lake minnetonka conservation district board of...

LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

AGENDA

7:00 PM, Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Wayzata City Hall

600 Rice Street, Wayzata, MN 55391

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

5. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Green

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 9/14/16 LMCD Regular Board Meeting

9/28/16 LMCD Regular Board Meeting

7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A) Audit of vouchers (10/1/16 – 10/15/16)

B) August Financial Summary and Balance Sheet

C) 5th

Street Ventures, approval of draft Record of Decision and LMCD Resolution 151 ordering a

negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mandatory

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) document.

D) Approval of draft letter to be forwarded to LMCD Member Cities regarding Board appointments

for 2017

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None

10. OTHER BUSINESS A) Review and consideration of draft mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

City of Excelsior Proposed Multiple Dock and Municipal Planned Unit Development

Browns Bay Marina (Site 2) Proposed Multiple Dock

LMCD Board of Directors

October 12, 2016

B) Code amendment options regarding Section 2.015, “Reconfiguration of Non-Conforming

Structures

C) Review draft amendment to the LMCD Investment Policy per Board direction – to be

emailed

11. UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITTEES

12. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UPDATE

A) Review and input regarding LMCD Facebook page

B) Input regarding continuing the contract with TimeSaver (minute taking)

C) Other

13. OLD BUSINESS

14. NEW BUSINESS

15. ADJOURNMENT

LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

7:00 P.M., September 14, 2016 Wayzata City Hall

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Green called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALLMembers present: Jay Green, Mound; Deborah Zorn, Shorewood; Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Ann Hoelscher,Victoria; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Dennis Klohs, Minnetonka Beach; Bret Niccum,Minnetrista; Gregg Prest, Excelsior; Rob Roy, Greenwood; and Sue Shuff, Minnetonka. Also present: JimBrimeyer, Interim Executive Director; Vickie Schluening, Executive Director; Emily Herman, AdministrativeAssistant; and Kyle Hartnett, Legal Counsel.

Members absent: Chris Jewett, Deephaven; Fred Meyer, Woodland; and, Gregg Thomas, Tonka Bay.

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Green requested Agenda Item 10C be moved to 10A, with the other agenda items moving down accordingly.

MOTION: Niccum moved, Zorn seconded to approve the agenda as amended, making the change noted by Green above.

VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.

5. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS

Green welcomed new Executive Director Vickie Schluening to the Board.

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 8/10/16 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 8/24/16 LMCD Special Board Meeting 8/31/31 LMCD Special Board Meeting (Continued from 8/24/16)

MOTION: Roy moved, Shuff seconded to approve the 8/10/16 LMCD Regular Board Meeting minutes as submitted.


MOTION: Roy moved, Niccum seconded to approve the 8/24/16 LMCD Special Board Meeting minutes as submitted.

VOTE: Ayes (10), Abstained (1, Zorn); motion carried.

ITEM 6

Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting September 14, 2016 Page 2

MOTION: Jabbour moved, Hughes seconded to approve the 8/31/16 LMCD Special Board Meeting minutes as submitted.


7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

MOTION: Jabbour moved, Zorn seconded to approve the consent agenda as presented. Items so approved

included: 7A) Audit of Vouchers (8/16/16 – 8/31/16) and (9/1/16 – 9/15/16); 7B) July Financial Summary and Balance Sheet; and 7C) Approval of Employment Agreement for Executive Director


8. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes) There were no public comments. 9. PUBLIC HEARING

A) Howard’s Point Marina, new multiple dock license on South Upper Lake to reconfigure storage (utilizing Qualified Commercial Marina Ordinance)

Herman directed the Board to the staff memo, dated 9/9/16, and provided the following overview of this agenda item via a PowerPoint presentation:

An overview of the currently approved license and the recent completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) that resulted in a negative declaration.

A detailed overview of the proposed changes outlined within the staff memo.

Relevant LMCD Code Sections included Qualified Commercial Marina (Section 1.02, 40a), Dock Use Area Requirements (Section 2.01), Shoreline Requirements (Section 2.02, Subd. 10), and Fuel Sales Facilities (Section 2.03, Subd. 10).

No changes are proposed for the 38 off Lake boat storage units (BSU).

Staff recommends the Board approve the 2017 Howard’s Point Marina Multiple Dock License, subject to conditions outlined within the staff memo.

Green inquired if there was language with other sites that states where customers should board watercraft. Herman stated she would have to research the topic, but it is not uncommon as it offers another level of safety and there is currently not a proposed designated boat storage unit for such use. Zorn inquired what the square footage of the approved plan is. Herman stated she did not have that information, but would provide it to the Board. Niccum referred to the extension of the north dock and the area only being 23’ wide. He asked if people will have assistance backing up their boats from the launching ramp. Herman stated until this date, she


was under the impression the employees would be launching all watercraft. However, it has come to her attention that the ramp is available for the general public for a fee. She would have to defer to the applicant relative to that question. Mr. Richard Baker, owner of Howard’s Point Marina, commented the docks are in need of replacement. In reference to the boat launch area, it is only four feet narrower than it is right now. Zorn asked the applicant if he knew the square footage of the plan. Mr. Baker stated he did not know it. Green opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Mr. Scott Colesworthy, 5480 Howards Point Road, commented he opposes the length of the dock as it negatively impacts his property. Herman stated the proposed dock length is 200’ with an extra 25’ for the fueling facility. Jabbour stated the owner is complying with the ordinance in their proposed request. No additional comments were offered and the public hearing was closed at 7:29 p.m. MOTION: Jabbour moved, Niccum seconded to approve 2017 Howard’s Point Marina Multiple Dock

License subject to staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes (10); Nays (1, Baasen); motion carried.

10. OTHER BUSINESS

A) The Caribbean Marina, request for additional minimum wake buoy (110 Sunrise Avenue, Tonka Bay, MN) Niccum recommended approval of the request without further discussion. The Chair believed an overview of the request was relevant. Brimeyer directed the Board to the staff memo, dated 9/8/16, and Caribbean Marina’s request for an additional minimum wake buoy. He provided an overview of the request and staff’s recommendations as outlined within his memo. MOTION: Niccum moved, Zorn seconded to approve up to three minimum wake buoys for Caribbean Marina. Jabbour provided a historical overview of the concerns as owner of Tonka Bay Marina (originally with incoming traffic to the marinas vs. concerns now arising for outgoing traffic). He acknowledged that three buoys originally existed over 30 years ago prior to the LMCD regulating this matter. He recommended any granting of the buoys be placed within the extension of the property line.


