:-:-:.:. :-:'Q':': ':':.:.:.:.:.:-:-:. :-:.:-: ':- :':-:- :.:-:': -:. par09t -:~. ffi8ii3~:W:44,i>ti>as:': .:. :-:-: .:-:.:-:.
: X:::::: :::~ ::: :::::: :::::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::: ::::: :::::::::::: :::::::::::~~~: :i~: ~~~~~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::
::~:':>)'~:.:~<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<:}~:>>>>>>)>>>>)>~
:::::::::::::::~:::f::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::~:::::!::::::::::::::::::::'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
il;.:iffiR:d~f~i://
........L.............. .........................................................................................
,. . . ... ..,. .. . , . . ... . . .. , ..... ...... .,...... .............. .. . , . .,. , ... ,. ,.. ....... .,....."......".................
'.','.':.'. ':{l, '.'. '....: ::.':.'. ".'.', :. '.':::.'.':. .::::::::....::. '::.'. .:.' ::.'. '::.'::.'. .::::..... .:..... ':::::. ',' :::: :::.'.' ::,'::::: :::, '::::::::.'.
.......... .............. ........................................................ ................................
II
I.... '........,' ::......,.. '....:. .:....:: ,I'.'.':,'.'.'.'.', '..::..:...., ':.' ::::....... ..'..:.....'....:...' :::.....',':..:. ':::. ':.':
.................... .... . ........................................................
. ....... ............. ... . ........................................................................................
........ ...... ................................................................... ................................
.... ..... ....................................................................... ............. ...................
..... ........................................................................... ................................
......... .......................:........:........:........:......... .............. . .'. ...........:........:.. ......:.. .'. ..,..:.................... .'. '.' ..:........: ........:................... ................... .............
. ..... .. ...... ...... ........................ ...........................................................................
..... ...................................... .............................................................................
.... .. ..................................... ...........................................................................
.
.... ....................................... ...........................................................................
............................................ ...........................................................................
.... .... ........... ........................ ...........................................................................
..... ...................................... ...........................................................................
.... ....................................... ............................................................................
...... ...................................... ............................................................................
.... ... ................ .................... ............................................................................
..... ...................................... ...........................................................................
.... ....................................... .............................................................................
:.:':.:': ':.:':.:.:.:-:.:.:.:':.:.:.:.:.:':.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':.:.:.:.:.:.:. :.:':-:':':':':-:':':':':':':':':':':':~~r~~:'~':~':~?~~~~~~'?':~:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:":.:-:.:.
.... ............... ...... .................. ...........................................................................
:.:-:.:.: .':-:':':':':':':':':':':':':':': -:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:':.:. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: -:.:.:.:.:.:.:':.:-:.:.:.:.:- :~~~. :i?!.' ~!I:k;u:4.~~ ':.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.: .:.:.:.: -:.:.:.:.:.:.:':.:.:.:.:.
.... ... .................. .................. ...........................................................................
...... .... ...... ..... ....................... ...........................................................................
.... ....................................... ............................................................................
..... ........ .............................. ............................................................... ............
.... ... .................................... ............ ............-..................................................
. .... ...................................... ............................................................................
.... ............... ......................... ...........................................................................
............................................ ............................................................................
U6
..... ......................................... ............................................................. ..............
.... ..... .................................. ............................................................................
.... ....................................... .............................................................................
..... ...................................... .................................................................................
J
!ECOlIO tlTR:ET
~5S SITE Af'!:A 82.664..6 Sa. FT.
t.l'T!! O~PTlCN
W'I'I'P_,,,,, '"'' 0\
..... ... - - ~
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM SITE
.
.
.TC906D 30 T82 BRC Tax System
Bill No. Parcel No.
t R R 28.030.20.44.0085
1998
Book/Page
I
.
'l'C9Q..6D
. J3ill
'J
1998
Ai,ok/Page
'P' I
i
I
a
jj
.
PT OF LOTS 6 & 7
035 BEG ON EAST LINE OF 3RD ST
85FT SOUTH FROM NW COR OF LOT
6 THENCE SOUTH ALONG 3RD ST
150FT THENCE BAST AT RIGHT
ANGLES.150 FT TO INTERSECTION
Wl:TH WEST LINE OF LOT 7 IF
EXTENDED NL Y THENCE SOUTH
ALONG SD EXTENDED LDm &: WEST
LINE OF LOT 7 FOR 50 rr THENCE
BAST AT RIGHT ANGLES WJ:TH 3RD
ST 150 rr TO WEST Lnn,: OF 2ND
ST THENCE NORTH ALONG '2ND ST
103FT THENCE WEST AT RIGHT
ANGLES Wl:TH RIGHT ANGLB WJ:TB
3RD ST TO A PT 160 rr BLY FROM
30 T82 BRC Tax System
No. Parcel No.
R 28.030.20.41.0086
ALL OF LOTS 1 & 2
035 PT O. LOT 6 BLK 35
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEG AT
NELY COR THENCE WLY TO SW COR
OF LOT 1 THENCE S TO SE COR OF
LOT 2 THENCE W ON S LINE OF
LOTS 2 &: 3 TO A PT 120 rr B OF
3RD ST THEN S PAR Wl:TH 3RD ST
85 FT THEN B AT RT ANG 40 rr
THENCE S PAR Wl:TB 3RD ST 100
FT THENCE B' AT RT ANG TO W
LINE OF 2ND ST THENCE N' ALONG
2ND ST TO BEG BXC A 3 rr STRIP
ALONG S SIDE TO N.S. POWER CO
&: EXC THE FOL LOWDlG--COK AT
HE COR OF SO BLK THENCE SOUTH
Inquiry
Name Additional Legal Lines
CITY OF STILLWATER 0
3RD ST THENCE NORTH PAR WI:TH
3RD ST 97FT THENCE WEST AT
RIGHT ANGLES 160FT TO BEG EXC
THAT PT DESC IN BX 191 OF
DEEDS PAGE 559
Inquiry
Name Additional Legal Lines
CITY OF STILLWATER 0
ALONG BAST LINE OF SD LOTS 1 &
6 100 rr TO A PT THENCE WEST
PAR TO NORTH LINE OF SO LOTS 1
& 2 TO WEST LINE OF SO LOT 2
THEN NORTH ALONG WEST LINE OF
aD LOT 2 TO NW COR OF SO LOT 2
THENCE BAST ALONG NORTH LINE
OF SD LOTS 1 & 2 TO PLACE OF
BEG. 2ND WARD
.
''rCg'OGO 30 T82 BRC Tax System
Bill No. Parcel No.
R R 28.030.20.44.0025
1998
Book/Page PT OF LOTS 6 &: 7
I 035 BEG ON EAST LINE OF 3RD ST
85 FT SOUTH OF NW COR OF LOT 6
THENCE EAST AT RIGHT ANGLES
WITH EAST LINE OP 3RD ST A
DIST OF 50 PT TO PLACB OP BBG
THENCB SOUTH ON A LINE 50 FT
EAST &: PAR WITH EAST LINE OF
3RD ST A DIST OF 150 PT THENCE
EAST AT RIGHT ANGLBS 100 PT TO
INTBRSBCTION WITH WEST LINE OP
LOT 7 IP EXTENDED NLY 'l'HBNCB
SOt:rnI ALONG SD EXTENDED LINE &:
WEST LINE OP LOT 7. POR 50 PT
'THENCB EAST AT RIGHT ANGLES
WITH 3RD ST 150 PT TO QST
t9o'6D 30 T82 ~RC Tax System -
Bill No. Parcel No'.
R R 28.030.20.44.0027
1998
Book/Page
. 1
PT OF LOT 7 &: ALL 8 - 22
035 BBING ALL LYING S OP THE S
LINE OP THAT TRACT DBEDED TO
STILLWATER GAS &: BLBCTRIC
LIGHT CO IN BOOtt 28 OP DBEDS
PAGB 349 &: BB- ING ABotJTB
14.62 PT ON W LINE &: 13.85
PBET ON 2ND STREET AND:PART OP
LOT 6 BLOClt 35 -BBGINN- ING ON
WEST LINE 235 PBET SOUTH OF
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6
THENCB EASTERLY AT RIGHT
ANGLES TO 3RD STREET TO THE
1
I.
.
Inquiry
Name Additional Legal Lines
CITY OF STILLWATER 0
LINE OF 2ND ST THENCE NORTH
ALONG 2ND ST 103 FT THENCE
WEST AT RIGHT ANGLES WITH 3RD
ST TO A PT 160 PT ELy'PROM 3RD
ST THBNCE NORTH &: PAR WITH 3RD
ST 97 PT THEN,WEST AT RIGHT
ANGLBS 110 PT TO PLACE OF BBG.
2ND WARD
Inquiry
Name Additional Legal Lines
SUPERVALU HOLDINGS INC 0
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 7
THENCB SOUTHWESTBRLY ALONG
NORTHERLY LINE OP LOT 22 TO
3RD STREET THENCB NORTH TO
BEGI~NG ORIGrNAL CITY OP .
S~ILLWATBR
EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: Downtown Parking Commission
DA: February 20, 1997
RE: WORKSHOP ON DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (DPIP)
Purpose of Meeting. To present the city council with the results of the downtown
parking survey (conducted during the Summer of 1996) and the Downtown Parking
Improvement Program for adoption and first year (1997) implementation.
Downtown Parking Survey Background. The downtown parking district includes the
area generally bounded by the St. Croix River, South Third Street and North Second
Street, Pine Street and Elm Street (see attached map). A detailed business by
business and parking space by parking space survey was conducted during the
Summer of 1996 to accurately determine the parking needs of the area bas~d on
business activity and parking supply. In conducing the survey, the downtown was
organized in eight subdistricts and each commissioner assigned to a subdistrict. The
downtown parking survey map on the following page summarizes parking survey
. results by district area and the entire downtown.
The results show that there is a need for 1.816 additional parking spaces in the
downtown. Districts 1, 2 and 3, located in the South Main Street area, has the greatest
deficit, -567, -522 and -499 spaces. The North Main Street area has a surplus of 332
parking spaces.
Of the 2,419 parking spaces provided in the downtown, 1,283 or 53 percent of the
spaces are public parking spaces (777 in public lots and 506 on-street) and 1,136 are
privately owned.
The study documents what most people know, "downtown Stillwater needs additional
parking particularly in the South Main Street area". The survey results provided a
business by business basis for determining the number of parking spaces required as
compared to those provided. Most downtown businesses rely on public parking and do
not have adequate on-site parking. This is typical of older downtowns.
Other Parking Conditions. Besides the overall need for additional parking spaces, the
parking commission studied the distribution of parking and parking time limits As the
survey shows, there are excess spaces in the North Main Street area and a major
parking deficit in the South Main Street area. The Riverview and North Main Street lots
. are underutilized.
----------- -
-----
-,-
....---
..-~-
..---
-,-
--...-- ...--"
....-..
Sour::es:
r.. oj
c~m'6"~a~!':fam."t
!II August 29, 1996
'; A 150 ,_0 150 300 450
_________,__ __ _0 __ _ "__o__f.~eL
600
~~t:
Gall~"t;~1
City of
~atel
~-- ~
Downtown Parking Survey
Legend:
1 Parking Commission District
N Parking District Boundary
e
e
80
.
..
Q
I
PubliC Parking Lots
Leased Public Parking Lots
Parking Spacesllot
500 - 599
400 - 499
300 - 399
200 - 299
100 - 199
0-99
Parking Space Surplus
Additional
Parking
Spaces
Needed
Parking Survey Results
tl ..
.~ ~
u; ~ 0'1 e-
o 4J c"
a ~ ~.~ ~
'iij:!! g'~~g>g
E "111 g' :g 0.. 4J :g B
Ed1J2 ali).:E <<I~
8'0 cu~ e.~Q..~
g'!*~~~~ g'
:g s~:e:o -a; a:g
~ zo..O: 0: ~ &! ~
1 50 164 207 n 448 1015 .567
_2 75 21.~-:io4160 5~ 11 1 1 -51.~
3 57 145 0 59 204 703 -499
--4-- ",---'640--58-171-39--'1-63---:-24-
5 20 48 76 21 145 262 -137
6-0-0-C)'"O-O-O-O-
~.J~-=sL_B5~~~~~'=fi_2_~~2__ ~~J:L~jl~:
14 - 1 7 7
Total 270 1136 777 506 2419 4235 -1816
'200
Available vs, Required Parking
1000
!
r-----, I
: CJAv-aflaote Fatkjng '-l
__J EilReq"".., par1<itlg_:
I
.
~...-
~
"-
"'....
~
"'<00
11
'"
100
.. $ ~ 7.
Parking OiSU'lct
Map Area
y-~
w':~~~c~;~
_~_L'':;'-'., ".,,_,":. \~""~l
:e;p;~;~ . \
,,:r:
:.~;;r::;:?:.~~_f:c~
:.- ,;.~..... .,'" '-..~ ~~."'''''' .",.. J..... ,.,t'. - ."....~ ",.,. ~.. ,,',.1"1' ':'~
.
Another parking commission concern was how to finance improvements. The costs of
making improvements to the existing lots or adding new lots is significant and the
commission wanted to identify revenue sources in the DPIP that can pay for
improvements.
Signage to public parking lots is not clear downtown. Visitors to downtown don't know
there are vacant spaces along North Main Street and along Third Street.
Other downtown parking problems are the lack of enforcement on weekends (peek use
time) and need for additional maintenance of existing lots.
Downtown Parking Improvement Program. With this information as background the
parking commission held two public meetings, December 4th and January 8th, to
discuss the parking issue with downtown businesses and property owners. The
meetings were jointly sponsored by the Stillwater Chambers. The first meeting dealt
with defining the parking situation and presenting various parking improvement and
revenue alternatives. A questionnaire was administered to provide an opportunity to
comment on the parking alternatives. At the second meeting of January 8th, a draft
downtown parking improvement program was presented. The general response to the
DPIP was positive with only minor comments.
.
The Downtown Parking Improvement Program (DPIP) is being proposed by the
Downtown Parking Commission for Stillwater City Council approval and adoption. The
DPIP is based on the commission's understanding of the parking situation form daily
use and a study of parking demand and supply conducted during Summer 1996 and
public comment at the December 4 and January 8 public meetings.
Parking improvement alternatives and possible funding sources were identified and
presented at a public parking symposium December 4, 1996. The symposium provided
an opportunity for participants to discuss the information presented and to indicate their
preferences regarding the various parking improvement alternatives. Participants were
also asked their preference or acceptance of various methods of funding the parking
improvements.
Based on the comments and results from a parking questionnaire, the committee
proposes the following downtown parking improvement program. The DPIP is set out in
three time periods; short term improvement (1-2 years), midterm (3-5 years) and long
term (5+ years) based on type and cost of project. In developing the program the
committee looked closely at the costs of improvements as compared to parking benefit.
The overall approach of the program is to make low cost, short term improvements to
the existing parking supply to make it function as efficient and effectively as possible.
After the existing system has been "tuned up", the more expensive task of adding
spaces to the parking supply is proposed. The Aiple property (midterm improvements,
$250,000) could add 100 - 150 spaces while a parking structure, scheduled as a long
.
