093091 CC Reg AgP
t .
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
... '
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
NOTICE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, september 30, 1991
7:00 P.M.
1.
ROLL CALL
Daugherty
Lewis
Mayor Brancel
Gagne
stover
2. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to Approve Consent Agenda and Adopt
the Resolution Therein
A. Motion Approving Progress Payment No.2 - Southeast Area
Water Treatment Plant Project
(Att.No.2A-Payment Report)
B.
Motion to Approve Agreement wi th J . M.
Associates, Inc. - Public opinion Survey
(Att.No.2B-Agreement)
Research
C. Motion to Approve Letter of Agreement with R & W Roll-
Off Service for Yardwaste
(Att.No.2C-Agreement)
D. Motion Approving Rescinding of Resolution and to Approve
Changing Thompson Addition to Thompson Manor Addition
(Att.NO.2D-1-Planner's Memo and
Resolutions 2D-2-Resolution Rescinding 88-91 and
2D-3-Resolution Approving Thompson Manor Addition)
3. PUBLIC HEARING - GIDEON'S COVE P.U.D. - Discussion of
Dock Rights
(Att.No.3-planner's Memo)
4 . ADJOURNMENT
9/26/91
al
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
--'" '.';""';;~;:",~~'-'7:'~:~~:''''~7~~~
,:...p ,-r..,.,,?;- ...,.,.:_,...":"--:,~.",,-.,,,,,,*,";":.>,/. ';-:'-'.""':'~'>'~:\4-;~'"1.......:.--J
,... .,'
'l. .
.,.
~
". u .
4ItOGRESS PAYMENT REQUES~
.
Contractor:
A & K Construction, Inc.
9038 ~ 110th Street North
Still~ater, MN 55082
Date: September 16 I 1991
Project Estimate
No.: 91458 No.:~
From August 11, 1991
To September 101 1991
Owner or Purchaser:
Cit~ Qf Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, ~ 55361
DETAILED ESTIMATE
WORK DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
VALUE caMP:"
TOTAL COST 'COMP . WORK
See Attached,
$337,000.00
23%
$75,972.00
Original Contract Cost 1)37/000.00
Approved Contract Amendments:
No.
No.
No.
~337,OOO.OO
SUMMARY
Value of completed work and materials stored
Less retained percentage (5%) .... . .
Net amount due including this estimate . . . . . . .
Les$ estimate previously approved:
$75,972.00
. . $ 3~7ge.60
. . j72,173.40
No. 1 8-14-91
No. 2
No. 3
No. "
No. 5
~46,180.21 No.6
No.7
No. 8
No. 9
No.10
Total Previous Estimates. .$46,180.21
Net Amount Due this Estimate. .$25,993.19
Contractor:
Approved: ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
ENGINEERS, INC.
BY:
BY:
Noel w. Vogen, P.E.
Date:
Date:
September 16, 1991
c2A
8EP-Z4-31 TUE 1Z:45
.. \. c
P.03
~...
.
.
.... .
'1(4; S
CCST ~pm
'Hl[~
1
01'
2
'Htns
ESTIMATE FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT NUMBeR~ 1"';"10 (2)
-HAtF..:IL!RE...An~NT PU~. FCR S.l. AREA, WELki7_.r.gl CITY JZ.. SHClU1'WOOD. MINNESqrj
FOR THE PERIOD.
An~n~t. 11, 1991
__ ro..- S~pt8mb~r J.Q.a...-1991
_I INCl,..
DETAILRD E9TIMA TE
WORK PERFO~MEO TO O....TE
IT!!:"I NO.