A gentleman in the audience requested clarification if this agenda item would have to be reposted due to the expansion of the request to three buoys from one. Brimeyer recommended this matter be further clarified via a follow-up meeting to allow the Caribbean to bring in a drawing depicting the exact location of the buoys . Jabbour believed an approval could be offered specifying where the buoys are to be placed; within the extension of the property line. He further noted that the watercraft speed within the area would not be changing but that the signage would simply be reiterating such speed (minimum wake). Shuff requested further clarification as to why the original three buoys were reduced. Jabbour stated that matter existed prior to the LMCD regulating the matter; reiterating over 30 years ago. A representative from the Caribbean offered historical background from the audience which was not audible. Klohs believed this could be approved this evening with the addition that he could not place the buoys any further out and within their extended lot lines. Niccum withdrew his motion and opened it up for another. He asked that the Board consider the fact that the site had three buoys many years ago, that the watercraft operators do not understand the need to adhere to speed limits within specific locations, and it would provide for additional safety to the marina operators. MOTION: Hoelscher moved, Klohs seconded to approve the request for one minimum wake buoy placed

within the current setbacks for the Caribbean Marina. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.

B) Resolution 150, approving and ratifying a nominating process for Board Officers

Brimeyer directed the Board to his staff memo, dated 9/14/16. He recommended the Board memorialize the Nominating Committee process via the draft resolution offered within the packet. Green expressed concern that this document relies heavily on committees; requiring compliance with the Open Meeting Law. MOTION: Roy moved, Jabbour seconded to approve Resolution No. 150, “Approving and Ratifying a

Nominating Process for Board Officers.” Green reminded the Board that the motion refers to a committee. Herman stated that she spoke to Gilchrist as to the consideration of a Working Group for this process vs.


formalized committee. Gilchrist stated this topic was important enough to be formalized and did not recommend a Working Group for such. Jabbour concurred. Hartnett stated whatever it is called does not change how it comes under the Open Meeting Law. Shuff asked for clarification of No. 6 of the Recommended Nomination Process, regarding what to do in the instance of a tie between two finalists. Hartnett stated a majority vote would be required to pass. Klohs stated in discussions about this topic, they wanted to be able to communicate more in the workshops without always being controlled by the quorum rules and publications. Green clarified discussions in workshops are more free open discussions, not for formal action. However, with a Nominating Committee, it needs to be more formalized. VOTE: Ayes (10); Abstained (1, Shuff); motion carried.

C) Re-codification, consideration of process and recommendation to proceed

Brimeyer provided a status update on the recodification process, as provided in the meeting packet. The options include:

Use American Legal Publishing, at a lower “supposed” rate, and expect that the Board, staff, and legal counsel do a majority of the work, which will substantially increase the “actual” costs of doing the work. This process could take six to 24 months.

Use Kennedy and Graven with the advantage of having legal counsel becoming more familiar with the code while managing the outlines, updates, discussion, and the final product. This process could take nine to 12 months. Staff recommends this option.

Brimeyer provided an overview of the 2016 and 2017 budget to consider this process, as well as any further amendments to the 2017 budget. Green commented in the 2017 budget; acknowledging money could be allocated from Contract Services. Jabbour stated the LCMD has an attorney on staff and should be part of this process. He also stated that Save the Lake should pay for the majority of the re-codification and the Board should ask for a grant. Baasen stated Save the Lake has begun looking at grants they have given out in the past and will be accepting applications. He recommends the Board discuss this and develop a process for applying for the funds. MOTION: Hoelscher moved, Niccum seconded to direct staff to pursue Kennedy and Graven and

proceed with recodification. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Green suggested a working group be assigned to this project. Volunteers for this group include Jabbour,


Niccum, Hughes, Hoelscher, and Klohs. Green requested they find out what is available for funding. Zorn suggested Gilchrist make a recommendation as to how to proceed with possible funding from Save the Lake. Hoelscher inquired if there are other grants available. Brimeyer commented he checked with other cities and did not find any grants that had been used. He will look at LMCD reserves and Save the Lake reserves and see what is available. Baasen clarified he never said Save the Lake funds should not be used; he only said there should be a process.

11. UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITTEES Baasen offered that the Save the Lake Committee met and discussed the Boater Safety Education Course that will take place on October 20th at Westonka Public Schools Education Service Center. The first session had 22 youth and five adults that participated. The Committee reviewed their fundraising efforts and contributions are on track at $17,000. Lastly, the Save the Lake Committee held a booth at James J. Hill Days in Wayzata. Zorn asked what the Boater Safety Education Course costs. Baasen replied Jay Soule volunteers to teach the class and the first class cost $1,143. The budget for 2016 is $6,000 and it will be well under that amount. This year scholarships were granted if the youth requested it, not automatically as had been done in the past. Everything was done by volunteers and there is very little staff time needed. Niccum stated another resource needs to be used for the buoy lights because they do not work. A lower profile, durable, LED, solar powered light is needed. Green reported on the following: 1) he has scheduled a meeting with the AIS Task Force for October 14th, 2) the harvesters were removed from the water on August 16th, 3) he has observed a lot of flowering rush on the Lake, 4) he visited Lake Koronis to see how they manage the invasive species Starry Stonewort. It is now found in several lakes and they are trying different techniques in an effort to treat it, 5) zebra mussels have been found in Lake Minnewashta and the public access has been shut down in an effort to get it under control, and 6) the AIS Summit in St. Cloud will be on October 5th and 6th and the new Executive Director will be in attendance. Jabbour offered the MN DNR is becoming more proactive in getting pre-approval on the label of chemicals. They have been out with University program collecting samples of the water in an effort to research the viability of survival of invasive species inside engines and other areas. His staff assisted the MN DNR to remove water out of engines and live zebra mussels were found inside of them. Chemicals have not been used to kill them, but they are researching to see if antifreeze will.

12. INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UPDATE

Introduction of Executive Director

Interim Executive Director future schedule


Brimeyer announced Vickie Schluening as the newly hired LMCD Executive Director. Schluening thanked the Board for this opportunity. She further stated she is excited to be part of the LMCD team, to meet the stakeholders, and continue the great work on behalf of Lake Minnetonka.

13. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.

14. NEW BUSINESS Jabbour announced he, Jay Soule, and Bret Niccum would like to invite the LMCD Board and staff to join them on Sunday, September 25 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. for a chartered cruise set up as an appreciation event for the Sheriff’s Office and Water Patrol staff that worked the July 4th holiday weekend.

15. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m.

___________________________________ ___________________________________ James Jay Green, Chair Gregory J. Thomas, Secretary

LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

6:00 P.M., Wednesday, September 28, 2016 Wayzata City Hall

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Green called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALLMembers present: Jay Green, Mound; Deborah Zorn, Shorewood; Chris Jewett, Deephaven; Dan Baasen,Wayzata; Ann Hoelscher, Victoria; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Dennis Klohs,Minnetonka Beach; Gregg Prest, Excelsior; Bret Niccum, Minnetrista; and Sue Shuff, Minnetonka. Alsopresent: Vickie Schleuning, Executive Director; Jim Brimeyer, Interim Executive Director; and Emily Herman,Administrative Assistant/Technician.

Members absent: Fred Meyer, Woodland; Rob Roy, Greenwood; and Gregg Thomas, Tonka Bay. Also absent was Troy Gilchrist, LMCD Legal Counsel.

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

Green proposed that Item 6C, “Process and timetable for recodification process” be continued to the October 26th meeting to allow staff time to further review the logistics involved.

Jabbour stated that he would like to include the following questions when considering this process: 1) the use of Save the Lake funds for this process, 2) an overview of the Fund itself, and 3) the use of tax funds for Save the Lake expenses.

MOTION: Shuff moved, Niccum seconded to approve the agenda, as amended, making the changes noted above.


4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA

Zorn moved, Hughes seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Item so approved included 4A) Audit of vouchers (9/6/16– 9/30/16).

Klohs believed there was a need to confirm whether the second meeting of each month (4th Wednesday) is considered a Regular Board Meeting or a Workshop. He believed the intension of this meeting was to be a workshop setting that would not subject the Board members to the Open Meeting Law. He recommended Schleuning confirm this matter with Gilchrist.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)

There were no public comments.

ITEM 6

Lake Minnetonka Conservation District

Regular Board Meeting

September 28, 2016 Page 2

6. OTHER BUSINESS A) Lt. Vnuk, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Water Patrol Unit, 2016 Boating Season Update

Vnuk thanked Jabbour, Niccum, and Al & Alma’s General Manager Jay Soule for holding an appreciation gathering for their staff that worked the July 4th holiday weekend. He further thanked Brimeyer for his service to the LMCD in working with the Sheriff’s Office and Water Patrol Unit. He provided the following update:

The distribution and a detailed overview of a 2016 LMCD Summer Deputy Grant Summary of Activities. This handout provided for the deputy’s enforcement activities and a summary of such from 2015 to 2016; providing for a 90% enforcement increase.

An overview of how the newly established emergency access ramp was utilized and staffed.

That the Sheriff’s Office provided for a substantial amount of additional funds over and above what was offered through the Save the Lake grant to further supplement this important program.

Acknowledgment that this position is saving lives. The Board offered a few questions and comments in which Vnuk expounded on: 1) the LMCD could assist the Sheriff’s Office in 2017 by increasing the funds for the continuation of this program, 2) an overview of the Water Patrol staffing levels (including the special deputies currently in place and those that are in training), 3) the positive impact the increased staffing/enforcement is having on the Lake residents; offering a meeting that was held with Big Island residents that acknowledged their ability to further enjoy their property during peak boating days and times, 4) and that all enforcement is based on probable cause. Jabbour expressed the need to continue working towards the establishment of a Water Patrol satellite station within the Lower Lake area. The LMCD thanked Vnuk for his update and the service offered.

B) Jerry Rockvam, Rockvam Boat Yards, Discussion of Reconfiguration of Non-Conforming LMCD Code Rockvam expressed his interest in removing every other dock finger and replacing it with two permanent pylons to provide for the storage of wider boats. This would be completed on the east side of the main walkway for Site 1. In considering this reconfiguration, he would need to adhere to Code Section 2.015, Reconfiguration of Non-Conforming Structures. He believed this Code section limited him in considering this and that the Board should consider providing approval of such and revisiting the ordinance to allow for the dramatic changes offered in this growing industry. The Board directed Schleuning to work with Gilchrist in drafting an amendment to the Code for consideration at their October 12th meeting. This amendment would include: 1) the lack of consideration of square footage calculations in a slip and 2) the need to find the total dock footage of the whole area.


Regular Board Meeting

September 28, 2016 Page 3

Baasen arrived at 6:45 p.m.

C) Process and timetable for recodification process - tabled

D) Future role of Executive, Finance, and Personnel Committees

LMCD Investment Policy Brimeyer directed the Board to his memo, dated 9/28/16. He provided background as to the historical use of the above noted committees and his current recommendations as follows: 1) create an additional 12-month cash flow budget, allow the director to proceed with laddered investments, and amend the Investment Policy to reflect the removal of a Finance Committee, 2) establish an Administrative/Personnel Committee for the coordination of evaluating of the Executive Director (with full Board participation), review of benefits package, as well as a sounding board to the Director, and 3) the continuation of working groups with defined beginning and ending dates and clear missions/goals.

E) Observations from Interim Director Jim Brimeyer Brimeyer directed the Board to a document within the packet that outlined his thoughts relative to the

enforcement of the Code, recodification, and proposed staffing levels; providing an overview of each area. The Board thanked Brimeyer for his service to the LMCD and presented a personal gift on behalf of the Board,

Gilchrist, and staff.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ James Jay Green, Chair Gregory J. Thomas, Secretary

ITEM 7B

LMCD MONTHLY CASH FLOW CHART

AUGUST, 2016

Administration

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

2016 General Revenue/Expense

Revenue (That Month Only) Expense (That Month Only)

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

2016 General Ending Cash

General ending cash

Budget (16% of 2016 Annual Admin. Expenses)

Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: [email protected]

To protect and preserve Lake Minnetonka.

RECORD OF DECISION

Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Resolution

151

Declaring a Negative Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

5th

Street Ventures, LLC

4681 Shoreline Drive

Spring Park, MN 55331

Dock Reconfiguration and Reconstruction

Finding of Fact

1. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules for Marina Projects, 4410.4300, Subpart 25, the Lake

Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), acting as the Responsible Governmental

Unit (RGU), prepared the mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for

the proposed dock reconfiguration and reconstruction project.