.
..
.
CITY OF STILLWATER
DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (DPIP)
Improvement Cost Source of Funds # Spaces Added
Phase 1 (Short term)
Comprehensive Signage Program $ 20,000 Pay Parking 0
Upgrade maintenance of parking lots $ 20,000 Pay Parking 0
Change time limits $ 10,000 Pay Parking 0
Improve UBC Lot $85 - 240,000 Pay Parking 100
Pave and landscape Mulberry/Second
Lots $100,000 Pay Parking ?
Improve Mulberry and Water Lot (Developer)
Better Enforcement Weekends $ 10,000 Pay Parking
Total $320,000
Phase 2 Midterm (3-5 years)
Construct Parking lot on Aiple Property $250,000 Pay Parking/Parking District? 100-200
Phase 3 Long Term (5+ years)
Construct parking structure $3.5 - 5 million Parking district, sales tax,
TIF, pay parking 350-500
.
.
.
term project, costing $3.5 to 5.0 million could add 350 to 500 spaces. A funding source
for a parking structure remains a major question.
The new funding source proposed for first year parking improvements is pay parking for
Lot 1, South Main, Lot 2, River Lot and USC Lot. It is estimated that $80,000 to
$100,000 will be generated annually. The specifics of the program will be developed
later after approval of the pay parking approach.
DPIP Implementation. The adoption of the Downtown Parking Implementation Program
would result in the following activities in 1997:
First Year DPIP
Establish South Main, River Lot (Nelson to Chestnut) and USC lots as seasonal
(May - October) pay parking lots (estimated $80.000 - $100.000 revenue).
Improve USC lot (cost $85-240,000). (Project construction for 1997 parking season
using parking revenue form lot)'
Development comprehensive and coordinate downtown parking signage program
$30,000 (this includes changes to parking times).
Increased parking enforcement (costs $10,000).
Second Year
Upgrade maintenance of lots (cost $20,000).
Pave Mulberry and Second Street Lots (cost $100,000).
Continued better (weekend) enforcement (cost $10,000).
Improve Mulberry and Water Street Lot (developer)
Consider adding another pay lot.
Future Years
Depending on revenues generated from pay parking consider improving Aiple Lot as a
pay parking lot.
1 Schedule and costs of USC lot improvement needs to be further developed in order for
improved lot to be available for parking during 1997 season.
Long Term Future
. Consider cost and sources of funds for 350 - 500 stall parking structure.
Recommendation:
.
.
Council approval of Downtown Parking Improvement Program and provide direction
to Downtown Parking Commission to submit a proposal for council review and
approval to establish a pay parking program for the South main and River lots for
the 1997 parking season.
Direct DTPC to obtain additional information on cost. method of construction and
method of payment for construction of UBC lot for 1997 parking season.
Attachment:
- Downtown Parking Brochure
- Estimate of pay parking revenues and costs
- Business by business parking survey results
.
.
.
EXHIBIT C
Confidential Resume
of
John E. (Big John) Roettger
9376 St. Croix Trail North
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(612) 439-1095
OBJECTIVE
EDUCA TION
Employment as a Construction Superintendent in the Construction Industry.
Graduate - Stillwater High School, Stillwater, MN - 1952
Graduate - Utilities Engineering School, Chicago, IL - 1954
Graduate - Minneapolis Vocational, Minneapolis, NL'l'
Blueprint Reading - 1955
Estimating - 1956
MILITARY
U.S. Navy - Seabees - 1952-1954
. Instructor in Building and Heavy Equipment Operations
. Trained Reserves at Great Lakes, IL
. Construction Battalion School
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
I have 45 years in the Construction Industry as a General Superintendent, Project
Superintendent, Superintendent and Foreman.
I am known as "Big John wherever I work - a room gets smaller, when I walk in. I
have a very good reputation and am a leader, self-starter, an optimist, organizer, scheduler
and most of all a "builder".
I have the reputation of being a pusher and I am hard, but fair with Tradesmen and Staff.
I have trained 1000's of Tradesmen to know their trade. I make people who work with
me fit into the requirements of the industry and much better by the time they leave, than
when they came to me!
I have 30 years experience in the Supervision of concrete fonning, flying forms, placing,
finishing, and curing concrete. I have supervised structural steel, precast, tilt up, poured
in place concrete buildings.
I have built one story shopping centers to 57-story highrise buildings. The major highrise
buildings in the Minneapolis skyline have been supervised by me. I have worked in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Texas, Washington State, Colorado, lllinois and Missouri.
I am an honest, forceful, hard-driving individual. I am known as one-in-a-million. I enjoy
working with professional builders, engineers, architects, and tradesmen. People in the
industry must be "trained to work" and "work: to be trained."
Jo~ E. Roettger
Page -2-
.
I have never laid off a person who could not do a task. I
have trained them, sometimes on their own time, nights and
weekends to help them learn and do their trade. Those who do.
not perform, do not stay! I try to get 8 hours work for 8
hours pay from all personnel that I work with.
EXPERIENCE
Seotember, 1994 to Present
Croix Builders, Inc.
9376 St. Croix Trail North
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Owner:
Autumn Wood Addition, Twin Homes, Stillwater, Minnesota
Rose Garden Addition, 1300 South Fifth Street,
Stillwater, Minnesota, Victorian Homes
November 1993 to Auqust 1994
J. S. Alberici - St. Louis, Convention Center
and NFL Stadium concrete structure.
June 1981 to July 1993
Employed by J. A. Mortenson Company, Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Januarv 1991 to Auqust 1992
Built a paint hangar for
a $41,000.00 project
1992.
Boeing in Everett, Washington,
construction completed August
.
October 1990 to Januarv 1991
Estimating and making proposals to owners with Sales Team
M.A. Mortenson. Proposed and received contracts on
$700,000,000.00 worth of projects that were tabled
because of the economy!
.
July 1988 to Seotember 1990 (26 months)
Built Target Center Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball/
Hockey Arena in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a $70,000,000.00
project. I was on the Bid and Proposal Team and was the
Construction Superintendent. Sold the owner on our 26-
month completion schedule. Opened the doors in 26
months - "on time and within budqet". A profitable job
for M.A. Mortenson Company. Owners Harvey Ratner, Marv
Wolfenson and manager Bob Stein were very happy and told
me I was a man of my word. Competition wanted 36 months
to do the project.
Auqust 1986 to July 1988
Supervised construction of the Norwest Bank Building in
downtown Minneapolis, a $200,000,000.00 project. This is
a 57-story, plus 3 lower levels of parking. We had the
first tenant move in on the 23rd month as proposed. This
is probably the nicest looking building in Minneapolis
and makes the skyline beautiful - a Caesar Pelli design
project. This is a structural steel frame with 4 super
columns to the 47th floor, metal electrified floor system
to L-20. Balance of 37 floors have metal deck. Light
weight concrete was pumped up 7700 and we used a Schwing
mini-placer on a "Biq John" design Track system. Worked
great. Saved many hours of labor. Placed concrete
John E. Roettger
Page -2-
.
on metal deck floor every 2nd day. Completed project in 23-months, "on rime and
within budget". A very profitable job for M.A. Mortenson/Schal Joint Venture. Mr.
Mortenson would tell you that I put the Mortenson Company in the highrise business.
I am one Superintendent who can make money building highrise buildings.
Januarv 1985 - August 1986
Supervised construction of a 37 -story Plaza 7 Radisson Hotel project in Minneapolis,
Minnesota - a $55,000,000 project. This is a 17 -story hotel, 360-bed hotel and 20-
story office complex above with 3 levels of underground parking.
We set the first structural steel column on ground level, 28 days after we placed the
first cubic yard of concrete in the foundation. Very tight site. Open on only one side,
which is the busiest street in Minneapolis. Designed a swinging scaffold in the 17-
story atrium and saved the owner over $1,000,000. Opened "on time and within
budget", at a profit.
April 1982 - January 1985
.
Supervised construction of a $70,000,000 V.A. Medical Hospital in Seattle,
Washington. Plans were 60% complete at time of bid. Forced A.E. and V.A. decisions
to complete project on time. Schedule and built the hospital, even the owner could not
keep up with his CPM schedule. Completed in 32-months with a profit - unheard of
on a V.A. project.
June 1981 - April 1982 (11 months)
University of Minnesota Hospital project - $290,000,000. Implode Powel Hall, 6-story
building located on the "New Hospital" site. Prepared site for new building. Worked
with "A.E." to design a constructable hospital.
The University of Minnesota had budget problems and project was postponed for 18
months. I moved to Seattle to builci the V.A. Hospital. Many of my cost cutting ideas
were implemented into the construction of the new University of Minnesota Hospital.
A great medical center, known worldwide!
September 1, 1978 - Mav 1981 (32 months)
.
Project Superintendent for Kraus Anderson Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota on
the Pillsbury World Headquaners for Gerald D. Hines of Houston, Texas - a
$100,000.000 project. Pumped 110,000 cubic yards of formed concrete in 24 months.
In a 23-story and a 40-story highrise tower with three levels of underground parking.
Poured concrete every day for 2 years, except for 2 days. These 2 days the
temperature was -400, K.A. Company receiv:d a bonus of $775,000 for having the
concrete completed 3 months early. Flying decks, 250 x 420 with a drop spandrel,
using manufactured fiberglass pans and aluminum system were used. Floors were
John E. Roettger
Page -4-
.
22,000 square feet each. We had an 8 day work schedule and averaged a floor every
6 days. Designed a workable forming system! Each tower had 1-Pecco 2000 tower
crane, I-placing boom, and I-double well hoist. The 40-story building had a mat of
2600 cys. under the core. We placed this concrete in 10 hours with 3 Schwing
concrete pumps.
In 1979, Krause Anderson Company promoted me to General Cons auction
Superintendent. I traveled to Dallas, Texas taking over a 29-story office complex that
had fallen behind. I triedl to get the existing team enthused about building a highrise.
They were on a 14 day schedule and could not see how I could expect to do the same
24,000 sq. ft. floor in 5 days. I layed off the crew, kept the Superintendent and did the
next floor in 5 days. He stated he could not do it and was replaced. The "New
Superintendent" took the building to the top on my 5-day schedule with half of the
original crew. Kraus Anderson and the owner were very pleased with my performance.
Turned this project around!
In 1980, I helped estimate and bid and Krause Anderson was awarded a $70,000,000
IBM facility in Austin, Texas. We had 18 months to build the project. It was finished
"on time and within budget" with a profit
.
I helped price, schedule and sell projects for Kraus Anderson around the councry -
Republic Airline hanger project, Minneapolis, Minnesota - Radisson Hotel, Dallas,
Texas - Phase ill Lincoln Properties, Dallas, Texas - St. Paul Hotel renovation
project, St. Paul, Minnesota.
August 1968 - August 1978
.
Employed by Sheehy Construction Company, St. Paul, MN
Projects completed:
· Larry's Manor - 10th & Wabasha, St. Paul, MN
· Arden Hills Library, Arden Hills, MN
· University of Minnesota - remodel of Coffey Hall - St. Paul Campus, St. Paul, MN
· University of Minnesota - add to heating plant - St. Paul Campus, St. Paul, MN
· Hennepin County Jail - remodel, Minneapolis, MN
· Centennial Building - reset granite, St. Paul, MN
· Elk River High School - estimate and superintendent - Elk River, MN
· YMCA Shoreview
· YMCA White Bear
· Arctic Enterprises - factory, Brooklyn Center, MN
. Holiday Inn, Brooklyn Center, MN
· Earle Brown Farm - spec buildings, Brooklyn Center, MN
· Theater 1, 2, & 3 Brooklyn Center, :MN
· La Belles, Brooklyn Center, MN
, K-Mart, Brooklyn Center, MN
· Stout State - Home Economics Building, Menomonie, WI
· Shingle Creek Tower Apartments, Brooklyn Center, MN
.
.
.
John E. Roettger
Page -5-
· Medtronic Office Building, Brooklyn Center, MN
· Northwestern Bell Telephone Building (1976), St. Paul, MN
· University of Minnesota - Health Science Bldg., Minneapolis, MN
· Medical Building - Exchange and Sr. Peter, Sr. Paul, MJ."l
In 1970, I became General construction Superintendent of Sheehy Construction
Company. I handled all field hiring, firing, and directed all field superintendents for
Sheehy Construction. I resigned in August of 1978 to take a job with Kraus Anderson.
1967 - 1968
Western Wisconsin Builders, La Crosse, W1
Owner and operated - built homes, apartments and light commercial.
1961 - 1968
CentetLumber Company - Manager, Blair, W1
1955 - 1961
Bluff City Lumber Company (Central Lumber) - Yard Foreman, Stillwater, Ml'f
1955
Streater Lumber Company - Assistant Manager, Mound, MN
1954 - 1955
Ziegler Heavy Equipment - Equipment repair, Sr. Paul, MN
1952 - 1954
U.S. Navy - Seabees, Great Lakes, n..
Korean Veteran
1951 - 1952
Bluff City Lumber - Cabinet Shop, Stillwater, MN
REFERENCES
.
.Mr. Len Middelton P.E.
Middleton Engineering Assoc. (612) 560-8099
MinneafX)1is, MN
Mr. Larry Sowles L. H. Sowles Company (612) 872-4656
.Mr. Jack Furst Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mr. Terry Palmer Skilling, Ward, (206) 292-1200
Magnusson, Barkshire, Inc.
Seattle, Washington
.Mr. Wally Sells Patent Scaffolding (206) 767-0210
Seattle, Washington
. .Mr. Tony Kammerer Harris Mechanical (612) 688-9292
.Mr. Ron Harris St. Paul, Minnesota
.Mr. Tim Henson Ralph's Concrete Pumping (206) 485-6519
Seattle, Washington (206) 954-0190 Mobile
Mr. Ralph McCoy M.A. Mortenson Company (612) 522-2100
Minneapolis, Minnesota
.Mr. Ed Calcaterra 1. S. Alberici (314) 261-2611
Construction Company
St.Louis, Missouri
Mr. Dean Haug Advance Shoring (612) 489-8881
& Equiprent CO.
St. Paul, Minnesota
Thor Becken, President Cemstone Products CO. (612) 686-4222
.
08/18/97
,
15:35
ECKBERG LAW ~ 4308809
NO.013
[;101
,
~
'-
L^w OFFICF~ o~
E (: k b t'l' 8, L d m nl C r s. f) r 1 ~ ~ s. W 01 rr & V I C r' " n ~. p, L .L ' P ,
II
.
11:1,;') NOl'\hwc.'skrn i\'''''I\l~'
L.i<- ,I b.l,b<,r~
lelll\(.'''' l; I .lll'm,'r~
S t;]I w a t C' r, i"\; 11 "'.'~ Q 1 c\ :;:; () R:?
I{ ,,1..,.< (, II. '~Il"".
,1\".,1, I \'""I",~.
(i ,<'~.."" (; (;~II"r'.