~J:!lC'UPl'ION
NO. Of" U""T. UNIT PMlclt eONT~~eT AMOUNT NO. UNI1" AMOUN1 SARH!D .... '::'O'~"
1. Bond &. In~urMce 5,977.00
2. Demolition 4,000.00
J. 8IdR. ExC8V. & Back ViI 6,900.00
4. Concrete Work 37,375.00
5. ~Mnry lfo:rk 11,25~.OO
I.. Ol\niP'PI"oorin~ 1,150.00
7. Prac*st Floor Slsb 4,600.00
~. PreCAst Roof Sl~b 4,~OO.OO
9. Roofin~ & Sheet Met~l 5,390.00
10. C8.1'pentry 1,380.00
1l. Door & HttrdW8re 1,100.00
12. C@lulkin~ ~AO.OO
1;. Pdntin~ ~,116.00
11".. Mi~ c: . H'et 818, L8dder, atinJ:t 1,150.00
15. 811eo Ratch 1,4Ja.Oo
l~. t&ndSC8pin~ A, 500.00
17. Louvers ~ Dampers 1,100.00
113. Ret.Aininp'; WAll . ~t500.00
lq. TonkA '11t~r & Acc~~so 115,762.00
20. riltek" Medis S,JS9.00
21. Haul, Set &. toad lilte (.,.~OO.OO
22. Filter V~lve8, 'lowmet )
'see Pipin~, Chem~e&l ) l..5,4~9.00
2). U.O. Pipe, "ittin~ &. ves 11,000.00
2l... Abo~e ~Ound Pipe, 'it n~ " VA as 23 , Q4~ . 00
25. Air ope:rlted Sludp'8 P 1,540.00
26. Recyc1in~ Pump 1,540.00
27. Two (2) Sumps 4/~0. 00
2A. ElectriC81 14,000.00
Total Contract Amoqnt $337,000.00
Tot_l co~pleted to dat
5,(rn.oc , "',"\
~,OOO.OO 1.~ ..
.....
5,520.00 ~I-,
37,375.(')0 1'""....
. ,
1,150.00 1"'('
4,1:00.00 1'''.'
\. '.
Q9C.:JO 0('
1.150.0C 1"'."1
, ,
1,43~.OO 1 ""
, ,
990.00 ~:
11.000.OC
1"',,,
, ..
1, :;~f. . 00
396.00
O(
cc
$75,972.00
---. .--- -.---
.............----.
,-
SEP-24-91 TUE 12:46
P.04
. .
. .
..., .
.
.
STATUS OF CONTRACT
OrigInal Contract Amounl.-t3.3..'Z..J)()o.oo
Extras approved to date
Credits approved to date
Net amount of Contract this date
~tifkate of the Cont~~ctor or hls duly Authori:ed ~cpre$entative
To the best or my knowledge and belief, I certify that all itemJl, units, quantities and prices or work and material shown
on the Cace or Sheet! No. 1 an[L_~ 2 of this Periodical EstimMe are Cotrecti that all work has been
performed artd materials supplied in full accordance with du! tenns and conditions of the corresponding consttU(tion con.
tract do<;umenb between
Ci ~J: . QUhorewood . N:tL.~_
., (Owner)
and A & I Construction, Inc::. , dated; June~, 19--91, and aU authorized
changei thereto: that the (ollowing I, a'tn.le and correct statement ot the contract account up to, and including, the last
d:JY of the J"!riod. covered by this estimate, and that no pllrt of the " I am ~ nt due" has been received.
"
Tld-
Dat- ~....p:te"'}o.,.,. 1t-l....---100J
(a) Total amount eamed. . . '.' . . . . , . . . . . , , . . . . . , . . . . . . . .. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . ,$
7.i..g72 , 00
3 . ?O~ . f.J1.. ~~
(b) Retalned.. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . ' . $
(e) Total e;lm~d reSt retained percenb.ge. ......... , ... . ..... . .. " . ......,. . , .$
72 t 17'L ~Q
(d) "fatal previoutly approved...:.....,.,......................"..,.,.....$
!J..I- ..l~0. 21
2 5 . q93 ' 19
(e) Amount due this estimate. , .. ... .,. . ...., ... . _......... . .. .. . ... '" .....$
Appoved as to qUllnticles ar-d ~timate due:
Superintendent or Construction
Architect
_Supervising Engineer
'..
.
II
.
research Quik
September 23, 1991
Jim Hurm, City Administrator
The City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Jim:
This letter is to document our discussions about a possible research study of the
citizens of Shorewood to ascertain their understanding of and. support for a new
water system for the City. In order to help the Council react to this research
proposal, I have outlined some key elements to the proposal in this letter. If you
would like a more detailed proposal, please let me know. I would also be
happy to speak with the Council about the proposal to explain aspects of it.
The proposal has three parts:
Goals for the study
Activities to be included in the study
Costs and Payment for the study.
In addition, I have designed this letter so that it could be used as a
Memorandum Of Understanding. If the Council should find that this proposal,
as outlined, would meet their needs, a representative of the City should sign the
designated place and a copy should be returned to me.