2. The EAW is incorporated by reference in this Record of Decision.

3. As indicated in the EAW, 5th

Street Ventures, LLC proposes to reconfigure and

reconstruct an existing multiple dock licensed site located at 4681 Shoreline Drive,

Spring Park, MN 55384 (within Seton Lake of Lake Minnetonka).

4. The LMCD Board of Directors authorized the submittal of an EAW to the Minnesota

Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on August 10, 2016.

5. A press release announcing the availability of the EAW for public review and comment

was sent to Lakeshore Weekly News on August 15, 2016.

6. The EAW was filed with the EQB and notice for its availability for public review and

comments was published in the EQB Monitor on August 22, 2016. A copy of the EAW

was sent to all persons on the EQB Distribution List and to persons who requested a

copy.

7. The 30-day public review and comment period for the EAW began on August 22, 2016

and ended on September 21, 2016.

8. The LMCD maintained all document, and respective updates, at www.lmcd.org, under

“Hot Topics.”

ITEM 7C

http://www.lmcd.org/

5th Street Ventures, LLC EAW Record of Decision (Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and LMCD Resolution 151) October 12, 2016 Page 2

9. During the 30-day public review and comment period, the LMCD received written

comments on the EAW from four regulatory agencies with two Divisions from one

agency (five total). Comments were received from: 1) MnDOT Metro Division –

Planning, 2) MN DNR (Central Region and Natural Heritage Review), 3) Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency, and 4) Metropolitan Council. The respective comments, with

LMCD’s acknowledgement of receipt, are summarized below and attached:

MnDOT Metro Division – Planning

Michael Corbett, PE, reviewed the EAW and had no concerns.

The LMCD has noted Mr. Corbett’s comments for the record.

MN DNR (Natural Heritage Review, Division of Ecological and Water Resources)

Ms. Lisa Joyal, Endangered Species Review Coordinator, acknowledged receipt of the

subject EAW and its query with the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System

(NHIS). The NHIS query determines if any rare species or other significant natural

features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed

project. It was found that pugnose shiners (Notropis anogenus), a state-listed threatened

fish species, and least darters (Etheostoma microperca), a state-listed fish species of

special concern, have been documented in Lake Minnetonka. The two species are

vulnerable to the removal of aquatic vegetation from lakes, increase in eutrophication

from nutrient enrichment, and increase in water turbidity or siltation that can be caused

from pollutions, pesticides, and runoff.

Ms. Joyal further stated that while the proposed project is unlikely to negatively affect

these species, actions to help improve the habitat conditions for these fish include the

following recommendations: minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers, maintain or

restore lakeshore vegetation, minimize the removal of negative aquatic vegetation, and

maintain effective erosion and sediment control practices.

The NHIS is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department

of Natural Resources and is continually updated as new information becomes available.

It is the most complete source of data on Minnesota’s rare or otherwise significant

species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not

an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features

within the state; acknowledging the possibility that ecologically significant features for

which they have no record may exist within the project area. To this end, if additional

information became available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further

review may be necessary.


For environmental review purposes, the results of their review, specific to the project

location and description provided, are valid for one year. The LMCD is to contact Ms.

Joyal should project details change or for an updated review if construction has not

occurred within one year.

The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the MNDNR as a

whole but only identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and

potential effects of such. It was recommended that the LMCD contact the MN DNR

Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist for the full review.

Contact information was offered for further review and comments.

The LMCD has noted the MN DNR Natural Heritage Review Division’s comments for

the record and has acknowledged the following:

Pugnose shiners (Notropis anogenus), a state-listed threatened fish species, and

least darters (Etheostoma microperca), a state-listed fish species of special

concern, have been documented in Lake Minnetonka. The two species are

vulnerable to the removal of aquatic vegetation from lakes, increase in

eutrophication from nutrient enrichment, and increase in water turbidity or

siltation that can be caused from pollutions, pesticides, and runoff.

If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity

of the project, a further review may be necessary.

The LMCD should contact Ms. Joyal if project details change or if construction is

not completed within one year.

The LMCD did contact the MN DNR Regional Environmental Assessment

Ecologist whose comments are offered within.

MN DNR (Central Region, Division of Ecological and Water Resources)

Ms. Rebecca Horton, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, acknowledged

review of the subject EAW. The following was noted: 1) the MN DNR Area Fisheries

Managers have set work exclusion dates in Public Waters in order to allow for fish

migration and spawning. For Seton Lake, the exclusion dates are April 1st to June 30

th

and 2) the MN DNR acknowledged there are no known rare species that will likely be

negatively affected by this project, Ms. Horton recommended the proposer recognize the

Natural Heritage review’s comments and act to improve habitat for the two state listed

species that are known to occur in the vicinity of the project; acknowledging

appreciation, in advance, for those efforts. Contact information was offered for further

questions or comments.

The LMCD has noted the MN DNR’s comments for the record and will notify the

proposer of the work exclusion dates of April 1st to June 30

th and their recommendation


to address the actions outlined by the Heritage Review to improve habitat for the two

state listed species.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Ms. Karen Kromar, Planner Principal, Environmental Review Unit, Resource

Management and Assistance Division, acknowledged receipt and review of the subject

EAW. Ms. Kromar further acknowledged that staff had no comments at this time.

Ms. Kromar requested a copy of the Record of Decision and stated that their

communication does not constitute approval by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

of any or all elements of the project for the purpose of pending or further permit action(s)

by the Agency. She further stated that it is the responsibility of the project proposer to

secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions.

Contact information was offered for further review and comments.

The LMCD has noted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s comments for the

record and will notify the proposer of their permitting responsibilities as noted above.

Metropolitan Council

Ms. Lisa Beth Barajas, Manager, Local Planning Assistance, acknowledged receipt of the

subject EAW. The Council staff reviewed the EAW’s accuracy, completeness, potential

impacts, and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Council found that

the proposed project was consistent with regional policies and an EIS was not needed for

regional purposes. Additional comments offered included:

The approved site plan identified the location of vegetated shoreline to the south

of the dock facility to be much closer in proximity to the dock than in the

proposed site plan. It was their understanding that the shoreline location is due to

that shoreline being part of the perimeter of a floating bog that exists within the

general area. Ms. Barajas documented that there was a high likelihood that the

bog could float off of its previously anchored position and migrate north towards

the channel and the newly proposed dock structures where it existed in the late

1950’s through the 1990’s.