['I",,,,,,, I W('~^",..
ftj 1:2)I..,\l.:2H 7H
I'.\X (Ol:!\ d.1:,j.:?5)2;",
s"s". I) Ols""
U~, ,d 1\, Snvd...r
August 18, 1997
1'.,,1 j\ W',,!fI'
\liH,L. wno)
.;.l~,.I.L~,J ~~....lt.",l ,\(~~t'o'Ill..r {. j\\l'\~ill.~u,
.Q,,~l.rlf~fll\r."ll"..J /\1'611"olIh~..
fd 1',I,L,..J H.."i I.::'lllltll!' SI:.~..,~dl"'l
Direct Dial Number; (6J.2) 351-2112
Sent via Facsimile
Mayor and City Council
City of Stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN SSC82
. Re: Rose Garden Addition - John E. Roettger
Dear Mayor and Council:
It is my understanding that there is an agenda item for the August
19 council meeting concerning the fact that my client, John E.
Roettger, does not have a Building Permit for the house which is
under construction on what is proposed to be Let 2 of the re-
platting of Rose Garden Addition. It is my further understanding,
based on a discussion with Steve Russell, that one reason for the
fact that no Building Permit has been issued is because this new
subdivision plat has not been recorded.
The reason that the Rose Garden Addition plat has not been recorded
is because a portion of the property proposed to be platted as a
new Lot 2 is part of what was originally Lot 21, abstract property,
and part of the new Lot 2 is part of Lot 20, which is torrens or
registered property. Because of this fact, the County cannot
accept this new subdivision for recording until all of Lot 2 is
either abstract or torrene property.
The purpose of this letter is to advise you t.hat I will be
representing Mr. Roettger in this regard and will be filing a
Petition in Washington County District Court to withdraw that
portion of Lot 20 to be included in the new Lot 2 from
registration. The application for that withdrawal will be prepared
.
,"CI/ 04:1/ =' t
..,J..;J~
t.',-I~...Jj='j,"o:.i~
~I ~r..)''''=II=''';=
......1_'. ,,~...)
August 18, 1997
page TwO
and submitted to the Examiner of Titles this week for his approval
and then filed with washington County District Court. The statute
requires a 20 day written notice to all persons having an interest
in the property prior to a hearing on the Petition. Once the
hearing is held, the Court ~ill enter its Order withdrawing that
portion of Lot 20 from registration, after which all of Lot 2 will
be abstract property and the plat will be recorded. Because of the
notice and hearing requirement, it is expected that this proceeding
will take from 30 to 4S days.
At the time my client began construction on Lot 2, he was unaware
of the fact that he could not record his new plat because of the
abstract/torrene problem outlined above. In view of Mr. Roettger's
lack of knowledge of this problem and the fact that it will be
resolved expeditiously, it is respectfully requested that the
Council waive the requirement of recording the plat prior to the
issuance of a. Building Permit. Obviously I my client will have to
comply with all other requirements to the issuance of a Building
Permit and all construction will be done within any setback and
other requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
RGB:bc
cc: David T. Magnuson, Esq. - Fax #439-5641
John E. Roettger
'".C,.:..
,)
#
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
08/19/97
ECKBERG LAW ~ 4308809
10:37
NO. 025
D01
...
r
LAW OFFICE~ o~
Eckl.)('l',l;:!' LdrnsncrS. Bri~gs. WoUr& Vier'];n~, l>.L.L.P.
1.\,1" I L(,U",,:-;
IH.'\~ N Ol'll,w"Ht ('1'1' A v'~nul:
St i 11..,<\ Ie,', M """ ,::,,01.3 550 R 2
~"~~" I), Ol!lo~
Il.,.!,d 1\, $" ,.J..,
.tdmt.~ F 1.."1111.1\."....
(nl2) ,1,,)!).:1 H 7 tl
li:\~ (012) ,~3lJ-:2H2:'J
I ',l\f I /I.. W"lI'l'
(l0.1.1-IO!Hi)
.1..l1!,lil".~1 S,'un",! ,\"'~';lr.Ii\,,' & 1",Jitw"
.Ou.\JJ.t<J Nt"l"..,1 .\rLd,..uor
,;ta(',.',.,.fIlHIIL...II:..."".. ~f""j'I,lLj,d
!L,IJC'1'1 (; t~,,~~"*.
,"'.\.-1. ,I V,<",I;ulI,.
(".,."',,"', fi (;,,11<'1'-
!'ham,,', I \v ""~"""*
August 19, 1997
Oirect oial Number: (~12l 351-2112
Sent Via Facsimile #43'-8aO~
Mayor and City Council
City of stillwater
216 North Fourth Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Rose Garden Addition - John E. Roettger
Dear Mayor and Council:
As a follow-up to my letter of yesterday, I wanted to correct an
error in which I referenced the withdrawal from registration of a
part of Lot 20 of Rose Garden Addition to Stillwater. In fact, the
existing plat should have been identified as Churchill's Second
Addition to Stillwater.
In addition, because of the difficulty in describing only a portion
of existing Lot 20 to be withdrawn from registration, it has been
decided to file our Petition to withdraw all of the torrene
property in that block from registration, namely, Lot 15, except
the South 20 feet and all of Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Block 1,
Churchill's Second Addition, so that the entire plat will be
abstract property.
Again, thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very trul~4yours,
~
~~~.
RG8:bc
cc: David T. Magnuson, Esq. - Fax ~439-5641
John E. Roettger
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
v
DA: August 13, 1997
RE: REQUEST TO USE CITY LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY
FROM RESIDENCE TO ST. CROIX RIVER
The City received a request to build a stairway across its land (Kolliner Park) north of the bridge.
A subdivision backs up to the city land (see attached map). The Garrett's and Driscoll's would
like to construct a stairway access to the river.
The city owns the Kolliner Park area but prohibits trespassing because of the difficult access,
parking and the unimproved condition of the area. There are several other properties in a similar
situation to the Garrett's and Driscoll's property that may want access to the river.
The city has concept plans to use the Kolliner Park area in the future when safer access to the site
can be provided. After years of use of a stairway, it may be difficult for the city to have a
stairway removed.
Recommendation: Denial of permission to construct stairway across city property.
Attachment: Letter
City of Stillwater
216 N. 4 th St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
To Whom It May Concern,
We are writing to ask permission to bULld a stairway (per DNR and
St. Croix County instruction) between our homes located at 1396
and 1394 Hilltop Ridge from our property to the St. Croix River.
The City of Stillwater owns that property.
Could you please instruct us on the measures to take to build the
stairway? Enclosed is a portion of a ~ section map from the St.
Joseph Town Hall that highlights our property.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
~~
Ka~hy an~jwayne Garrett
1394 Hilltop Ridge
Houlton, WI 54082
~11 , J1t. ~/1'1
Kathy and Kelly Driscoll
1396 Hilltop Ridge
Houlton, WI 54082
.
.
.
~
.-.c.'" "~:,"~''''";r:t;t:*~~~;;;'~.'..T.~}r.
"'\~"i'\~:f'l'J;';<~,'JA~...r:~Im'..~ .
" -'" ....i.~,"H':,,,' "'-"~r-'w~ .
". .' C; ".
, X
'(2 ~ c-.. l r ) 130 tJ) r~..2Dv0
.(\1
.. I I
'1
)"
k.
{y
f.,.,
,.~,'
'; . --.t ,'.
-.J
-.J.
;::
C-;J
k
~
~ ~
'\ I.....
. ,~ tJ
'0
'0"\
. ./bC1S<Z~L-L
-f::!, l\m~510 r ,"-
~ ".p./lt571 I
510 NI 'i
IIrl P .'J~i
~ ,r; s..,.".~ )! /I.
510 P
~J
r
I I
~I
l
H~oc,,\lW ; .
.t. 0'" ';)...
as n) VoL.~ 'f~ '
.:2.353
.
,f'"
.
.
"
!
~~>- ,
'1'\1 II In: :"'1'1:'\ E ,\:" f) :\f ,\(; :', I r so:"
A 1 1 I ) I a ~ I, Y '_', - ^ I - I ^ W
OAK PARK "EIGHTS STATE BANK BUILDING
SUITE "203
5TILLWt\T[I~ MiNr~C'.u fA ~j5()82
'II 12' 439,1/464
DAVID T MAGNUSON
HOWARD R TURRENTINE
~I;ty 1:), 1%0
~tr. :\i Ie Kri cscl
Ci ty Coordinat or IF j nallCl' () i red or
216 :\. 4th Strcet
Sti Ih':ltl'l', ~l\ S:;I)S~
In re:
Legion lk:1Ch
DC;1}" :\ile:
You h;1\'c :Iskcd for my oi1inillI\ Idll'rher or I\ot the City of Sti 111.ntcr
is frcc to scl1 or convc)' tht' propen:, I--l\U\\I\ :1" "I.Cgitlll 1',(.':I\:h" , which is
;lppl'l1\im:lt~'ly thrl'l'-qll:lrtl.'rs 1\(:1 mill.' 1\1' rl\'I'ri','ullt 11,.,':I!l.t! Illl thl'
\\'isconsill ShOl'l' of L:lkl' S:liI\t l:roi\ inulll.'tli:ItI.'I~' :Icros~; frolll the Cit~, of
St i lll.;atel',
Thl' City :Icqllired the property l)fl the ~)th of ~l:1rl'll, 1:)17, ,'rom the
LIst Side LUl11hl'r l:OI11I':Il\Y. The ~'l\Il\'('\':i!hT 1\:1" 11\' Qllitcl:lilll Ill'l'J, 11O....Tlil.l',
:tlong ...itl1 the dced is an :ICl'l11111\:lllyiI\f: ktter ,1:ltl'd ~l:1rch 12, 1:)17, .....here,in
UaviJ l)l'onson, I'rcsident of the L:lst Side 1.111l1hl'I' (:OIlIP:II\)', "Cites ;\<; fo! 100...s:
" 1 1\ g j \' i 1\ g t his t Ll t h (' l' i t~' i tis t h l' \' I.' l' I i Il g : 111 d ,j (' <; i I'l' t il : I t the
bluffs \\'ill he pn'scrvcJ fl-om de\':lst:ltion or cOl1uncl'ci:1l lls:lge
anJ the he:111t y 0 f the111 kept for all Oll r peop 1 (' :lnJ tot his end
\\l' hope youlI'ill see fit to put the property untler the jUl'isJiction
of YOUI' 1':II"i-. I\O:ll'd. We hope that ill ~ill.' )'(';II'S to <:OIl1C the sllUl'e
rights hill :t1so prove of addition:1l \':1Iu(' to the city."
It is not cleal' hhether the Cit\' of Still\\;ltel' rcceivcu this property
in trust for tll\' l'itl::cns of the City. The det'J, of L'OllrSI.' , is hithout
restri-:t ions :111d the :ll'coll1p:lnying letter :q\l\l':II'~; to cUIlLlill cert:lin hopeful
conJiti,ms that lI1ight not :Ullount to thc cl'l.'atioll of;\ trust. Since acq,uiring
the property, hO\\CVC1', the City at one timc attemptcd to mine gra\'el \\hcn the)'
r c c e i \' C J ale tt C l' d a t c d ~!a Y S, 1:) ::: (" f I' t' m .J. II. B I' 0 n son, t, h 0 I' e Tn i n J cd the C i t Y
that: "[t \\;1S ~o ohvi:ltc just SIH'Il lIS(' nf thi~; property so th:lt unsightly
sand b:ll1ks ;lnd huilding \\'Lluld not 1:1:lr the l>e:11It)' of lHlr cit~, th:\t thc propel'ty
h'as givl'n to ~'Oll."
,\ftL'1' l'ecei\'ing thiS kttl'I', the (It\' ;;(OI'Pl'd milling gr:1\'l'l allJ to 111)'
kI1O....1cdge. ILI\l' 1:l.ltk IH\ c0Il1111l'r,'j:11 .ISl' nt' tl)(' I'rllpcl'ty :',[1\\1.' tll:ll tilill'. It
h:lS al:;o Iwcn llt'ld CLlIlSistl'llt \,ith thl' L'(\l1ditll;lh :;('t !'orth ill 1.:1St Side LUlllber
C () III P :Ill Y I S Co l' i g i i 1: I Ill' t t l' I' :; i Ill' l' I t i 1: I ,; i \\' l' 11 II :; t t I ; I ~ ; 1 p : I r I-- ! 1 Y t IlL' l. j t r .... i tho U t
l'.\ccpt illIl.
./
.,"""p.
./,/yl
/
"
,-
. ,
t-Ir. ;\ile Kriesel
Page Th'o
~Iay 13, 1980
.
In order to be completely sure that the City lvould not be violating a
trust by convey~nce of the property, it I"ould be necessary to seck Declaratory
Judgment in the District Court I,herein the Court would construe the terms of
the trust, or indecd, establish whether there is one. If the Court would find
that a trust has been created, the District COllrt's approval could be secured
for a sale of the property if it shall be found "To he unfit for the uses and
purposes expressed in any stich grant, gift, devise or bequest." This District
Court approval is required by ~Iinnesota Statutes 501.11, Subd. 7, before any
property held in trust can be sold.
In addition to the statutory prohibition against the sale or transfer of
trust property, h'e also must deal I"ith Sections 316 and 317 of the Stillwater
City Charter which provides for the exclusive method of vacating "public grounds".
It does not appear th:!t the City Counci 1 could initiate such action on their own.
The)' would, hOI"c"er, neeJ a petition signed by more than one-half of the property
on each line of the public ground in order tel have the m:ltter of the alienation
of these publ ic lands come before it.
1 might add th:H tile Cit)' of hinoll;l :lttell!pted a ~ill!ilar transfer of park
property within \\inona in 19()S :JI1J thc case reached the :,Iinnesota Supreme Court
\o,'he1'e thc Court said that they could not sl~ll the property as they had Planned.
and could only do so by vacating the propeny pursuant to its City Charter
provisions w'hich arc vl'ry similar to ours. The C;lse ill Winona arose by a taxpayer
enjoining the City from the transfer of the pl'Opcrty and 1 w'ould think that the
Cit)' of Stilh"ater might face the same son of public reaction to a contemplated
sale of this property.
As you can see, there arc man)' impediments to the City's trallsfc'r of the
land. rublic policy favors the holding of puhlic property for generations to
come. \\'hilc it might be of topic~ll import:l!lce to transfer the property at this
t iIne, perhaps 20D years froll! nOI..., residents COllI d Cllj oy the property and it is
the rights of these people that the City Council must also protect.
Vel'y truty yours,
Ut
llavid T.
:\t tOT'lley
of Stillwater
un!: be
.
.,1'
'-"'.~
.
.
.
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
CITY OF STILLWATER
Memorandum
Mayor and Council
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
August 15, 1997
Authorization to proceed with Condemnation Proceedings - Elm Street Ravine
Project (Item No.3, New Business)
The City Attorney will provide information at the Council Meeting, August 19.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-188
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken to construct storm water public improvements known as the
Fourth Street, Elm and Hickory Storm Sewer Project; and,
WHEREAS, the improvement consists of constructing and reconstructing storm water facilities
draining a large part of the North Hill in the City of Stillwater, determined necessary for the draining of
storm water from the existing storm water facilities in the ravine located at the foot of Hickory Street;
and,
WHEREAS, permanent storm water and municipal utility easements over certain lands are
required to provide for the construction and maintenance; and,
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to acquire pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429
and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444 and, further, the City has the right to acquire the right-of-way prior
to the filing of award by court appointed commissions pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~ 117.011 and
9117.042; and,
WHEREAS, a portion of the lands required for easement purposes are owned by Timothy V. and
Amy L. Stefan and John D. and Nadji F. Sutherland; and,
WHEREAS, the City has been unable to successfully negotiate the acquisition of the required
easements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby
authorizes acquisition of the lands by Eminent Domain and to take title and possession of that land prior
to the filing of an award by court appointed commissioners pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429,
Chapter 444, and ~117.001 and ~117.042; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Attorney is requested to file the necessary Petition
therefore and to prosecute the action to a successful conclusion until it is abandoned, dismissed or
terminated by the City or the Court.
Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this _ day of August, 1997.
CITY OF STILL WATER
Jay L. Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Morli Weldon, Clerk
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director fI----'
DA: August 15, 1997
RE: DO'VNTOWN PLAN UPDATE PROCESS INCLUDING PLANNING FOR AIPLE
PROPERTY
Since its preparation and adoption in 1989-1990, the downtown plan has been used as a guide to
provide direction for the betterment of the area. All of the major implementation components of
the plan have been accomplished or are in the process of being achieved.
The evolution of the downtown over the past 5 years, including the actions by the city, has
created a new environment for planning issues and opportunities that were not major in the
earlier plan that need to be looked at anew.
The availability of the Aiple property next year adds to the need for a plan update. Listed below
are some issues that could be addressed in a plan update. Others could be added:
. 1. Use of the Aiple property.
2. Review of parking strategy including trolley connecting north and south parking area.
3. Decorative street lighting and added streetscaping.
4. Mix of downtown businesses.
5. Coordinated visitor center and visitor promotions.
6. Review and update historic district design guidelines.
7. Policies for street vendors.
8. Policy for use of Lowell Park.
9. Others
Besides the issues listed above, sources of funds to address the issues through improvements or
programs should be a part of the planning effort. Methods of funding that could be explored
include: hotel tax, parking fees, TIF, lease revenues, sales tax, improvement district, parking
district, state grants and other sources. The consideration and support for methods of funding
will be critical to plan implementation.
As proposed, a special component for the update will be planning for the Aiple property. The
Aiple property provides a'major opportunity to expand public access to the river front and to
extend complementary city activity to the south.
I..
A critical element to the success of the plan update will be the downtown, community and
agency involvement in the planning process. Listed below is a partial list of downtown plan
update committee membership:
City Committees and Commission:
- Planning Commission
- Historic Preservation Commission
- Port Authority
- Parking Commission
- Parks Board
.
Downtown organizations and businesses
- Chambers of Commerce
Representatives from downtown businesses, excursion boats, trail, trolley
Hotel owners
General downtown businesses interested
Other agencies
-DNR
- Boundary Area Commission
- Corp of Engineers
- National Park
Involvement of the city engineer, parks director and finance director would be critical to the
outcome and implementation of the plan update.
.
This downtown plan update would be managed by the planning department staff with consultant
assistance as necessary. Consultant assistance would be used for Aiple property improvements
and in evaluating funding resources for downtown improvements.
Recommendation: Review and consideration of general description of downtown plan update
process and direction to proceed with more detailed work program and planning process
discussion.
..
t
\
# .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
.: Steve Russell, Community Development Director J2.-
DA: August 13, 1997
RE: DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS FOR 1998
In May, the City Council adopted the Downtown Parking Improvement Program and first year downtown
improvements. For 1997, better parking signage has been implemented along with increased weekend
enforcement. "Pay and display" parking is in effect for the South Main and River Lots.
It is estimated that the pay program will produce parking net revenues of $50 - $70,000 this year. For next year,
1998, using parking revenues and other funds the following parking improvements are recommended.
In addition to these capital improvements, a scooter and electronic ticket meter is being requested by the police
department for the parking enforcement officer and street and parking lot stripping by the public works
departments. These combined projects compose the 1998 downtown parking improvements project. Listed
below are the parking lot improvements.
1. South Main Lot Resurfacing. The South Main lot is one of two pay lots. The lot was patched this year but
is in need of resurfacing and restripping. Estimated cost: $20,000
2. River Lot Resurfacing. The River lot is in need of widening and resurfacing. The city purchased the lot this
year and the lot is the second pay location. Better car stops and railroad separation are needed to keep cars
. off the railroad right of way. This lot may be resurfaced using FEMA disaster assistance money. Estimated
cost: $30,000.
3. UBC Lot. By the first of the year it will be clear if the condominium proposed and parking structure
proposed for this location will proceed. If it does not proceed, the UBC lot can be improved and made the
third pay parking lot. Estimated cost: $100,000. Number of spaces: 100, new 50.
4. Mulberry and Water Street Lot Improvements. This gravel lot provides for overflow parking but with the
future redevelopment of the Maple Island plant into a grocery store the lot will be critical to the new use.
Paving of the 80-100 car lot will provide needed parking for the new use and parking for uses displaced by
the reclamation of Mulberry Point for a park use. Estimated cost: $150,000. Number of spaces: 80-100,
new 30-50.
5. Mulberry and Second Street Lot. With the recent purchase by the eye doctors ofthe parcel ofland south of
the city land at the comer of Second and Mulberry, it is now possible to better improve the temporary lot for
parking. The site is complicated so a design and costs for the new lot should be prepared to get a better idea
of what is entailed in this improvement. Rough estimated cost: $80,000. Number of spaces: 35, new 15.
The above project provides an additional 95-115 parking spaces to the downtown supply of parking. One of the
lots could be added to the pay for parking program increasing the revenues from parking. It may be necessary
to look at revenue bonds to pay for parking improvements. TIF revenues will result from the Maple Island
redevelopment project.
,Mcommendation: Consideration of 1998 downtown parking improvements and direct staffto report back with
~ore accurate estimate of costs and methods for financing 1998 parking improvements.
Attachment: Parking map.
Public Parking in Downtown Stillwater
9: NORTH MAIN STREET
101 spaces. includes 3 handicap spaces; bus & RV parking available
I:SOUTH MAIN STREET
102 spaces; includes 2 handicap spaces;
pay parking
2: RIVER LOT BETWEEN
NELSON AND CHESTNUT
STRE.ETS
97 spaces; includes I handicap space;
pay parking
3: NORTH OF
FREIGHTHOUSE
RESTAURANT
47 spaces; includes I handicap space
4: RIVER LOT BETWEEN
CHESTNUT AND MYRTLE
STREETS
45 spaces (number may increase)
5: RIVER LOT BETWEEN
MYRTLE AND MULBERRY
STREETS
30 spaces (number may increase)
6: MAPLE ISLAND
77 spaces. includes 2 handicap spaces
1:WATER STREET
84 spaces; bus & RV parking available
8: DESCH BUILDING
102 spaces; public parking permitted
>z
LJ~L
ID[
~l~
D
I
I.. :if\" l.rll/l"llh-dhh' I J,'l'f~
U
FOURTH
IJ
Go
W
Lihrary
II
, 'i_~'/)ri.
( :"lIrrlJoll\I'
~
Trill;t\,
t:/ll/ldt
I'H~r t 11/11-('
t
THIRD
.\n"'II\'I~!D
I .0
SECONO
D~CJgCJ~D8
< III == 3:
D~I I~D~ CJI
MAIN STREET (HWY, 36 & 9S) I CJ ern
I
0'
i'
a"
:I: ~
~ i:
w
...
. ,..
HulbtrryO ~
Point :::!
Antiques
Unlimited public
parking.
Permit parking Mon -
Fri 8:00 a.m. - 6:00
p.m. Public parl<ing
after 6:00 p.m. and
all day Sat - Sun.
10: MULBERRY AND SECOND STREETS
I 6 spaces
II: NORTH OF LOWELL INN
30 spaces, includes I handicap space
12: OLIVE AND SECOND STREETS
48 spaces, includes 2 handicap spaces
.I}. OLD UBC LOT
" 100 spaces; pay parking
"~: RIVERAv LOT
161 spaces, inc.6 handicap spaces
.
2-hour parking.
Public parking Mon -
Fri after 6:00 p.m.,
and all day Sat - Sun.
- 42
f
Piar1ur Park
4-hour parking.
Pay parking.
Events in Stillwater
Call the number listed. or the Chambers of Commerce. for more information
Stillwater's Area Code is 6/2
All year long: Grand Theatre Dessert and Coffee Live Theatre,
439-1702; Minnesata Zephyr Dinner Train. 430-3000;African &
Reggae Music, Trumps Deluxe Bar and Grille (Sundays 6-10 pm),
439-0024
Summer only: P.D, Pappy's Live Bands, 430-114 7;Andiamo
Cruises on the St Croix, 430-1234; Stillwater T~olley Narrated Tours,
430-0352
January: Russian New Year Dinner at the Outing Lodge at Pine
Point, 439-9747
February: Brine's Annual Bocce Tournament, 439-7556;Valentine's
Dinner at the Lumber Baron's Hotel, 439-6000;Valentine's Dinner at
the Outing Lodge at Pine Point, 439-9747; Babette's Feast at the
Outing Lodge at Pine Point, 439-9747
March: Shirley's Fine Art & Craft Show at the Mall, 7/5-248-3526;'
St Patrick's Dinner at the Outing Lodge at Pine Point, 439-9747;
Babette's Feast at the Outing Lodge at Pine Point, 439-9747; St. Croix
River Annual Eagle Watch, 430-/938
April: St. Croix River Annual Eagle Watch, 430-1 938; Washington
County Antique Show and Safe, 776-4359;Valley Chamber Chorale
Series, 430-6233
May: Warden's House Museum Opens for the Season, 439-5956;
Victorian Tea and Open House at the Warden's House, 439-5956;
Stillwater Business and Professional Women's Tea, 439-5956;
Mothers' Day Victorian Homes Tour and Tea, 430-2653; Rivertown Art
Fair, 439-7700
June: Farmers'Market Opens for the Season, 771-977 5;Washington
County Antique Show and Sale, 776-4359; Stillwater Art Crawl, 439-
I 465;Taste of Stillwater, 439-4001: ID Club Annual Hot Air Balloon
Rally, 351-9669
July: Music on the Waterfront Summer Concert Series, 439-400 I; St.
Croix Garden Tour, 439-4840; Lumberjack Days, 430-2306; Drum
Beauty. 430-2306;Washington County Fair Begins
August: Teddy Bear Tea at the Warden's House Museum, 439-
5956: St. CroixVal/ey Kennel Club Dog Show & Obedience Trial. 351-
76/9
September: Rivertown Restoration Annual Home Tour, 430-6233;
Wild Rice Festival at St. Mary's Church, 439-/270; Stillwater Bike
Classic Bike Tour, 430-/738
October: Fall Colors Fine Art and Jazz Festival, 439-400 I:
Stillwater International Antiquarian Book Fair, 430-/902
November: Victorian Christmas at the Historic Courthouse. 430-
6233; Lonnie Lovness Jewelry Sample Sale, 430-2234;Yulefest at
Trinity Lutheran Church, 439-7400; St. Michael's Church Merry Mall,
351-8641
December: Victorian Holiday Celebration, 439-400 I ;Victorian Tea
at Savories, 430-0702;Victorian Bed and Breakfast Inn Tour and Tea,
430-2653; Stil/Wate.rocker. 439-2820
City of Stillwater
In the beautiful St. Croix Valley
City Hall:
212 North Fourth Street,Stillwater.MN 55082 (612)
430-8800
Telephone Numbers:
Parking Information and Permits:
Contact City Hall (see above)
Emergency: 911
Police: (612) 351-4900
Fire: (612) 351-4950
Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce:
(612) 439-7700
Stillwater City Chamber of Commerce:
(612) 439-400 I
Historic Courthouse: (612) 430-6233
Washington County Information: (612) 439-3220
Parking Information:
I' I Public parking lots are marked by blue
,. I banners with this design (at left).
I I Downtown Stillwater parking is enforced
I Monday to Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
I ~ 'II City ordinance prohibits parking empty
I' ~ boat trailers within the central business
I PI' d;,,,,,, of the dty.
i ,I 24-hour parking ordinance is enforced.
I I No parking along yellow-painted curbs.
HR Parking on downtown streets is either 30-
PARKING minute or 2-hour. as indicated by the signs.
8AM-6PM
MON - SAT
Lots or spaces marked "Permit Parking
Only" are available to the public after 6:00
p.m. Monday through Friday and all day
Saturday and Sunday.
PERMIT
PARKING
ONLY
MOIHRI
8~ am.. 6~ ~m.
Published 1997 by City of Stillwater. Minnesota.
Printed in USA.
Artwork by WR Medkal Electronics Co.
Front cover photo by Debra Chi;,l Photography.
All information contained herei.ect [0 change ~itl1ollt notice.
Parking in
Downtown
Stillwater
. Map of downtown
. Parking hours
and locations
. Information
. Telephone numbers
Qiil~3
..:;;,,"',,;, " "."'~
~/'
'..
.
.
.
~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FR: Steve Russell, Community Development Director
v
DA: August 13, 1997
RE: ORDINANCE LIMITING DEVELOPMENT IN AND REQUIRING SETBACK
FROM STEEPLY SLOPED AREAS
The attached regulation requires ne\v development to be located away from steeply sloped (25
percent or greater) areas. This requirement is currently in effect in the bluffland/shoreland area
along the St. Croix and in the shoreland management area around Long, Lily and McKusick
Lakes. The new regulation would provided protection for the bluffland overlooking the St. Croix
\vest ofTH 35 - 95 and in ravine areas in the existing city.
This ordinance is being presented to the council for first reading and for referral to thePlanning
Commission for public hearing at the meeting of September 8.
Recommendation: Approval of ordinance for first reading and referral to Planning Commission
for hearing and recommendation
Attachment. Draft ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STILL WATER
PROHIBITING DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES
Conservation Regulations
Purpose. The purpose and intent of the conservation regulations is to protect the pubic health, safety
and community welfare and to otherwise preserve the natural environmental resources of the City
of Stillwater in areas having significant and critical environmental characteristics. The conservation
regulations have been developed in general accord with the policies and principles of the
Comprehensive Plan as specified in the Middle River and Brown's Creek Watershed Management
Plans and the BlufflandlShoreland Regulations and any adopted area or specific plans. It is
furthermore intended that the conservation regulations accomplish the following:
1. Minimize cut, fill, earth moving, grading operations and other such manmade effects on the
natural terrain;
2. Minimize.water nmoff and soil erosion caused by human modifications to the natural terrain;
3. Minimize fire hazard and risks associated with landslides and unstable slops by regulating
development in areas of steep slopes and potential land slide areas.
4. Preserve riparian areas and other natural habitat by controlling development near the edge
of ponds, streams or rivers.
5. Encourage developments which use the desirable, existing features ofland such as natural
vegetation, climatic characteristics, viewsheds, possible geologic and archaeological features
and other features which preserve a land's identity.
6. Maintain and improve to the extent feasible existing water quality by regulating the quantity
and quality of runoff entering local water courses.
General Provisions
Applicability. The conservation regulations apply to every zoning district within the City except as
specifically provided herein. Where conflict in regulations occurs, the regulations set forth in this
part shall apply.