Goals for the Study:
Ascertain the reactions of random sample of property and home
owners to the proposed water system changes as outlined in an
educational packet and as discussed in the local media.
Determine the major differences between those property and
home owners who are most likely to support a new system and
those who are most likely to support any other alternative.
Possible differences to be explored include but are not limited to:
Current system user and current non-user
· More affluent and less affluent property owners
Long time residents compared to newer residents
Discover the major pros and cons of the new system, from the
citizens' point of view.
Marketing answers for growing businesses.
3496 Shoreline Drive. P.O. Box 97 . Navarre, MN 55392 .612/471-'
otJ3
rese!uik Minneapolis, Min.t. Water System
The CeOf Shorewood
Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
Provide timely feedback to the City following the distribution of
educational materials about the new system by completing
research before a public hearing which is scheduled 13 days later.
Activities Included in the Study:
.
.
.
Preparation:
.
Meetings with Council and key City staff to determine issues
of greatest interest for inclusion in the survey.
Discussion of sampling issues and screening issues i.e. is
the research a random sample or are citizens screened for
inclusion in the study
(Recommendation: random sample of 200 citizens (not
households) with each name contacted 5 times before
replacement and every adult in the household interviewed.
The sample of 200 permits some reliable analyses of
smaller subsamples such as all the property owners who
are currently hooked up to City water.)
A draft of the interview is composed for review by Council
and key City staff. Interview pilot tested on sample of 10
property and home owners.
Final draft of interview revised and approved by Council
and staff.
.
.
Interviewing:
.
The City of Shorewood mails out a flyer or letter to all
citizens explaining that our research firm may be contacting
them, encouraging their participation.
The City of Shorewood furnishes Research Quik with a
listing of all Shorewood citizens and their telephone
numbers. If numbers are unlisted, Shorewood mails
notices to all unlisted numbers drawn for the sample,
asking them to return a postage paid response form with
their telephone number on it so they can be included in the
survey.
The sample is selected and a master list is made using a
random starting point in the Shorewood list and an nth
number system.
.
.
?
....,--',:--'~_.'e__~-.~---~,..,''"''''"'77>oe,--"'''':'''''''-;....~
}_'__" .' r c,....._.l,,=. ,_'
rese!Uik Minne.poli" Milota Water System
The cn., Shorewood
Research Project Proposal
September 23, 1991
.
The screening questions for the interview are agreed upon
and will probably include but are not limited to:
.
Selecting only householders and businesses which
own property in Shorewood, not renters.
.
Determining if the interviewee has reviewed any
written material on this topic and remailing them
new packets before interviewing them, if they have
not. -
The telephone interviewers are trained based on pilot test
results to deal with special issues related to this study. Any
questions which interview candidates might ask
interviewers, and which are specific to the issue, will have
written answers developed. These answers are reviewed
and approved by City staff prior to the study.
Phone calling begins on October 24 and continues until
completed but not sooner than November 2nd. Interviews
are not longer than ten minutes each, on the average, and
do not include more than 5 open-ended questions.
Analysis and Reporting:
.
.
.
Interviews are pre-coded for data entry. Data entry is
completed (verified entry - double entry). The first report of
frequency distributions is ready by November 4 - this may
be in draft form due to the short turn-around time.
.
Research Quik furnishes the City a record of the number of
households contacted, the number of refusals, bad phone
numbers, disconnected phones, no answers and so on.
The summary findings are reviewed in at least one but no
more than two sessions with the City Council and selected
staff. Other analyses are conducted as requested. Key
points for inclusion in a summary report are discussed and
the Council/staff suggest a report outline.
A report is drafted for review by Council and staff.
Revisions are suggested and the draft is finalized.
A camera ready copy of the final report and a bound copy of
the report is given to the City of Shorewood for storage and
duplication.
.
~
-C"-_~_-:-n__",;::"'__~__"_
. " , . --, ~.,.- '.
l'JIll''''~
. ,
. .
researchQuik Minneapolis, Minnesota Water System
The Cit. Shorewood
Research Project Proposal
September.23, 1991
Costs and Payment:
Research Quik, Inc. can complete this study as specified in this brief working
paper for $3,300 plus local mileage expenses. The study charges may be paid
over three months with $1100. due immediately upon acceptance of this
proposal and the next two payments of $1100 due on November 1 and
December 1. Any changes in this work plan will result in a change in costs.