That Hennepin County Environment and Energy staff, who maintains Seton

Channel open for navigational purposes, indicated that the bog tends to change in

size and location from year to year but has continued to maintain within the

channel for at least the last 60 years (confirmed by aerial photos).

Conditions of sufficient Lake level rise for the bog to become unanchored and

move during any particular summer season have increased during the last couple

of decades due to significant increases in the frequency of very heavy and

extreme precipitation events.


It is their understanding that the anchoring of the bog is costly and limited to open

water season only.

It is their Council staff’s recommendation that a license for the dock facility

expansion only be granted if the commercial marina owner agrees to be

financially responsible for any facility damage resulting from “natural” bog

migration and the cost of moving/anchoring the bog during any future boating

season (with any necessary approvals) should it migrate into the dock facility.

The Council will take no formal action on the EAW and contact information was

provided.

The LMCD has noted Metropolitan Council’s comments for the record.

Conclusions

The LMCD has fulfilled all applicable procedural requirements of law and rule regarding the

determination of need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed

reconfiguration and reconstruction project at Howard’s Point Marina.

1. The proposed project has been evaluated by the public and the LMCD to determine

potential environmental effects. Based on the findings and record in this matter, the

LMCD has determined that the proposed project does not have the potential for

significant environmental effects. LMCD Resolution 151, which is attached to this

Record of Decision, was approved by the LMCD Board of Directors on October 12, 2016

declaring a negative need for an EIS.

2. A copy of this RGU Record of Decision is being provided, within five days, to all

persons on the EQB Distribution List, to persons commenting, and to persons who

requested a copy. This Record of Decision will also be available on the LMCD’s

website.

____________________________________________ ____________

Emily Herman , Administrative Assistant/Technician Date

To/Through Vickie Schleuning, Executive Director


RGU Representative

of 2

STATE OF MINNESOTA


RESOLUTION 151

A RESOLUTION ORDERING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NEED FOR AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 5th

STREET VENTURES, LLC

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

WHEREAS, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) is the Responsible

Governmental Unit (RGU) in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet

(EAW) for proposed dock reconfiguration and reconstruction project at 5th

Street Ventures, LLC;

and

WHEREAS, the LMCD has submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the

EAW distribution list, publishing EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on August 22, 2016, all

of which were done in accordance with applicable State laws, rules, and regulations; and

WHEREAS, the 30-day comment period ended on September 21, 2016, with four public

agencies commenting (two Divisions within one); and

WHEREAS, the LMCD acknowledges the comments from MnDOT Metro Division

(Planning), Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR)

Central Region and Natural Heritage Review, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and

WHEREAS, the comments received do not support a need for an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) on the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, the LMCD has considered the comments that were received and shall

complete the Record of Decision supporting the declaration of negative need, including

responses to the commenting public agencies.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the LMCD has

made a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for 5th

Street Ventures, LLC proposed dock

reconfiguration and reconstruction project.

of 2

ADOPTED by the Board this 12th

day of October, 2016.

_____________________________

James Jay Green, Chair

ATTEST:

_______________________________

Gregory J. Thomas, Secretary

of 2

DATE: October 14, 2016

TO: LMCD Member Cities

FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Executive Director

SUBJECT: Appointment of 2017 LMCD Board Members

The terms for some members of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors will expire January 31, 2017. Terms on the LMCD Board run from February 1st through January 31st of the following year. The state enabling LMCD legislation calls for Board members to be appointed by their respective member cities for a three-year term, with no term limits. If necessary, a city does have the ability to recall its member anytime and appoint another member for the remainder of the three-year term. Some cities have made one-year appointments. Because of the uniqueness of Lake Minnetonka and the important application of the ordinances, it would be beneficial to have the Directors serve multiple years. As such, we hope that your current Director will consider serving another term. We appreciate their time and dedication to preserve and enhance the Lake Minnetonka experience.

At this time, the cities with the 2017 expiration terms are requested to reappoint or appoint new members to the Board of Directors. A list of the City appointment terms is provided in the table below.

2017- Appointments Requested 2018 2019 Deborah Zorn, Vice Chair- City of Shorewood

Jay Green, Chair- City of Mound Dennis Klohs, City of Minnetonka Beach

Gregg Thomas, Secretary- City of Tonka Bay Dan Baasen, City of Wayzata Sue Shuff, City of Minnetonka

Chris Jewett, Treasurer- City of Deephaven Gary Hughes, City of Spring Park

Ann Hoelscher, City of Victoria Gregg Prest, City of Excelsior

Gabriel Jabbour, City of Orono

Fred Meyer, City of Woodland

Brett Niccum, City of Minnetrista

Rob Roy, City of Greenwood

This past year, the overall attendance of the Board Members was good. The individual Board Member attendance records for the LMCD Regular meetings are provided below. Members may also have

ITEM 7D

Appointment of 2017 LMCD Board Members October 14, 2016

Page 2 of 2

attended Special Meetings, Workgroups, Committees, or events. The attendance records for Special Meetings are not included; fewer meetings were held due to the operational and format change for the second board meeting.

Member City Board Member

Number of

Meetings

Attended

Total

Meetings

Rate of

Attendance

(Percentage)

Deephaven Chris Jewett 12 20 60

Gregg Prest 6 8 75

Jennifer Caron 3 8 38

Jeff Morris 1 1 100

Greenwood Rob Roy 15 20 75

Minnetonka Sue Shuff 20 20 100

Minnetonka Beach Dennis Klohs 16 20 80

Minnetrista Bret Niccum 15 20 75

Mound Jay Green 20 20 100

Orono Gabriel Jabbour 20 20 100

Shorewood Deborah Zorn 17 20 85

Spring Park Gary Hughes 19 20 95

Tonka Bay Gregg Thomas 15 20 75

Victoria Ann Hoelscher 17 20 85

Wayzata Dan Baasen 16 20 80

Fred Meyer 11 12 92

James Doak 6 7 86

LMCD Member Attendance

Regular Board Meetings October 14, 2015 to September 28, 2016

Excelsior

Woodland Please let me know your city’s appointments for 2017 by December 31, 2016. Their appointment will start February 1, 2017. I look forward to working with your city in the coming year. If you have questions, please contact me at (952) 745-0789. Sincerely, Vickie Schleuning Executive Director



2016 City of Excelsior (PUD) Mandatory Environmental Assessment

Worksheet (EAW) Timeline

Date Activity 10/12 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board review &

authorization of draft EAW document

10/13 1. Send press release to Lakeshore Weekly News

2. Submit notice to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) forpublication in 10/24 EQB Monitor (Submission deadline 10/17)

3. Distribute EAW to official EQB distribution list

4. Submit letter to Natural Heritage Info System

5. Post on Hot topics

10/17 Confirm EAW was published by this deadline.