Relationship to Minor Land Division and Subdivisions. To the greatest extent feasible no minor land
division or subdivision shall create lots which would necessitate exceptions to these regulations.
Where a division ofland would require an exception to these regulations, precise building envelopes
shall be specified on parcel and tentative maps so that maximum feasible conformance with the part
can be attained.
/'"
..~
.
.
.
.
.
.J ..
Slope Regulations
Applicability and Purpose. The following regulations are enacted to minimize the risks associated
with project development in areas characterized by vegetation and steep and/or unstable slopes. Such
areas include ravines, blufflands and shorelands. A further purpose is to avoid the visual impact of
height, bulk and mass normally associated with building on steep slope.
a. Building permit applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater shall
include an accurate topographic map. The map shall contain contours of two-foot (2')
intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked.
b. Slopes 25 percent or greater shall not be considered in meeting the lot area size requirements.
c. Parcels with a portion of the area in slopes of 25 percent or greater shall require the
minimum lot area of the applicable zoning district in slopes of less than 25 percent. The area
in slopes of less than 25 percent must be contiguous to the proposed building site.
d. No structure shall be located on a slope of greater than 24 percent or within 30 feet of a 25
percent or greater slope.
e. All roads and paved surfaces shall be setback 10 feet from the top of the slopes greater than
24 percent.
Driveway Design Standards
a. Driveways shall be designed to conform with existing contours to the maximum extent
feasible.
b. Driveways shall enter public/private streets in such a manner as to maintain adequate line of
sight.
c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8 percent.
.
.
.
CITY OF STILLWATER
Memorandum
To:
Mayor and Council
From:
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
Date:
August 19, 1997
Subject:
New Off-sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License
Cub Foods, 1801 Market Drive
A request has been received from Supervalu Holdings, Inc., dba Cub Foods, for an Off-sale
3.2% Malt Liquor License at 1801 Market Drive. The application was received Monday,
therefore, background checks have not yet been completed and some required documentation
has not yet been received.
Recommendation: Approval should be contingent upon receipt of all required documentation
and completion of background checks.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
APPROVING NEW OFF-SALE 3.2% MALT LIQUOR LICENSE
SUPERV ALU HOLDINGS, INC., DBA CUB FOODS
WHEREAS, a request has been received from Supervalu Holdings, Inc., dba Cub Foods,
for an Off-sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License at 1801 Market Drive; and
WHEREAS, all required forms have been submitted and investigations completed;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Stillwater, Minnesota,
hereby approves an Off-sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License for Supervalu Holdings, Inc., dba
Cub Foods.
Adopted by Council this 19th day of August, 1997.
Jay Kimble, Mayor
Attest:
Morli Weldon, City Clerk
.
.
.
/
.
.,'"
.
.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this 19th day of August, 1997, between the City of Stillwater,
Washington County, Minnesota, ("City") and John E. Roettger, an individual, ("Developer") with
respect to part of Block 1, Churchill's 2nd Addition, and the proposed plat of Rose Garden
Addition to the City of Stillwater (the "Plat").
1. INTRODUCTION. Developer has purchased property in the proposed plat and has
been given approval to demolish the commercial greenhouse that has been housed on the
property within the plat for replatting into Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, Rose Garden Addition, a
Single Family Residential detached dwelling development.
2. DELAY. An unexpected delay has arisen with regard to the project since part of the
property in the proposed plat is registered or Torrens property and part is abstract property. The
Developer and the Washington County Registrar of Titles have conferred and in order to plat the
property in the most efficient way, it will be necessary to De-Torrens the portion of the property
within the plat that is registered so that the entire plat will be abstract property. This proceeding
could take approximately forty-five (45) days to complete. It is because of this unexpected and
uncontrollable delay that this agreement is made in order that the Developer may begin certain
aspects of the private construction within the plat so that delay caused by inclement and winter
weather may be minimized.
3. LIMITED RlGHT TO PROCEED. The Developer will be allowed to proceed and
commence construction on Lots 1 through 4, Block 1, Rose Garden Addition, even though the
final plat has not been approved by the County Surveyor and signed by the City Council if the
following require'ments are met:
1
./
~.
I 1 ' ~
.
.
Overall Grading Plan. An overall grading plan for the entire plat must be
approved by the City Engineer.
Individual Site and Grading Plans. Individual site and grading plans for
Lots 1 through 4 showing the elevation for each basement and positive
drainage away from the building site must be approved by the City
Engineer and the required one thousand five hundred and no/l 00 dollars
($1,500.00) deposit per lot must be made to insure compliance with the
draining plan.
c. Park Dedication Fee. That the Park Dedication fee must be paid to the
a.
b.
City in the amount of seven hundred twenty-five and no/1 00 dollars
($725.00) per lot.
Building Permit Fee. A Building Permit fee must be paid to the Stillwater
Building Official for each lot before a Building Permit is issued.
4. PROMISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE. The Developer, in consideration for
d.
being allowed to proceed with construction on Lots 1 through 4, promises all reasonable
diligence in completing the final plat and insuring that it is properly executed and recorded with
the Washington County Recorder. It is expected that this be completed within forty-five (45) to
sixty (60) days.
5, INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. In consideration for being allowed to
proceed before final plat approval, the Developer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend
the City of Stillwater from any and all claims, causes of actions or other damages that might
grow or arise out of the early approval including, but not limited to, damages related to the
2
,/
) .
.
setting of elevations for buildings and basements located on each lot, any damage occurring to
Stillwater storm sewer facilities or adjoining private property or otherwise due to erosion,
siltation or flooding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties set their hands this
day of August, 1997.
,,".
DEVELOPER:
John Roettger
Subscribed and sworn to before me by John Roettger this
day of , 1997.
Notary Public
CITY OF STILLWATER:
.
Jay L. Kimble, Mayor
ATTEST:
Modi Weldon, Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me by Jay L. Kimble
and Modi Weldon, Mayor and Clerk of the City of
Stillwater, this day of , 1997.
Notary Public
.
3
.'/
.,
.
FYI
STILLWATER TOWN BOARD MEETING
Town Hall
7:30 P.M.
August 14, 1997
.
.
PRESENT: Chairperson Jerry Hicks, Supervisors David Francis,
Louise Bergeron and Sheila-Marie Untiedt. Also,
Planner Meg McMonigal, Attorney Tom Scott and
Engineer Paul Pearson.
1. AGENDA - M/S/P Francis/Untiedt moved to adopt the agenda as amended.
(3 ayes)
2. MINUTES - M/S/P Untiedt/Francis moved to approve the 7/24/97 Stillwater
Town Board Meeting Minute~ as.written. (3 ayes)
M/S/P Untiedt/Francis moved to approve the 8/6/97 Special Stillwater Town
Board Meeting Minutes as written. (3 ayes)
3 .
4 .
CHECKS AND CLAIMS - Claims #1703 through #1727 were approved for payment.
ENGINEER -
1. The flashing light situation at Highways 96
and 5 was discussed again. The engineer will
get more information for the next meeting.
2. M/S/P Untiedt/Francis moved to reduce the
Hunter's Ridge Subdivision letter of credit
from $23,500.00 to $18,900.00 per the Engineer's
advice. (3 ayes)
Louise Bergeron arrived.
3. M/S/P Untiedt/Francis moved to approve
NSP permit #MTRN-HUN-AA6 (gas) QUAI-MYT-AAO
(electric) for work at Hunter's Ridge
Subdivision conditioned on final plat
approval by May Township and Washington
County. (4 ayes)
4. Paving will start next week as part of the
1997 Road Maintenance Project. It will
take about two weeks and must be finished
by September 5, 1997.
5. Stonehenge Subdivision trails will be
maintained by the township after the
developer takes care of the current
problem areas.
5 .
PLANNER -
1. We will get about $6,000.00 in grant
money for our comprehensive plan review
from Met Council.
2. The planner will bring comments to the
next board meeting for review before
S till w a ~! r,;,Top w n. e 9 a r d Me e tin g - 8 / 1 4 / 9 7
Page Two
. i
theY' are placed in the record at the
County Zoning Ordinance hearing in
September. (6:30 p.m. - September 2 _
county boardroom.)
6. STONEBRIDGE TRAIL TURN-UP - M/S/P Bergeron/Untiedt moved that the chair
is authorized to sign the letter offered by David Francis to Don Wisniewski
regarding Stonebridge Trail's future. (4 ayes)
.
7. REMICK RESIGNATIDN - M/S/P Francis/Bergeron moved to accept Denise
Remick's resignation from the Park Committee as of September 8, 1997, with
deep regret and sincere thanks for her contribution to the community.
(4 ayes)
8. PARK REPORT _
1. The park committee members visited the site
of the Boutwell Park and are having some
preliminary discussion about an Otto Berg
type park and/or a soccer field. The soccer
club people outline #100,000.00 to do a
first rate soccer field.
2. Also, the committee has accepted the idea of
a money donation from Scott Roberts for his
revised plat instead of land for a park.
9. BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED - Managers are needed from our area. We'll .
advertise for interested parties.
10. WEB PAGE - Print outs of the different screens will be ready soon and
forwarded to the supervisors for their review.
11. AUAR - Costs of keeping trout in local waters are escalating. There is
concern that Lake McKusick will suffer from flooding control in other parts
of the area.
12. SEPTIC INFORMATION SHEET - An interesting article on septic system care
was made available at the meeting and will be incorporated into a newsletter.
13. BUDGET MEETING - The budget meeting was set for October 15, 1997 at 7:30
p . m.
14. ADJOURNMENT - Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Clerk
Chairperson
Approved
.
08/16/97 12:41 "a'6124394705 STILLWATER TWP ...... K NELSON ~002
..
. Stillwater Township
Calendar
Chair Hicks
August 25 Expansion Area Planning 7:00 PM
August 26 Filing for Elections
August 28 Town Board Meeting 7:30 PM
Chair Hicks
September 2 County Zoning Ordinance Hearing 6:30 or 7:00 PM
September 3 Comprehensive Plan Workshop 7:30 PM
September 4 Planning Commission 7:30 PM
September - B Park Committee 7:30 PM
September 9 Filings End 5:00 PM
September 9 Townhall Renovation Committee 7:30 PM
September 11 Town Board Meeting 7:30 PM
. September 22 Expansion Area Planning 7:00 PM
September 25 Town Board Meeting 7:30 PM
Chair Johnson
October 1 Comprehensive Planning WOrkshop 7:30 PM
October 2 Planning Commission 7:30 PM
october 9 Town Board Meeting 7:30 PM
October 13 Park Committee 7:30 PM
October 14 Townhall Renovation Committee 7:30 PM
October 15 Budget Meeting 7:30 PM
October 23 TO'Ml Board Meeting 7:30 PM
October 27 Expansion Area Planning 7:00 pm
.
Pat Bantli
August 16. 1997
~
.
METRO MEETINGS
A weekly calendar of meetings and agenda items for the Metropolitan Council, its advisory and standing committees, and
three regional commissions: Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, and
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. Meeting times and agendas are occasionally changed. Questions about meetings
should be directed to the appropriate organization. Meeting infonnation is also available on the Metro Infonnation Line at
602-1888 and on our web page at: www.metrocouncil.org. Comments on Council issues can be made by electronic mail at:
data.center@metc.state.mn.us or by calling the Public Comment Line at 602-1500.
DATE: August 15, 1997
WEEK OF: August 18 - August 22
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
.
Community Development Committee- Monday, Aug. 18, Noon, Room 1A. The committee will consider:
approval of Metropolitan Radio Board 1998 budget; Hugo comprehensive plan update; GIS data and cost
sharing agreement with Anoka County; supp1ementallBRA funding to MCDAlMinneapolis for Garelick
Steel; public hearing findings/recommendations to adopt amendment to Recreation Open Space
Development GuideIPolicy Plan regarding telecommunication towers on regional recreation open space
land; reallocation of $89,587 from Dakota County Regional Park grants and request for reimbursement
consideration of $225,000 to Lake Byllesby Regional Park bathhouse and beach improvement project;
deletion of 45 acres from Bunker Hills Regional Park master plan boundary, Anoka County; Livable
Communities Demonstration Account update; and other business.
Finance Committee _ Monday, Aug. 18, 4 p.m., Room 2A. The committee will consider: contract awards
for electrical parts; approval of transit service levels for 1998 taX feathering; approval oflegislative
initiatives; Metropolitan Radio Board 1998 budget; Year 2000 presentation; and discussion of salary and
benefit plan for the Metropolitan Council's non-represented staff. The next portion of the meeting may be
closed to the public for discussion of labor negotiation issues pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 471.705,
subdivision 1a. The meeting will be reopened to the public following the labor negotiation discussion to
consider: approval of contract between the Metropolitan Council and MANA; Truth in Taxation notice for
1998; mid-year fmancial report; Metro Plant tour fer Environment and Fimmce Committee mem~; and
other business.
Industrial Rate System Task Force - Tuesday, Aug. 19, 7:30 a.m., Room 1A. The task force will
consider: review of format of existing MCES rate system; continuation of discussion of the industrial rate
system; and other business.
Metropolitan Council and Northern Anoka County Officials - Tuesday, Aug. 19, 7 p.m., Ham Lake
City Hall, 15544 Central Av. NE, Ham Lake. The Council and county officials will discuss growth and
development issues unique to cities and townships in northern Anoka County.
.
Transportation Advisory Board - Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2 p.m., Chambers. The board will consider:
introduction of new member, Douglas Differt; briefing on process to review and evaluate regional project
applications to make recommendations to TAC and TAB; MnlDOT Access Management Study; and other
business.
Committee of the Whole - Thursday, Aug. 21, 4 P'm.' Room 1A. The committee will consider a
presentation regarding the Council's activities related to the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
I
~
(MNRRA) lInd the five-year cooperative agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the National
Park S~ce and growth strategylland development monitoring status update.
.
The Metropolitan Council is located at Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St, St Paul. Meeting times and
agenda are subject to change. For more information or confirmation of meetings, call 602-1447, (ITY: 291-
0904). Call the Metro Information Line at 602-1888 for coming meetings and agendas and other Council
information or find them on our web page at www.metrocouncil.org
TENTATIVE MEETINGS TIIE WEEK OF AUGUST 25 TIIROUGH AUGUST 29, 1997
Transportation Committee - Monday, Aug. 25,4 p.m., Chambers.
MNRRA River Tour sponsored by MNRRA and DNR for Local Government Planners and Planning
Commissioners - Tuesday, Aug. 26, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Southwest Metro Groundwater Work Group - Tuesday, Aug. 26, 1 p.m., Prior Lake Fire Station, 16676
Fish Point Rd, Prior Lake.
Environment Committee- Tuesday, Aug. 26, 4 P.m.' Chambers.
Executive Committee- Wednesday, Aug. 27, 8 a.m., Nicollet Island Inn, 95 Merriam St, Minneapolis.
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Advisory Committee - Thursday, Aug. 28, 8:30 a.m., Room lA.
Legislative Strategy Group - Thursday, Aug. 28, 3 p.m., Room lA.
Metropolitan Council - Thursday, Aug. 28, 4 P.m.' Chambers.