Jim, we are delighted that you thought to call us for an estimate on this very
interesting project and we thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Please
feel free to suggest any revisions you would like to make to this project.
Sincerely,
~
rShik, President
The City of Shorewood accepts this project proposal and the project charge as
outlined in this letter.
SIGNATURE
Signed by:
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
, A representative of the City
4
.'_'-~""__.__"""_'''''_,',;:.,_.<.;o......__._...__..."..,.._~'''''''''''r-~ .."
.
.
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
October 1, 1991
Mr. Keith M. V91k, Sales Manager
R & W Roll-Off Service, Inc.
R & W sanitation, Inc. .
5525 County Road 50
Carver, MN 55315
Dear Mr. Volk,
This is to confirm our Agreement for Yardwaste Collection Services.
The services your firm will supply are for the following program.
The City of Shorewood will have a yardwaste drop off area at the
Public Works/City Hall parking lot from 9: 00 am to 4: 00 pm
Saturday, October 26, 1991 and Saturday, November 2, 1991. Grass,
leaves and mixed brush will be accepted. Waste must be emptied
from bags. Bags should then be taken home to be reused. Brush and
sticks should be bundled with branches less than 1 1/2 inches in
diameter by 4 feet in length.
R & W Roll-Off Service, Inc., will supply two 30 yard roll-off
containers before 9: 00 am on each of those Saturdays and will
continue to haul full containers and replace them with empty 30
yard containers as directed by the Public Works Department by
calling 448-7833 during program hours. The City will be charged
$190 for each full roll-off supplied.
The City will supply one employee at the site to direct residents
and to scoop yardwaste into the roll-offs. Roll-off containers
will be removed by 5:00 pm on each day of the program.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
James C. Hurm
City Administrator
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
otc
~- -.
:.-. - .__ ___',,--,-:-___".';_' _~ ._,_~.._-.....
)::.~,~~~;-'-
.
.
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474.3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
26 September 1991
RE:
Thompson Addition - Change in Plat Name
FILE NO.
405 (91.11)
Upon having his [mal plat checked by Hennepin County Charlie Thompson was informed
that the name "Thompson Addition" has already been used in Bennepin County. He now
requests that the plat be renamed "Thompson Manor Addition". Although this is somewhat
of a technicality, the City Attorney advises us that the Council must take formal action to
change the previous approvals (Le. the resolution and development agreement). Resolutions
rescinding the approval of Thompson Addition and approving Thompson Manor Addition are
included in the packet for the meeting on 30 September.
.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
cc: Jim Hurm
David Sellergren
Charlie Thompson
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
c2f)-/r
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 88-91
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shorewood passed Resolution No. 88-91
on 26 August 1991, approving a fmal plat for the Thompson Addition; .and
WHEREAS, the Developer requests that the name of the plat now be changed to
Thompson Manor Addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That Resolution No. 88-91 Approving the Plat of Thompson Addition is
hereby rescinded.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 30th day of
September, 1991.
BARBARA J. BRANCEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HURM
City Administrator/Clerk
r2-D-2-
,__.....___." _ ..,...._..._.",.._...., .,,~ ...,""._.~.'""'..'__..---c:'"",,-:-:...;.:-.._--..-.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING TIm PLAT OF
THOMPSON MANOR ADDIDON
WHEREAS, the final plat of Thompson Manor Addition has been submitted in the
manner required for the platting of land under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter
462 of Minnesota Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the
regulations and requirements .of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the
City of Shorewood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. That the plat of Thompson Manor Addition is hereby approved.
2. That the approval is specifically conditioned upon the terms and conditions
~ontained in the Development Agreement attached hereto and made a part thereof.
3. That the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are authorized to execute the
Certificate of Approval for the plat and the said Development Agreement on behalf of the
City Council.
4. That this final plat shall be filed and recorded within 30 days of the date of
this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the execution of the Certificate upon said plat by
the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk shall be conclusive, showing a proper compliance
therewith by the subdivider and City officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on
record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and the
Shorewood City Code.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 30th day of
September, 1991.
BARBARA J. BRANCEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HURM
City Administrator/Clerk
021)-3--
.
.