10/24 Publication date of EAW on EQB Monitor

11/23 30 day EQB comment period ends

12/14 Decision made on need for environmental impact statement (EIS) at Regular LMCD Board Meeting

12/15 1. Distribute notice of EIS need decision (EAW distribution list &anyone else who submitted timely & substantive comments)

2. Submit EIS need decision to EQB for publication in 12/26 EQBMonitor (Submission deadline for publication is 12/19)

3. Update Hot Topics

12/19 Confirm EIS need decision was publish by this deadline

Send 1/11/17 public hearing notice for publication in LWN 12/27 edition (safe date for holiday schedule changes).

1/11/17 Hold Public Hearing on Application

ITEM 10A

City of Excelsior (Multiple Dock PUD) EAW Page 1 of 15

July 2013 version (from EQB website)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at

the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: The EQB webpage of Environmental Review

Guidance Documents / http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The

EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant

environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for

completing the EAW form.

Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be

addresses collectively under EAW Item 19.

Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period

following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and

completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for

an EIS.

1. Project title: City of Excelsior

2. Proposer: City of Excelsior 3. RGU: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District

Contact person: Kristi Luger Contact person: Emily Herman

Title: City Manager Title: Administrative Assistant/Technician

Address: 339 Third Street Address: 5341 Maywood Road, Suite 200

City, State, ZIP: Excelsior, MN 55331 City, State, ZIP: Mound, MN 55364

Phone: (952) 474-5233 Phone: (952) 745-0789

Fax: (952) 474-6300 Fax: (952) 745-9085

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

4. Reason for EAW Preparation (check one)

Required: Discretionary:

O EIS Scoping O Citizen petition

X Mandatory EAW O RGU discretion

O Proposer initiated

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):

4410.4300, subpart 25 and subpart name: Marinas & Harbors.

Construction or expansion of a marina or harbor that results in a 20,000 or more square foot total

or a 20,000 or more square foot increase of water surface area used temporarily or permanently for

docks, docking, or maneuvering of watercraft; the local government shall be the RGU.

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm


5. Project Location (two parcels) County: Hennepin

City/Township: Excelsior

Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

399 Lake Street, 55331

PLS Location: 204

Tax Parcel Number: 3411723110002

GPS Coordinates: N: Latitude 44.904625 , W: Longitude -93.565136

The Commons

PLS Location: Document #9980985. AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 135 HENNEPIN

COUNTY, MINN - Block: NONE - Lot(s) 160; S34/T117/R23 - QQQ(s) NENE;

SHELDONS SUBDIVISIONS OF LOTS 56 TO 60 IN THE VILLAGE OF EXCELSIOR

AND OF LOTS 1 TO 5 AND 24 TO 27 AND 57 IN SNELLS ADDITION TO EXCELSIOR

& OF THE TRACT BETWEEN THESE LOTS AND LAKE MINNETONKA - Block: 3 -

Lot(s) 7, 8

Tax Parcel Number: None

GPS Coordinates: N: Latitude 44.906894, W: -93.566855

At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:

County map showing the general location of the project; U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project

boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and

Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site

plan and post- construction site plan.

6. Project Description

a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50

words).

The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) is anticipating the receipt of a new

multiple dock municipal planned unit development (PUD) license application from the

City of Excelsior. The proposal would be to: 1) expand Piers 3, 4 and 5 within their

“Commons” area to just under 200’ out from the shore, 2) add additional watercraft

density, and 3) congregating transient watercraft storage to one specific area.

b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction,

including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the

existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will

cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications


to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or

remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.

The City of Excelsior is proposing to submit a new multiple dock municipal planned unit

development (PUD) license application. The proposal would be to divide their single

multiple dock license into two separate licenses. The proposed project within this EAW

would provide for the multiple dock and PUD license expanding over 20,000 square feet

within the two parcels documented under #5 above. This project would provide for: 1) the

expansion of Piers 3, 4 and 5 within their “Commons” area to just under 200’ out from the

shore, 2) add an estimated 30 additional boat storage units (BSU) to those piers, and 3)

congregating transient watercraft storage to one specific area. Please see Approved and

Proposed site plans within.

Piers 3, 4 and 5 are the furthest dock structures to the west. Their BSU size will be

maintained at 22’ wide and 24’ long. Each pier is currently approved for the storage of 14

BSUs. The proposer would extend the three piers out to an estimated 180’; providing for

the remaining piers to remain at their original length.

The current license also provides for eight transient BSUs within Pier 1 (T-1 to T8) and an

additional six within the furthest east structure with the triangular tip. The proposal would

provide for Pier 1 to be designated to transient storage (proposed T1 to T14), as well as

remain with the original transient BSUs within the furthest east structure.

The City of Excelsior is currently approved for 128 BSU on 3,120 feet of 929.4’ of

shoreline. They are documented as legal, conforming site and maintain a watercraft

density of 1:24 through the issuance of a Special Density License.

The City of Excelsior maintains a separate District Mooring Area license issued by the

LMCD. This site is legal, non-conforming that is approved for the mooring of 12

watercraft that expand a maximum 225 out from the shoreline of the Commons area. This

licensed site has been in existence since the early 1970s and is not allowed to expand. Nor

does this site touch the shoreline of the “Commons” area. Staff has confirmed with a staff

member of the Environmental Quality Board that this licensed area is not required to be

tied to the EAW as it is a separately licensed site that is not expanding through the

proposed project.

LMCD Code of Ordinances provides for the issuance of a Municipal Planned Unit Development

Dock License with the ability to expand the dock structure and watercraft storage out to 200’

into the water subject maintaining: 1) at lease 200’ of continuous shoreline, 2) equal the amount

of shoreline left untouched with all structures and watercraft contained within one of the two

dock use areas (DUA).