.
METROPOLITAN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
Commission Meeting - Tuesday, Aug, 19, 4 P.m.' Chambers. The commission will consider: review of
Minneapolis Park Board projects proposed for 1998-2003 Regional Parks Capital Improvement Program;
analysis of Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan for consistency with Regional
Blueprint; and other business.
The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission offices are located at Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth
St., St Paul, MN 55101. Meeting times and agendas occasionally may be changed. To verify meeting
information, please call 602-1456.
METROPOLITAN SPORTS FAcn.ITlES COMMISSION
Commission Meeting - Wednesday, Aug. 20, 8 a.m., HHH Metrodome, Commission conference room, 900
S. 5th St., Minneapolis, MN 55415. The commission will consider: 1998 budget; Minneapolis tax study;
establish personnel complement for 1998; review and establish affirmative action policies relating to
bidders, applicants, contractors, sub-contractors, vendors and suppliers; presentation by Dick Vasatka,
retired president of Setter Leach & Lindstrom, Inc.; legislative issues; and other business.
Public Hearing on Proposed 1998 Budget - Tuesday, Sept 2, 9:30 a.m., HHH Metrodome, 900 S. 5th
St., Minneapolis.
The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission office is located at 900 South 5th St., Minneapolis, MN
55415. All meetings are held in the conference room, unless noted otherwise. Meeting times and agendas
occasionally may be changed. To verify meeting information, please call Nancy Matowitz, 335-3310.
.
2
)
Minnesota Tourism Industry Summit
Metro Area Input Session
Friday, September 12, 1997
8:30 - 12:00 p.m.
Mall of America, Bloomington
Minnesota Room
The Minnesota Office of Tourism is holding a series of Tourism Summits/Input Sessions
around the State to recommend strategies and programs that will best enable the
Minnesota tourism industry to reach its economic potential into the 21st century. The
metro area summit is Friday, September 12,1997 at Mall of America. You have been
identified as having an important role in tourism's future and your input is needed.
The ~ummit will focus on:
.
Marketing
Product Development
Technology
Infrastructure
Environmental/Cultural Issues
Research
Lt. Governor Joanne Benson will be leading this summit.
The agenda includes an overview and discussion on the six topic areas. Issues and
opportunities from land management, fees, advertising and transportation are examples of
the input we are seeking. Participants will be asked to set priorities in each of the issue
areas.
Continental Breakfast will be served from 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. in the Minnesota Room. Please
RSVP your attendance to Janet Casura or Cindy Schneider at the Minnesota Office of
Tourism at 612-297-2333 or 800-657-3637.
We value your participation.
.
Park on Level P5, near Sears
The Minnesota Room is located on Level 4 (Upper East Side), near Gator's
1 ~ Metropolitan Council
n Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
.
~ \J.~11/
f /./>-
FYI
Environmental Services
August 13, 1997
L., \ L- "f
",,0 )"-' \'
-vJ~ y
_ J ~
L-A IL 2 / Gfl-AN\ '
~-\ ~ ~
~'?
~
Klayton Eckles
City of Stillwater
216 North 4th Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Re: Twin Cities Water Quality Initiative Grant Application
Dear Mr. Eckles, ,
I regret to inform you that your 1997 Twin Cities Water Quality Initiative Grant application has not been
approved for funding.
. The Council received 29 educational and 31 technical grant applications, requesting a total of $4.2
million. The quality of the applications was very high this year and the ranking committee had a
difficult time choosing among the applications. I feel that all the proposed projects are good ideas;
however, some were more pertinent than others to our goal of reducing nonpoint source pollution.
Both Jack Frost and I would like to thank you for taking part in the process with your application. If you
have any questions, please contact me at 602-1104.
Sincerely,
1~~
Joe Mulcahy
Water Resources Planner
.
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1633
(612) 222-8423
Fax 229-2183
TDD/1T'{ 229-3760
.-\71 Equal O{J/x,rltlflit!1 EmJJ'()~wr
Cbair:
Af!enda:
Minutes:
Treasurer:
Attornev:
Entrineer:
Planner:
Publi~ Works:
Clerk:
Committees:
PeoDle - 8:30 PM:
Old Business:
New Business:
Note:
Stillwater Township
August 14, 1997
Hicks
7:30 p.m.
Adopt
Regular Meeting
Approve Minutes July 24 and August 6, 1997,
Warren will not be present
1. Claims & Checks
Tom will not be present
1. Nicanna Hills Watershed Review
2. MnDOT Response - Flashing Light
1. Stonebridge Trail Letter (Francis)
Remick resignation
1. Meeting updates
David Johnson will not be present.
CLAIMS PLEASE
8/9/97
Pat Bantli
f
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
METRO MEETINGS
A weekly calendar of meetings and agenda items for the Metropolitan Council, its advisory and standing committees, and
three regional commissions: Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, and
Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. Meeting times and agendas are occasionally changed. Questions about meetings
should be directed to the appropriate organization. Meeting infonnation is also available on the Metro Information Line at
602-1888 and on our web page at: www.melrocounci1.org. Comments on Council issues can be made by electronic mail at:
data.center@metc.state.mn.us or by calling the Public Comment Line at 602-1500.
DATE: August 8, 1997
WEEK OF: August 11 - August 15
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Transportation Committee - Monday, Aug. 11,4 p.m., Chambers. The committee will consider:
Metropolitan Council agreements with Mn/DOT and City of Minneapolis to implement demonstration
shuttle service in the Phillips neighborhood; transit service levels for 1998 tax feathering; Foley Boulevard
park-ride expansion (phase one interim parking); Hennepin County Government Center bus shelter
interagency agreement; amendment of Metro Transit's 1997 capital budget and authorization to purchase
98 40-foot transit buses; authorization to execute a contract for tire lease and service; MIRTS update; final
Alternative Urban Areawide Review; service to the Minnesota State Fair; Metro Transit's general
manager's update; and other business.
Environment Committee - Tuesday, Aug. 12, 4 p.m., Chambers. The committee will consider: Metro
Plant contract award for centrifuge polymer; Water Resources Management Policy Plan update; proposed
consultant selection process for Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant liquid treatment; update on the
status of the proposed rehabilitation of the Trout Brook interceptor, and other business.
Executive Committee - Thursday, Aug. 14, 8 a.m., Nicollet Island Inn, 95 Merriam St, Minneapolis.
Transit Providers Advisory Committee - Thursday, Aug. 14, 10:30 a.m., Room 1A. The committee will
consider: update of year 2001 - 2002 ISTEA applications; biennium ridership goals; master regular route
list; 1998 TP AC work program; and other business.
Core Cities Issues Work Group - Thursday, Aug. 14, Noon, Muffuletta Cafe, 2260 Como Ave., St Paul.
Transportation Advisory Board Policy Committee - Thursday, Aug. 14, 12:30 p.rn., Room 2A.
Legislative Strategy Group - Thursday, Aug. 14,~2:30 p.rn., Room 1A.
Metropolitan Council - Thursday, Aug. 14,4 p.rn., Chambers. The council will consider: City of Osseo
comprehensive plan update; approval of preliminary 1998 work program and budget; adoption of proposed
preliminary general operating levy; certification of 1997 operating levy for planning and administration to
the county auditors for Truth in Taxation requirements; certification of proposed operating levy for the
Commissioner of Revenue; adoption of preliminary 1997 transit levies; certification of proposed 1997
transit levies to the county auditors for Truth m Taxation; certification of proposed 1997 transit levies to
the Commissioner of Revenue; adoption of 1997 Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan fund levy and/or levy for
tax base revitalization account of Livable Communities Fund; certification for the county auditors of 1997
Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund levy and/or levy for tax base revitalization account of Livable
Communities Fund; certification for Commissioner of Revenue of proposed 1997 Right-of-Way
I
t
Acquisition Loan Fund program levy and/or levy for tax base revitalization in the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Fund; adoption of 1997 levy (formerly Mosquito Control Commission levy) for .
demonstration account for the Livable Communities Fund; certification to county auditors for "Fiscal
Disparities" levy for tax base revitalization account of the Livable Communities Fund; authorization
directing cancellation of tax levies for sewer bonds issued and assumed by the Metropolitan Council and
payable from the Common Bond Fund; Metro Plant contract award for centrifuge polymer; authorization
for additional services to a professional services contract for Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant
expansion - 12 MGD, Phase 3, Step IT design services and Step ill construction support; 65th and Brooklyn
Blvd. park and ride contract amendment; Team Transit interagency agreement with MnlDOT; agreement
between the Metropolitan Council and City of Minneapolis; agreement between the Metropolitan Council
and the State of Minnesota Depamnent of Administration; approval of the 1998-2000 Transportation
Improvement Program; South Washington County contract for Transit Redesign; update on Hollman
consent decree implementation; request for additional $55,000 for Lake Rebecca Park Reserve inholding
acquisition grant SG-95-83, Hennepin Parks and $153,000 grant to acquire inholding in Corridor Park
portion of Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve, City of Bloomington; and other business.
Committee of the Whole - Thursday, Aug. 14, 5 p.m., or immediately following the Council meeting,
Room lA. The committee will consider Blue Lake/Seneca Solids Stabilization Project - preference option
for Metropolitan Council employees.
The Metropolitan Council is located at Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul. Meeting times and
agenda are subject to change. For more information or confirmation of meetings, call 602-1447, (TIY: 291-
0904). Call the Metro Information Line at 602-1888 for coming meetings and agendas and other Council
information or find them on our web page at www.metrocouncil.org
TENTATIVE MEETINGS TIIE WEEK. OF AUGUST 18 TIIROUGH AUGUST 22, 1997
Community Development Committee - Monday, Aug. 18, Noon, Room lA.
.
Finance Committee - Monday, Aug. 18,4 p.rn., Room 2A.
Industrial Rate System Task Force - Tuesday, Aug. 19, 7:30 a.m., Room lA.
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission - Tuesday, Aug. 19,4 p.m., Chambers.
Metropolitan Council and Northern Anoka County Officials - Tuesday, Aug. 19, 7 p.m., Ham Lake
City Hall, 15544 Central Av. NE, Ham Lake.
Transportation Advisory Board - Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2 p.rn., Chambers.
Committee of the Whole - Thursday, Aug. 21, 4 p.m., Room lA.
.
2
!
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
6.
9:00
9:00
9:05
9:15
7.
8. 9:30
9. 9:40
to
10:10
.
10. 10:10
to
10:45
11. 10:45
to
11:30
12. 11:30
to
12:00
13. 1:00
14. 5:30
W ASIllNGTON COUNTY
COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
AUGUST 12, 1997, 9:00 A.M.
Dennia C. Hegberg
Dlatrict 1
Mary Hauaer
Dlatrict 2
Wally Abrahamaan
Dlatrict 3
Roll Call
Consent Calendar
Myra Peteraan
Diatrict 4/Chair
Daye Engatrom
Dlatrict 5
Department of H.E.L.M. - M. McGlothlin, Director
Amendment No. 8 to Service Agreement with Ramsey County and NRG Energy, Inc.
General Admini~tratjon - J. Schug, County Administrator
Discussion from the Audience
Visiton may shan their concerns wilh the County Board of Commlssionen on any item not an the agenda. The Chair will dinct the
County Administrator to prepare responses 10 your concerns. You an encouraged nOI to be npetitious of previous speoken and to
limit YOIU' address 10 jive minuus.
Commissioner Reports - Comments - Questions
This period of time shall be used by the Commissionen 10 npon 10 theJUlI Board on comminu activiries. make comments on malten
of ilUenst and infonnari01l. or raist! ""t!stions 10 the staff. This acd01l is not intended to nsult In substantive board action during
this time. Any acdon necessary because of discussi01l will be scheduled for a futun board met!ting.
Board Correspondence
Adjourn
Board Workshop with Office of Administration - Room lOOB
Proposal to Exempt Certain Personal Property from Taxes in
Investor-Owned Utility Plants
Board Workshop with Community Services Department - Room l00B
Welfare Reform Legislation
Board Workshop with H.E.L.M. Department - Room l00B
Final Review of Zoning Ordinance; ISTS Ordinance Recommendation from PAC;
and Draft Subdivision Ordinance and Update on Review Process
Board Workshop with Public Works Department - Room 100B
Use of Carbide Studs on Snowmobiles and Their Effect on Paved Trails
Board Tour of Oakdale Library - City of Oakdale
Board Workshop - Budget Hearings -
Public Works Department
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date
.ugust 12
ugust 13
ugust 13
August 14
August 14
August 14
MEETING NOTICES
Committee
Mental Health Advisory
HRA Board
Proposed 1998 Budget Hearings
Communitv Social Service
Metro TAll
County Board & MN Extension Tour
Time
Loc::ation
4:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
5:30 p.m.
7:30 a.m.
12:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
1584 Hadley Ave. . Oakdale City Hall
Washington County Government Center
Washington CountY Government Center
Washin~on County Government Center
230 E. :>th St. . Mears Parle C~ter
Touring Different Locations in Wash. County
Auiftiy. linwning d..,ic.$ .,.. .vai~ 1M u.. in tIN COCMtty 80Md /f00l'n.
If you_ .ui~. _ to tii~ 01' ~ bMriw. ,... cMl4.30-6000 (TOD 439-32201
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CONSENT CALENDAR *
AUGUST 12, 1997
The following items are presented for Board approval/adoption:
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY
ITEM
.
Administration
A. Approval to transfer one computer to the Washington County Historical
Society.
B. Approval to set public hearing regarding the proposed abandonment of Joint
Ditch No.1 in Washington and Chisago Counties for September 9, 1997,9:00
a.m.
C. Approval of the allocation of the remaining $131,000 in the 1996 budget
savings pool toward projects requested through the 1998 budget process to
avoid further reductions in the capital requests in the proposed 1998 budget.
Auditor-Treasurer D, Approval of abatement applications for homestead classification, value changes,
waste management fees and disaster credit.
Community Services E. Approval of agreement for delivery of employment and training services to
dislocated workers for the RamseylWashington County EDW AA program with
Ramsey County Job Training.
F. Approval of modification to subgrant #6165016 Senior Community Services
Employment Program.
G. Approval to submit a Senior Agenda for Independent Living grant application
by HELM and Community Services; and, approval to submit an Innovation and
Cooperation Waiver application to the Department of Human Services
requesting permission to be waived from the current State Rules and Statutes
governing the Pre-Admission Screening program. .
H. Approval of Community Services Application for Request for Capacity Building
around non-standard hour child care.
Health, Environment and I. Approval to execute agreement with Forest Lake Township and authorize
Land Management payment for distribution of curbside recycling funds in the amount of $6 t ,538.
Human Resources J. Approval of Special Project Service Representative in the Auditor-Treasurer's
Office through December 3 t, 1997.
K. Approval of a .5 Special Project Assistant Victim Witness Coordinator position
in the County Attorney's Office,
L. Approval of a .5 FTE Special Project Job Developer in the Workforce Center
through June 30, 1998.
M. Approval of a new position of Senior Case Aide in the Community Services
Department.
Public Works N. Approval to execute the first amendment to the acquisition Grant Agreement
No. SG-94-74 for Big Marine Park Reserve.