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Bob Gagne
Rob DaughertY
Daniel Lewis
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
24 September 1991
RE:
Gideon's Cove P.D.D. - Dock Rights
FILE NO.:
405 (91. 05)
At its 9 September meeting the City Council approved Concept Stage plans for. the above-
referenced project, but tabled the issue of increased dock rights on the peninsula portion of
the site. A public hearing has been scheduled for 30 September to discuss just the issue of
docks .
Currently the peninsula consists of two outlots each having a dock which has been
"grandfathered in". The rights to those docks have been assigned to the first two lots in the
Lawtonka subdivision. The developer requests approval to distribute the dock rights to six of
the twelve units in the P.D.D. on a first corne, first served, basis. His rationale is that the
owners could each have three boats stored at the dock, resulting in six potential boats being
stored on the site.
To evaluate this proposal the Council has asked staff for background on our current
regulations and a history of past cases involving docks. Shorewood's Zoning Ordinance is
more restrictive than the L.M.C.D. Code in that it only allows a dock where a principal
dwelling exists on the site. It does, however, provide the Council the opportunity to allow,
by four-fifths vote, a dock where no principal dwelling exists. The Code provides no criteria
for evaluating such requests.
There are perhaps two significant cases in which the Code has been applied differently. In
the late 70's the Boulder Bridge P.D.D. was allowed to have 40 docks for 46 single-family
residential lots. In a more recent case, Neil Spaulding was denied being able to place a dock
on a small parcel of land located across the street from the lot on which he built his home.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
:3
.
.
Re: Gideon's Cove P. U.D.
Dock Rights
24 September 1991
It is the opinion of this office and the City Attorney that the City Council has considerable
discretion in considering the developer's request. First, the project is a planned unit
development, which provides the City with more control than any other type of zoning
action. Secondly, the "grandfather rights" for the docks continue as long as the use is not
changed:
"b. Any structure or use lawfully existing tlPon the effective date of this Ordinance
shall not be enlarged, extended, or structurally altered, but may be continued at the
size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter
specified or, subsequently amended."
Since the City Code contains no criteria for allowing docks on property without a principal
structure, or for multiple dock facilities, the Council may be interested in reviewing the
criteria used by the L.M.C.D. Their rules are attached as Exhibit A of this report.
If there is any other information you feel would be useful, please contact my office prior to
Monday night's meeting.
BJN:ph
cc: Jim Hurm
Dave Sellergren
John Blumentritt
- 2 -
.
.
(- .'
this provision shall not be considered a "multiple dock or
mooring area" unless such dock or mooring area is constructed or
maintained for the storage of five or more restricted watercraft.
Section 2.02.
. Shoreline Requirements.
Subd. 1. General Rule. No new docks or mooring areas
shall be constructed or established which provide space for or
are used for mooring or docking a greater number of restricted
watercraft than one for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline in
existence on May 3, 1978; unless authorized to do so by special
density license pursuant to Section 2.05. For sites with contin-
uous shoreline greater than 100 feet, when measurements deter-
mining the number of restricted watercraft allowed result in the
provision of a fractional restricted watercraft, any fraction up
to and including one-half (1/2) shall be disregarded, andfrac-
tions over one-half (1/2) shall be counted as one addi tional
restricted watercraft.
(
Subd. 2. Special Rule for Si tes in Existence on August
30, 1978. Unless a greater number is authorized by the provi-
sions of Subd. 1 above, up to two restricted watercraft may be
kept at any dock or mooring facility which is located on a site
(as defined in Section 1.02) which was in existence on August 30,
1978.
Subd. 3. Special Rule for Sites Established After August
30, 1978. Unless a greater number is authorized by the provi-
sions of Subd. 1 above, up to two restricted watercraft may be
kept at any dock or mooring area facility which is located on a
site (as defined in Section 1.02) established after August 30,
1978, provided there is a residence on the site and the dock and
docking rights are owned solely by the residents of that site.
Subd. 4. Additional Watercraft Allowance for Watercraft
Owned by Residents. Three or four restricted watercraft may be
kept at docks or moorings described in Subdivisions 2 .and 3 above
if all restricted watercraft are owned by and registered to the
residents of the site.
\
Section 2.03. MUltiple' Docks, Mooring Areas, Launching Ramps
and Docks in Excess of 100 Feet in Length.