The City of Excelsior is dedicating an estimated 2,000 feet of shoreline to the PUD. The lateral

extension of the dock structure is estimated at 680 feet; providing for more than double the

amount of shoreline dedicated as required to apply for a PUD license.

This mandatory EAW is directed exclusively to the proposed PUD licensed area on


Excelsior Bay. It does not address:

Issues other than those associated with the water and the environment at or below

929.4 N.G.V.D. on the Lake, the ordinary high water mark established by the State

of Minnesota for Lake Minnetonka.

The proposed Site 2 license as described above.

The approved District Mooring Area.

Construction of the proposed expansion will consist of permanent machine-installed

pilings for structure support, with installation to occur in early 2017 through the ice. Noise

from the pile driving will occur during the construction of the proposed project.

Lake Minnetonka is a designated infested water containing Eurasian Watermilfoil, zebra

mussels, and flowering rush. Proper measures will be taken to mitigate spread by

thoroughly inspecting and cleaning all equipment prior to placement of any structure into

the water. The dock installer utilized for this project will maintain a Lake Service Provider

certification by the MN DNR.

LMCD records indicate that a mandatory EAW was performed in 1996 for the expansion

of the triangular pier directly to the east of the dedicated BSUs for the storage of charter

boats (see Approved site plan). This pier extension was added on to provide a safe area for

embarking and disembarking passengers for chartered excursions (also licensed by the

LCMD). Specifically, this addition provide for the operation of a licensed chartered steam

boat “Minnehaha.” This EAW received a negative declaration on the need for an

environmental Impact Statement for the City of Excelsior’s EAW. LMCD staff has chosen

to proceed with an EAW encompassing the square footage previously documented.

Water surface area occupied by the proposed docks, including dock structure and

maneuvering space, is 74,558 square feet. Further details of these calculations are

outlined in Attachment One.

c. Project magnitude:

Construction/ Infrastructure Elements Size

Total Project Acreage Linear project length Number and type of residential units Commercial building area (in square feet) Industrial building area (in square feet) Institutional building area (in square feet) Other uses – specify (in square feet) Structure height(s)

This Section deals with land construction information that is not related to docks placed in

the water. The project area is applicable to the extent of the water surface covered by the

dock structure and maneuvering space identified in Section 6b. Total project area of water

surface occupied by the proposed expansion project is 74,558 square feet.


d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit,

explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.

The LMCD is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota under Minnesota Statutes

Section 103B.605, Subdivision 1. One of the powers of the district is to regulate the

storage of watercraft and structures within the Lake. In doing so, the LMCD licenses site

that maintain five or more restricted watercraft (residential, municipal, marina, homeowner

association, etc.). To this end, the RGU requires a license from the City of Excelsior for

their proposed project. This project will provide greater access to the Lake for the public.

Piers 3, 4, and 5 would increase docking and watercraft storage availability to their local

residents and provide for four additional transient BSUs to the general Lake users.

e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property

planned or likely to happen? If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to

present project, timeline and plans for environmental review.

X Yes No

Not specifically a future stage. However the RGU would point out that the licensee will

also be applying for a Special Density License. The City of Excelsior currently maintains

one; however, with the division of their currently approved license, each separate licensed

site will require a newly issued license.

The RGU’s general watercraft storage density regulation is one boat per 50 feet of

shoreline (1:50’). The Special Density License provides for sites that can demonstrate

instances where increased watercraft storage density may be clearly demonstrated to be a

benefit to the Lake and to the most general public use of the Lake. This process requires

the licensee to provide amenities (via a point scale) that are available to the public.

Amenity groups established for license consideration include Public Access,

Environmental Protection (over and above city and other governmental agencies minimum

requirements), and Public Service. If this license is approved by the RGU based on

meeting the required amenity points, the site may store up to one boat per 10 feet of

shoreline (1:10’).

The proposer will have an estimated 2,000 feet of shoreline established for this site.

Although 50% of the shoreline will remain free of structure and storage, the licensed site

could technically expand their density up to 200 vs. the proposed 144 for the PUD site.

The proposer would have the future ability to consider expanding within the proposed

licensed area or adjust the shoreline buffer mark. The maximum dock structure length

expansion is 200’. Either way, a new license would be required by the LMCD for Board

consideration.

f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project?

If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.

Yes X No


7. Cover types

Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after

development:

Cover Type Before After Cover Type Before After

Wetlands Lawn/landscaping Deep water/streams Impervious surface Wooded/forest Stormwater Pond Brush/Grassland Other (describe) Cropland

TOTAL

This entire section is N/A.

8. Permits and approvals required

List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial

assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental

review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including

bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are

prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.

Unit of Government Type of Application Status

LMCD New Multiple Dock License Pending EAW MN DNR General Permit with LMCD Pending EAW

Note: Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to

individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in

response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make

sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19.

The RGU will conduct extensive review of this proposal with the proposer during the general

review of the multiple dock and PUD license application. The RGU will hold a public

hearing, with the further discussion and analysis by the Board of Directors scheduled pending

results of this EAW.

9. Land use

a. Describe:


i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site,

including parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.

Two parcels will be associated with this proposed project (as listed above). 399 Lake

Street is vacant lakeshore. The “Commons” does not have platted results; however, it

is owned by the residents of the City of Excelsior and under the operation of the City of

Excelsior. In quoting the city’s website, “The Excelsior Commons and Port of

Excelsior are historic, dating to the origins of the city, and are widely recognized as

Excelsior’s chief assets. The 13-acre park includes open recreation areas, picnic sites,

playgrounds, two swimming beaches, tennis courts, baseball fields, a band shell,

bathhouse, public restrooms, docks, buoys, and docking for public excursion boats that

provide lake access for those who do not own personal boats.

In addition to traditional park uses such as picnics and family gatherings, the Excelsior

Commons and Port of Excelsior serve diverse recreational opportunities for all age

groups with the annual Art Fair, Fourth of July celebration, organized sports, and other

large events.”

Residential living and commercial enterprises are blocks away from both noted parcels,

except condominiums otherwise referenced within the document.

ii. Plans: describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available)

and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a

local, regional, state, or federal agency.

Dock structures on Lake Minnetonka are subject to a water resources management plan

of the RGU, namely its "Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka;" dock structure

ordinances, and boat density policies. Expansion of the proposed project is feasible as

described under 6e above.

iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild

and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.