O. Approval to execute Grant Agreement SG-97-93 for Grey Cloud Island
Regional Park acquisition with the Metropolitan Council.
P.
Approval of resolution, final payment to General Sheet Metal Corporation in
the amount of $29,176.35 for the west end mechanical modifications for the
1968 edition of the Government Center.
.
.Consent Calendar items are generally defmed as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved
in one vote. Commiuionen may elect to pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for diacuuion and/or oep&nl1e action,
1
.
.
.
1213/11/97
12:30
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
NO. 640
(;102
CITY OF OAR PARK HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGBNlJA
~UESDAY, Augus~ 12, 1997 -- 4:30 P.M.
I.
Council Workshop - Review of Garbage Con~ract Questions
Enclosure 1
7:00 AGENDA
I. Cal~ To Order/Approval of Agenda
II, Visitors
III. Department Reports
1. Police
2. Parks
3. Administration
Enc:losure 2
4. Cable
5. Water Management Organizations
6. Recycling Award
Enclosure 3
7. opa Business Group
8. Bridge Reports
Cnn~ent Agenda (Roll C~11 Vote)
Bnc:losur.. 4, 4B, 4C, << 4D
IV.
V. Public H~Arin9s
1. Request for Variance - Construct a Screen Porch on
an Existing Deck - Pamela Sanderson - 14010 54th Street
Enolosure 5 & sa
2. Request for General Planned Unit Development
Approval - Oppidan Investment Corporation - Oak Park
Ponds Shopping Center, Phase II
EnolosuJ:e 6
3. Proposed Ordinance 97-401-03 - An Ordinance
Establishing a 120 Day Moratorium Affecting
Manufactured Housing Location Within the City of Oak
Park Heights, Pending Stu~y, & Amendment to City
Ordinances
Enc1oBuJ:e 7
4. Continuation of Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment
Enclosure 8
08/11/97
12:30
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
NO. 640
003
VI.
Unfinished Business
.
VII.
New 8usinF!ss
1. Approval of Snow Plowing Contract 1997-1999
Enclosure 9
2. Approval of Plans & Specifications - Brackey West
Utilities
bclosure 10
3. Joint Fowers Agreement. Coalition of Utility
Cities
Enclosure 11
4. Proposed Ordinance 97-1204-02 - An Ordinance
Repealing Section 1204.07, Subdivision 3 of Chapter
1204 - To Remove the Minimum Distance Requirement for a
Wine License
Enclosure 12
5. Youth Service Bureau Grant Request
Enclosure 13
6. Community Volunteer Service Grant Request
Enclosure 14
7. Discussion of Washington County Manning Avenue
Corridor Study
Bnclosure lS
.
VIII.
C{")yrespc;mdene@
1.
Closed SesBio~; The Council will adjourn to closed session to
discuss union negotiations & pending litigation.
Enclosure 16
Adjournmentr
.
of The St. Croix Valley Area
MUNICIPALITY RESPONSE FORM
July 22, 1997
Mayor Jay Kimble
City Council Members
City of Stillwater
216 N. 4th St.
Stillwater, MN 55082
Dear Mayor Kimble and Council Members:
Please respond by returning this form in the enclosed stamped envelope. Thank You!
Yes, Our City will continue to support Community Volunteer Service in the
amount of $
You can expect to receive our donation on the following date,
Please schedule a time to present your request to the City Council.
Suggested date of appearance
Thank you for taking the time to respond to our request.
Sincerely,
j( tdt~ jt1)/u)()
Kathryn Miron,
Executive Director
Volunteer Center of Washington County. Stillwater Senior Center. Holiday Bureau. Transportation Service .
2300 Orleans St. W., Stillwater, MN 55082 · 612-439-7434 Fax: 612-439-7616 UnIIJedw..,
Community Volunteer Service
of the St. Croix Valley
NON. PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. Postage
PAID
PermIt 259
Sffllwater. MN
2300 West Orleans Street
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
CVS
TEL 612-439-7434
FAX 612-439-7616
Community Volunteer Service
of the St. CroIx Valley Area
CONNECTING VOLUNTEERS
WITH COMMUNITY
c
't
VOLUNTEER
C E N T E R
1996
ANNUAL REPORT
CVS MISSION
VOLUNTEER CONTRIBUTION
To be a central
volunteer recruitment
and placement agency Number of Number of Value
and a catalyst Volunteers Hours
for volunteerism.
HOLIDA Y BUREAU 349 1,402 $ 15,170
To provide services
. SENIOR CENTER 191 12,269 132,751
In response
to identified needs
of individuals TRAN S PORTA nON 43 3,823 41,365
and organizations
as they relate VOLUNTEER REFERRALS 2,134 443,872 4,802,695
to volunteerism. TO COMMUNITY
To provide opportunities CVS SUPPORT VOLUNTEERS 93 2,008 21,727
for individuals
to serve and be served TOTAL 463,374 $ 5,013,707
through volunteer
recruitment, training, fJftant90 UJ
recognition, information,
and referrals.
'Vo{unteers
2
15
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND EXPENSES
Year Ending December 1996
Cash Receipts
Donations
Foundations
Individuals
Government
Business & Organizations
St. Croix Area United Way
Earned Income
Contracts & Fees
Sales
Investment
Total
Cash Expenditures
Services to Individuals
Transportation
Senior Center
Holiday Bureau
Volunteer Center
Administration & Fund-raising
Total
$ 87,000
22,928
18,715
13,402
18,267
53,786
4,288
1,809
$220,195
$ 55,786
101,159
16,660
44,423
16,505
$234,533
40%
10%
9%
6%
8%
24%
2%
1%
24%
43%
7%
19%
7%
. .
... .; ~ .:. <"n" ;" ':~":'. ~~:.~.;.'.. .:':::'.:: ..", " . "; ..... .. ;.~-;.. ~
-
-
"..,,,':.::::A.:li::x:' .:';.., d
II
I
," ... ..':...~.<<0'>>"..~%. ,.>~<<...;.'~"/ . .;.' . ... :- . .
..
..
, The above figures reflect unaudited amounts. Complete audited finandal statements
are available in the CVS office located at 2300 West Orleans Street, Stillwater, MN,
14
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
The expansion and remodeling of our Community Senior Center building dominated
much of the time and energy of the Community Volunteer Service staff and Board of
Directors in 1996. The "new and improved" Center, with added room and redesigned
space, will allow CVS to continue to grow in its role as the heartbeat of service in our
community. Special thanks and appreciation are due to all who work and gather in the
Center for your patience and good-spirited cooperation during the chaos of remodeling.
..
Other highlights of 1996 were:
... In December, we welcomed the St. Croix Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross to
their new home in the Center, bringing to a happy conclusion months of planning and
weeks of plaster dust. Their presence brings new opportunities for working together to
strengthen our sense of community through service.
... The Senior Center continues to offer programs and activities - for needed help and for
the need to help, for information and learning, for trips to other places and for events
here at home, for food, for fun, and for friends. Of special note this year were the addi-
tion of a very popular foot care clinic and the celebration of Friendship Week to mark
the anniversary of five years in the Senior Community Center.
... The CVS Transportation Program was honored with a 1996 Commissioner's Human
Services Volunteer Award from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. This
prestigious award highlights the fine work of transportation coordinator Kim Finney
and recognizes the invaluable service of our volunteer drivers. Congratulations and
thanks!
... CVS resource director Chloette Haley helped organize two Youth Community Forums
to address concerns raised by the Minnesota Student Survey. These forums brought
together people from many agencies and organizations to share resources in supporting
young people.
~
... The CVS staff and Board of Directors continued to focus attention on the changing role
and expectations for nonprofits in the context of a diminished government role in hu-
man services. As part of this priority and to ensure that day-to-day "business" carries
out the CVS mission, the long-range planning committee was expanded to include
assessment of the growing number of requests for various kinds of volunteer assistance.
... We were saddened in November by the death of Bud Hopkins, volunteer driver and a
valuable Board member for five years. His kind and steady presence will be missed.
Community Volunteer Service reached the big three-oh this year. At age 30, CVS can
draw on the strength of its history and count on the promise of its future. Thanks to an
extraordinary staff and a dedicated Board of Directors, this is a vital organization that
embraces the exciting possibilities of growth and change while continuing to offer the
caring human spirit that will always be the foundation of its existence. Happy Birthday
CVS! And thank you for the privilege of being part of it all.
Karen Lampi
3
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
KAREN LAMPI
PRESIDENT
Stillwater
KAREN LEACH
VICE PRESIDENT
Lake Elmo
LOUISE JONES
TREASURER
Stillwater
MICKEY THURMES
SECRETARY
Stillwater
WILMA TERWILLIGER
PAST PRESIDENT
Stillwater
JULIE AHLMAN MELISSA EYST AD NILE KRIESEL
Mahtomedi Stillwater Stillwater
JOHN BAUER JAN GEORGE VI RUSSELL
Woodbury Mahtomedi Stillwater
GLENNA BEALKA ED HOPKINS ... JAMES SHINN
Stillwater Scandia Cottage Grove
DAWN BEEDLE ELVIRA KLINEFELTER ERIC THOLE
Lake St. Croix Beach Stillwater Stillwater
JON WHITCOMB
Forest Lake
· Edward "Bud" Hopkins died November 14,1996. Bud
served on the CVS Board of Directors for five years and
was a driver for the Volunteer Transportation Program
for seven years. Thank Yo~ Bud - we will miss you.
CVS MANAGEMENT STAFF
KATHY MIRON
Executive Director
RAE KUPFERSCHMIDT
Receptionist
JUNE EAGLETON
Senior Center Director
MARGARET JOHNSON
Volunteer Coordinator
CHLOEITE HALEY
Resource Director
MIKE HUGHES
Building Maintenance
KIM FINNEY
Holiday Bureau and
Transportation Coordinator
Media Relations
4
."
Marty & Pat Rossini
Laura Round
Lucille & Tom Rowland
Cindy Rupp
Vi Russell
Kris Sample
Mildred C. Sawyer
Ron & Jean Schad
Birtley & Lu Ella Schneider
May Schrade
Jim & Connie Schug
Michelle Schumann
M/M Albert E. Seaver
Stanley G. Seim
Evelyn Selleck
Georgia Sherrard
James R. Shinn
George & Joan Siegfried
M/M John L. Simonet
Alyce Simonson
Bill & Murilyn Skeath
Deanna Skoug
Lorraine Skyberg
Carl Sletten
Martha Sloat
Lee Ann Slomkowski
Helen Smith
Jack & Jeanne Smith
Sandy Snellman
Jean Socha
Ann & John Steiner
Douglas & Jeannine Stiteler
Beryl Streff
Marge Stuart
Hazel Swenson
Carlos & Nancy Taylor
Gary & Fran Teed
Eric Thole
Mickey Thurmes
James & Cara Torseth
Margie & Earl Trent
William & Mary Anne Tucker
M/M Vincent Turnblad
Mary Turnbladh
Coe Turnquist
Betty J. Underhill
Laurie Maher
Inez Van Alstine
Ronald Vesel
Myrtle Vollmer
Karl & Lorraine Vollstedt
Marge Wade
Mary Waldkirch
Marshall Wangerin
Jean L. Wendorf
Bill Wendt
M/M Wentworth
Lori L. Werre
David & Janet Wettergren
Lorraine K. Whitcomb
George Wight, Sr.
Greg Williams
Donald & Loretta Wilmes
Phyllis Wisniewski
John & Mary Wren
~
F. H. Zimmerman
Mark R. Zimmermann
ORGANIZATIONS
4-H Club Branch-Out
AARP Chapt. 2030
American Legion Post #48
American Legion Post #491
Andersen Foundation
Andersen Window Corporation
Applebee's
Associated Eye Physicians
Bayport Elem. Adventure Club
Bayport Foundation
Bayport Tuesday Reading Club
Beaver Lake Elementary
Bethlehem Lutheran Church
BMC Foundation
Brownie Troop in St. Paul Park
Casey Albert T. O'Neil Foundation
Chilikoot Archery
City of Bayport
City of Lake Elmo
City of Lake St. Croix Beach
City of Mahtomedi
City of Oak Park Heights
City of Stillwater
Classic Manufacturing
Cooperating Fund Drive
Copy Cat Printing
Courage St. Croix
Cub Foods Corporate Office
Doyle's Bowling Center & Pub
Eagles Auxiliary #94
East Surburban Resources
Edina Realty
Elks Lodge #179
Evergreen Promotional Group
First Presbyterian Church
First State Bank of Bayport
First United Methodist Church
Forest Hills School
Fortis Financial Group
Fraternal Order of Eagles #94
Friday Study Club
Guardian Angels Church
Guardian Angels Religious Group
HB Fuller
Herberger's
House of Prayer Lutheran Church
Hubbard Foundation
Hugh J. Andersen Foundation
King of Kings Bible Study
Ladies Auxiliary VFW #323
Lake Elmo Elementary School
Lakeview Hospital
Leo C. Neuman Limited
Lily Lake Elementary
Lily Lake School Grade 2
Linden Health Care Center
Linden Healthcare Resident Council
MAHADH Foundation
Margaret Rivers Fund
Mariner's 4-H Club
Martha Circle at Memorial Lutheran
McGarry Kearney Agency
Memorial Lutheran Church Aiton
MN 524 Stillwater Tops
MN Dept. of Finarce Office
National Honor SOciety
North Presbyterian Church
NRG Energy, Inc.'
NSPFoundation I
NSP King Plant
Oak Park Elementary
Oakdale Business Association
Oakland Junior High Bands
Optical Express Computer Supplies
Piper Jaffray
Primrose Study Club
Renewal Group
Risen Christ Lutheran Church
River Valley Lions Club
Sandcreek Group
Seventh-day Adventist Church
Shepherd of the Valley Church
St. Croix Academy
St. Croix Area United Way
St. Croix Foundation
St. Croix Valley Bankers Assoc.
St. Croix Valley Lions Club
St. Francis of Assissi
St. Francis of Assissi Grade 6
St. Mary's Religious Ed Teachers
St. Paul Fire & Marine
St. Paul Foundation
St. Paul Lutheran Church
St. Peter Lutheran Church
Stillwater Area High School
Stillwater High School SADD Group
Stillwater Lions Club
Stillwater Medical Group
Stillwater Public Library
Stillwater Senior Center
Stillwater Sunrise Rotary
Stonebridge Adventure Club
Sunny Hill Preschool
Target
Tozer Foundation
Transfiguration Church
Tuesday Night Bridge Club
UBC
United Methodist Women
V.F.W. Post #323
WA Lang
Wal-Mart
Washington Co. Stroke Club
Washington County Sheriff's Office
Women of Ascension Church
MEMORIALS
Raymond Buschman, Sr.