Subd. 1. License Required. No person may locate, con-
struct, install or maintain a dock of more than 100 feet in
length or a multiple dock or mooring area or a commercial dock or
a launching ramp on the shoreline of the Lake, or in the waters
of the Lake unless licensed by the Board to do so.
Subd. 2. Application for License. Application for a
license shall be made on forms provided by the Executive Director.
- 19 -
~h~b;t A-\
.
e,
(
(
The application for license shall contain (a) the name and
address of the applicant, (b) the description of the property on
which the facility is to be located, (c) the name and address of
the owner of the premises, if different from the applicant, (d)
if the applicant is not the owner, an explanation of the interest
which the applicant has in the property, (e) a showing that all
requisite permits, licenses and approvals from the local munici-
pality have been obtained and that the requirements of any other
governmental authority have been met, and (f) a plan showing the
design and location of the facility including all Boat Storage
Units. The application shall include sllch other information as
the Executive Director may require to assist the Board in consid-
eration of the application for. the license. The application
shall also be accompanied by a license fee which shall be estab-
lished from time-to-time by resolution of the Board; provided
that no fee shall be required for applications for launching
ramps owned and operated by municipalities or other governmental
agencies which are available for use by the general public
without payment of fees or other charges. An additional deposit
in an amount established from time to time by resolution of the
Board shall accompany the application to cover legal, surveying,
engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred
by the District. The Board shall approve all expenses charged
against the deposi t, and the unused portion thereof shall be
returned to the applicant. The application shall state that the
applicant agrees to reimburse the District for any legal, survey-
ing, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses
incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the deposit.
No such deposit shall be required in the case of renewal applica-
tions under Subdivision 13 of this Section or new license appli-
cations required by Subdivision 6 of this Section which do not
require a public hearing, unless a hearing is requested by the
applicant pursuant to Section 1.06, Subd. '12.
Subd. 3. Issuance of License. Licenses required by this
section may be issued after a public hearing by the Board.
Proceedings for the issuance of a license and the granting of a
variance under Section 1.07 may be combined and conducted as one
proceeding. The Board may impose conditions on the granting of a
license, which conditions shall be in writing.
a) Review Criteria. In exercising its discretion in
granting or denying licenses, the Board may consider, among other
things, the following:
1) Whether the proposed facility is compatible with
the LMCD watercraft density classification criteria.
2) Whether the proposed facility will be structur-
ally safe for use by the intended users.
3) Whether the facility will comply with the reg-
ulations contained in this ordinance.
A-2-
- -20
I ·
.
.
4) Whether the proposed
volume of traffic on the Lake
facility which will tend to be
an undue burden on traffic upon
the facility.
facility will create a
in the vicinity of the
unsafe or which will cause
the Lake in the vicinity of
5) Whether the proposed facility will be compatible
with the adjacent development.
6) Whether the proposed facility will be compatible
with the maintenance of the natural beauty of the Lake.
7) Whether the proposed facility will affect the
qual i ty of the water of the Lake and the ecology of the
Lake.
8) Whether the proposed facility, by. reason of
noise, fumes or other nuisance characteristics, will tend
to be a source of nuisance or annoyance to persons in the
vicinity of the facility.
9) Whether adequate sanitary and parking facilities
will be provided in connection with the proposed facility.
I..
10) Whether the proposed facility
general public as opposed to a limi ted
public or a limited geographical area.
will serve
segment of
the
the
11) Whether the facility will obstruct or occupy too
great an area of the public water in relationship to its
utility to the general public.
b) Factors Not Considered. The use of multiple dock or
mooring areas or launching ramps on the Lake for the purpose of
increasing non-riparian property values is not a valid considera-
tion in licensing such facilities.
Subd. 4. Implied Consent to Inspection. By making appli-
cation for a license, the applicant consents to permitting
officers and agents of the district to enter upon the applicant's
premises at all reasonable times to investigate the application
and to determine whether the ordinances of the district are being
complied with. The application form shall contain a statement to
this effect.
Subd. 5. Construction and Maintenance Standards. Con-
struction of licensed multiple docks or mooring areas, launching
ramps and commercial docks must comply with all local, state and
federal regulations applicable to facilities and services pro-
vided; municipal zoning, parking and other land use regulations
applicable to the facility; and the rules and regulations con-
tained in this code pertaining to Lake use and structures in the
- 21 -
A-:;