Bud Hopkins
Olga Howard
Alice McGinn
Dorothy Rosenberger
Maida Schwantes
Florence Stinson
13
1996 DONORS TO CVS PROGRAMS
INDIVIDUALS
Michael & Connie Adams
Paul Adams
Julie Ahlman
Ellen Albertson
Sarah J. Andersen
Don & Lucy Anderson
James & Katherine Anderson
Louise Bahnemann
Rebecca Bancroft
Carol Banister
John Bauer
Marie Bauer
Neil & Glenna Bealka
Mildred Beutel
Ruth Bieging
Lori & Edward Bieging
M/M Harold Bielenberg
Denise Boczek
Kathleen Boyce
Dr. David & Sandy Brandt
Henry Brochman
M/M James Brosious
Grazelle Bums
Margaret & Paul Carlson
Lori Carlson
Ruth & Patrick Carriveau
Frances F. Chapin
CarolJ. Christenson
Les & Dagne Christianson
The ChurchilIs
Evelyn Cieslar
Pearl & William Classen
Kathy & Bill Conley
Terri & Duane Cran
Florian Crever
Catherine Crocker
Joanne & Pat Cullen
Barbara J. Dahlke
Donna Dielentheis
Barbara Dowdal
Jean Duwe
June Eagleton
Glennyce Eberspacher
Frances Edez
AI & Carol Ehnert
Bonnie & Rbbert Eichten
AlvonJ. Elde
Lois Engebretson
Jennifer Fariss
Kim Finney
Kay Fitzgerald
Debra & Stephen Foley
~arol Frerichs
M/M Milton Frisch
: Jeff Fritz
: Pat Furlong
Myrle Gafmey
D. Jo Gascoigne
Vi Gelford
Tom & Dorothy Gerson
Mary & Milan Gersting
12
Carla Goerss
Lois M. Grafenstein
Lourene Grandstrand
Jeffrey B. Griffith
Marguerite M. Groth
Helen Gunderson
Chloette & Jerald Haley
Russell Halford
Hayley H. Handevidt
Marion & Don Hansen
Frances B. Hanson
Jennifer Hanson
Denora Harcey
James Harley
Gary Harty
Donald & Mary Harvey
Barbara M. Held
Stella Hendrickson
PaddyF. Henne
M/M Carl Hiller
Mrs. Ruth Hjelmgren
Rod &: Jean Hobson
Adeline Holly
Jack &: Joyce Hooley
Nancy &: Charles Hooley
Olga Howard
Pat &: Roger Hoyt
Michael Hughes
Perry H. Hultin
Lee Hunt
Florence M. Huppert
Vivian Hurley
Gayle Huseth
Carolyn Incremona
M/M John P. Ingebrand
Ralph & Mary Ives
Eric &: Jerilyn Jackson
Lucille L. Jahns
Eleanore Jennie
Marie Jensen
Mary F. Jirik
Alton L. Johnson
Eldon &: Lois Johnson
Esther Johnson
Pearl Johnson
Sherwood A. Johnston
Louise Jones
Paul &: Eleanor Jones
Lloyd P. Kane
Doug Karsky
Andrew &: Virginia Kass
Catherine Kinsel
David &: Jan Kleifgen
Mabel Klein
Elvira Klinefelter
Daniel P. Kneeland
Bernice Kristenson
Zelia B. Kroshus
Muriel Krueger
Angela M. Kummet
Karen Lampi
1996: A YEAR OF CONNECTIONS
Gerald &: Joyce Larson
Edward &: Lucille Lawson
MaryJane Lay
Karen &: Chet Leach
Elda Lewerer
Loretta Lewerer
Rolf &: Elisabeth Ljungkull
Beverley M. Lloyd
Bob & Pat Lockyear
Clarence & Joan Loer
Richard Loer
Loran G. Lord
Gertrude E. Lovejoy
Rose Marie Lundquist
Molly Martin
Deborah Martin
Dorothy J. Marty
Alice McGinn
Matt McGinn
Connie McHenry
Carlene M. McMichael
Joan Meierotto
Joanne Messerly
Zita Miller
Kathy Miron
Howard &: Yvonne Montgomery
M/M James Moore
Esther Mordick
Jeanne Moulton-Smith
Don &: Dana Nelson
Helen Nelson
Winifred Netherly
Karl &: Lora Neumeier
Lois Noer
Vivian G. Normandy
Frances L. Nygren
M/M Richard O'Brien
M/M Lorin O'Shea
Jeff Oliver
Dick Olsen
Arnold &: Esther Opland
Ken & Nancy Opsahl
Emily Osterloh
Yvonne Parkhurst
Shelia &: Paul A. Paulsen
Marilyn Paulson
Kenneth D. & Nancy Pedersen
Mary Pennino
Lawrence Peterson
Numen & Evelyn Peterson
JC &: Arlene Pfeiffer
Gloria Phillips
Florence Placzek
Dorothy &: John Pominville
Elaine M. Porter
Olga C. Reese
Dorothy Reeves
David G. Richert
Lois &: John Ritter
Carroll Rock
Sue &: Dave Roloff
The magnitude of today's serious social problems requires
everyone's cooperation to find solutions. Volunteer community
service is an empowering and effective way to help connect
people.
The following comments are from the speech that Bob Goodwin
gave at the Awards for Excellence in Corporate Community
Service luncheon, Oct. 11, 1996, Houston, Texas.
Connect America is a new national collaboration to
fight back against the human and social problems
that are eroding the health of our communities. We
believe that underlying most of those problems is a
growing separation of our people from one another,
a phenomenon we have labeled "disconnection."
Disconnection can be seen in communities where
people no longer work together toward a common
future- where a focus on their differences has di-
vided them. And it can be seen by the way we relate
to each other by our labels - young or old, rich or
poor, black or white, liberal or conservative. We can
see it in the lives of those who have been pushed
out of the mainstream - young people who are cut
off from caring adults, elderly people who live in
isolation, the very poor who no longer have access
to the support systems they need.
We've talked to literally hundreds of people about
this idea over the past year - and we have yet to
meet anyone who does not understand it, has not in
some way experienced it, does not believe that it is
preventing us from solving our serious social prob-
lems.
One of the most important ways to combat discon-
nection and solve our community problems is to
create a new level of /I connection through service"-
building on our heritage of volunteer service to
draw people together in positive, productive work.
CVS is in the business of helping reconnect our community.
Volunteers are the key.
5
In January and September of 1996, CVS in partnership with SERVICE SUMMARY
Metro Volunteer Centers and KARE 11 TV recruited and placed
3634 volunteers in week long telethons. 1994 1995 1996
In February, we connected with Minneapolis and St. Paul Volun- Holiday Bureau
teer Centers and held a Volunteer Recognition Workshop to help "'Volunteers 203 376 349
183 non-profit agencies better manage volunteers. "'Volunteer Hours 2,200 1,449 1,402
"'Families Served 464 444 477
In March, CVS connected with several agencies that deal with "'Individuals Served 1,600 1,417 1,652
disasters, and we all began to see how volunteers could better be
utilized during times of disaster. Stillwater Senior Community Center
"'Volunteers 118 224 191
In April, the Community Involvement Awards were presented "'Volunteer Hours 12,183 12,674 12,269
and people were recognized for their contribution to this commu- "'Seniors Attending Activities 18,479 20,951 20,179
nity.
Senior Services
May brought the Youth Forum. Concerned citizens were brought "'Mini-Health Clinic 599 964 642
together at CVS to discuss the results of the Minnesota Youth "'Tele Care 2,501 2,330 1,932
Survey and how they affect the youth of this community. "'Tax Assistance 556 514 348
During the summer months the Board began working with the Transportation
community to expand the Senior Center and add space for the St. "'Volunteers 43 41 43
Croix Valley Red Cross. "'Volunter Hours 3,526 3,344 3,823
"'Miles Driven 84,653 79,472 83,625
During September and October we began meeting with the "'Trips Provided 1,676 1,558 1,708
religious community to see how through our connection we "'Persons Served 159 303 242
might be able to serve this community better.
As the year came to an end it found CVS now sharing space with Office Assistants
"'Volunteers 7 6 7
the St. Croix Valley Red Cross and better able to provide a facility "'Volunteer Hours 1,179 1,262 804
that fosters connections, and through connections with Human
Services, Inc. providing dining for seniors both at home and at Washington County Volunteer Center
the Senior Center. During the year to come CVS will continue to
make it our priority to help this community to move forward and "'Volunteers Referred 1,685 2,136 2,134
provide "connections through service." "'Volunteer Contacts 2,542 3,986 2,584
"'Agencies Receiving Volunteer Referrals 110 127 178
'" Agency Training & Consultation 321 359 162
"'Volunteer Recognition/Promotion 5,940 12,955 10,286
Transportation
Ann, a resident of Stillwater, was diagnosed with Community Support Services
cancer. With the special care of family members, "'Information & Referral 8,425 12,118 11,320
friends, and CVS Volunteer Drivers, Ann was able "'Facility Use By Outside Organizations 164 198 247
to get through 6 weeks of radiation treatment at St.
Joseph's Hospital. CVS volunteers provide a very CVS Administrative Support
important link. Not only do they provide transpor- "'Volunteers 57 90
tation and help ease the burden on family members, "'Volunteer Hours 1,027 1,204
they also provide the service of listening and talk-
6 11
The Stillwater Senior Center strives to be responsive to the needs
of the seniors in the Stillwater Area. Programs are designed to
interest and provide lifelong learning opportunities. As a mem-
ber of the St. Croix Valley community the Senior Center works
with other agencies serving older adults and provides opportuni-
ties for older adults to stay involved in their community.
Marjorie, a senior, isn't from this area so she appre-
ciates our Tele Care Volunteer Callers. Having no
relatives close by she looks forward to a call from
her volunteer caller. She says she so enjoys her
volunteer's upbeat personality and her sense of
humor. Marjorie has some days when she feels
down - she had heart surgery a few months ago -
but after her volunteer calls her spirit is lifted. She
thinks of Tele Care as her link to the outside because
she is alone and somewhat housebound.
Lorraine has been a member and participant at the
Senior Center for about 14 years. She first came
shortly after retirement to learn bridge. Since then,
she has continued to become involved in many of
the activities offered at the Senior Center. She now
plays bridge twice a week, assists with organizing
the Friday bridge group, and helps with our Friday
coupon project. In addition to these activities,
Lorraine volunteers at the Bloodmobile which is
sponsored by the Senior Center twice a year. The
trips and outings offered several times a year are a
popular activity for Lorraine. In her words "there is
so much to do and take part in, there just isn't
enough time."
Loretta first came to the Senior Center to take ad-
vantage of the dining program that is offered every
weekday noon hour. Now Loretta is a member of
the Steering Committee, wouldn't miss a day of
bingo and can always be found at the parties and
entertainment events. She has also become our one
woman marketing program as she is the first person
to greet a newcomer to the center and tell them all
about our programs and services. As Loretta says"
I'm like George Washington, I cannot tell a lie, it is
fun to come here, people are friendly and the food is
very good."
\
10
Holiday Bureau
ing, and sometimes lasting friendships are formed
during the trips.
One of the earliest needs that CVS responded to in our commu-
nity was for an affordable transportation system for people with
limited income. Through this program we are able to provide
rides with the special caring of a community volunteer.
WHO DO WE SERVE: To qualify for our service, trips must
begin or end in Washington County. Rides are provided for
persons of all ages; however, we only transport people who are
able to get in and out of the car on their own.
WHAT IS THE NEED: Primarily we provide transportation for
medical and mental health appointments. Our clients have
limited resources and have no other way to get to a necessary
appointment.
HOW 00 WE HELP: The drivers playa very important role -
they do so much more than driving. They provide the service of
listening and talking with others. Our volunteer drivers use their
own automobiles providing a door-to-door round trip ride to the
client's appointment.
Dan and Jill never would have thought they'd need
the assistance of the CVS Holiday Bureau. Jill took
care of their daughter, while Dan had a full time job
outside the home. Unfortunately, due to cut-backs
at work, Dan lost his job. The CVS Holiday Bureau
Program links families like Dan and Jill who are
experiencing difficult financial times during the
holidays, by matching them with community fami-
lies who are willing and able to help. Dan and Jill's
sponsoring family provided them with gifts for
their daughter and food for a holiday meal.
The CVS Holiday Bureau assists families during the holiday
season. This program serves as a link between community mem-
bers who would like to help and families who are in need of
holiday assistance.
FAMILY SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM: Families in need who
register with us may be sponsored by a family in the community,
a business, or community organization wanting to help. The
7
sponsors then receive information about a family, shop for that
family, and deliver food and gifts to them. This aspect of the
Holiday Bureau grows each year as people discover the joy of
giving. Area churches sponsor many families and are of primary
importance to the sponsorship program.
our parent support program. The volunteers referred by
your agency really made a difference.
Dear CVS Volunteer Center,
[ am writing to thank you for caring. You helped me
find a volunteer position that was in the field [ used to
work in before [ had an episode of mental illness. [really
needed a break to get back into the work force and getting
the volunteer position you found for me was the perfect
answer. I was just recently hired as a paid employee at
the same agency! Thank you for helping me get my life
back on track through the opportunity to volunteer.
The CVS Volunteer Center is responsive to unmet n:eeds in the
community. We explore ways to meet these needs ~y involving
volunteers. This action provides a connection betw~en those
who are in need of service and those who would like to provide
help. The Volunteer Center recruits and refers volunteers to
agencies throughout Washington County which address serious
issues affecting our communities such as violence, chemical
abuse, underemployment, and poverty. Programs dealing with
these and other equally important issues rely on the efforts of
volunteers and paid staff to meet such needs. Without volun-
teers, many organizations would need to reduce the number of
clients served - many may not be helped at all. Government
agencies as well as the private sector believe the issues facing our
communities will not be resolved unless people become involved
in the solutions. The CVS Volunteer Center's mission is to mobi-
lize this volunteer work force.
BUSINESS GIFT DONA nONS: Area businesses help the Holi-
day Bureau by collecting toys and gifts. This aspect of the pro-
gram helps us meet the need for gifts for the children of families
for whom we do not find sponsors.
Volunteer Center
As a Volunteer Center our role is to connect people as volunteers
to needs in the community.
The Senior Center
.
Dear friends,
My family and [ recently moved to this area from the
West Coast. We were trying to find a way to become
familiar with our new community and make new friends.
[am so glad that [found the CVS Volunteer Center.
You were friendly, informative and efficient while help-
ing us find volunteer opportunities that we were all
interested in doing together in our leisure time. What a
great service you provide to the community; we've told
all our new friends about you, too!
Senior Center Mission
PHILOSOPHY:
The experience, skills, and abilities of senior citizens are a valu-
able resource in the St. Croix Valley and have contributed to the
progress of our community.
I
PURPOSE/MISSION STATEMENT:
The purpose of the Stillwater Senior Community Center is to
provide a variety of programs, services, enjoyable activities, and
opportunities for individual enrichment in a friendly atmo-
sphere.
Dear CVS Volunteer Center,
Thank you so much for sending me information on
volunteer applications. It has been a big help. Your
support has made a positive difference in the way we
work with our volunteers here at the center!
1996 Steering Committee
Elvira Klinefelter
Chairman &
Treasurer
Jean Pfuhl
Vice Chairman
Ann Lanz
Betty Soete
Addie DUe
Dear CVS Volunteer Center,
Thank you for helping our agency fill the need for child
care volunteers. We were almost at the point of canceling
Bob Johnson
Eleanore Jennie
George Burlingame
Miles Speake
Mike Hughes
Alice McGinn
(deceased, 1996)
8
9