This section is N/A.

b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in

Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.

The LMCD defines the dock use area (DUA) of all sites maintaining 929.4 feet of

lakeshore. This process provides for defined setbacks and dock length restrictions

for the storage of all structures. Whether the nearby land uses are zoned commercial

or residential, they are subject to the defined regulations as outlined in Chapter 2 of

the LMCD Code of Ordinances; specifically sections 2.01 and 2.02.

Excelsior Bay consists of multiple licensed sites by the RGU (two Lake accessed


restaurants that provide transient watercraft storage, two marinas, condominiums,

and residential living. The proposed use is consistent with the current use with

expansion of the docks adjacent to the park use area.

Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential

incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.

The City of Excelsior has maintained a multiple dock and district mooring area license

since the late 1970’s. The PUD ordinance provides municipalities the ability to

extend their dock structure and watercraft storage out further into the Lake (a cluster

effect) in an effort to leave shoreline in its natural state. Per current LMCD Code,

the proposer would also have the ability to continue to expand along the shoreline.

The proposer has chosen not to expand to maximum density at this time.

10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms

a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any

susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,

unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karsts conditions. Discuss any limitations of these

features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify

any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.

b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications

and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site

conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as

steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil

excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between

construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify

measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including

stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related

to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.

NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydro geologic investigation assessing

the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create

an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water.

Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be

consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in

EAW Item 10.



11. Water resources

a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below:

i. Surface water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial

ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake,

wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource

value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the

current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project.

Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.

The project is in Excelsior Bay, part of Lake Minnetonka (27013300).

ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if

project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite

and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there

are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine

this.


b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or

mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.

i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and

composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater

produced or treated at the site.

(1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any

pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water

and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of,

municipal wastewater infrastructure.

(2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),

describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for

such a system.

(3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater

treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent

limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or

groundwater from wastewater discharges.



ii. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior

to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff

from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving

waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe

stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff

controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff.

Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to

address soil limitations during and after project construction.


iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or

groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use

and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required.

Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water

supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or

required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental

effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources

available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate

environmental effects from the water appropriation.


iv. Surface Waters

(1) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland

features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative

removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical

modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed

wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid

(e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate

environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory

wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor

or major watershed, and identify those probable locations.

(2) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to

surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels,

county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation,

dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and


riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from

physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in- water Best

Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize

turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how

the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body,

including current and projected watercraft usage.

The proposed plan includes expansion of boat storage units within LMCD code

requirements. It is not anticipated all watercraft would be operated simultaneously

on the lake.

12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes

a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental

hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water

contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks,

and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from

pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction

and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from

existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a

Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.

b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes

generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method

of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage

and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the

generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.

c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous

materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including

method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below

ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental

effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to

avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of

chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include

development of a spill prevention plan.

d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes

generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of

disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling,

storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects


from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and

recycling.


13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features)

a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the

site.

b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern)

species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of

Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close

proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA) and/or

correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained and attach the

Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species

survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.

c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems

may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of

invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects

to known threatened and endangered species.

d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects

to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.

Fish, wildlife, and habitats on or near the site are consistent with other areas of Lake

Minnetonka. Therefore, staff believes the proposed project would have little to no impact.

The area where the new docks and slips will be installed is where the existing structures

have been in existence for many years; providing for three piers extending an additional 95

feet out into the Lake.

As part of this process, the preparer will notify a number of regulating agencies, including

a Natural Heritage review.

14. Historic properties

Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties

on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact

areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during

project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize,

or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.


The RGU, through distribution of this EAW, will confirm there are no properties listed in

the Register of Historic Places and no known archaeological properties in the area that will

be affected by this project.

15. Visual

Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related

visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual

effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.

Lights may be visible from dock lighting. The extent of the light which may be used on a

licensed multiple dock facility is a matter for control by the RGU.

16. Air

a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of

any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any

hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects

to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory

criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air

quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other

measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from

stationary source emissions.


b. Vehicle emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air

emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify

measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that

will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.


c. Dust and odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of

dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may

be discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the

project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will

be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.


17. Noise


Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated

during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the

project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors,

3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will

be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.

Noise may be generated during the installation of the dock structures. Based on the

proposal, minimal to no greater noise levels are anticipated to be generated during the

normal operation of the marina.

18. Transportation

a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1)

existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic

generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4)

indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of

transit and/or other alternative transportation modes.

b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic

improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional

transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total

daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW.

Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of

Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: Minnesota

Department of Transportation Access Management Resources

/http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance.

c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation

effects.

The proposed project will be constructed within the waters of Lake Minnetonka. The

expanded structures are the furthest piers along the northern edge of the shoreline with

access to the bay. The addition of four transient BSU does not appear to be a significant

change for the areas’ use.

19. Cumulative potential effects

Note: Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed

under the applicable EAW Items.

All necessary cumulative potential effects analysis information has been presented

item-by-item.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html


a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental

effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative

potential effects.

b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation

has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project

within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above.

c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other

available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for

significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects.

20. Other potential environmental effects

If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19,

describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify

measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.

The RGU does not believe any additional environmental effects will be affected by the

proposed project.

RGU CERTIFICATION

The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment

Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.

I hereby certify that:

The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my

knowledge.

The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or

components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project

as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200,

subparts 9c and 60, respectively.

Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.

Signature: ___________________________________________ October 13, 2016

Emily Herman, Administrative Assistant/Technician Date



ATTACHMENT ONE

Manuevering Space

BSUs (Sq. Ft.) Manuevering Space (Sq. Ft.)

Transient Dock 2,650 2,112

Transient Triangular Pier 3,600 0

Charter C1 and C2 2,295 1,615

Charter C3 and C4 2,550 2,040

Pier 1 5,035 2,112

Pier 2 5,035 2,112

Pier 3 (Approved) 5,035 2,112

Pier 3 (Proposed) 5,035 2,112





Slides (x4) 260 260

Subtotal Square Feet 51,635 22,923

Total Square Feet

City of Excelsior PUD License (Approved and Proposed)

74,558

Village of Excelsior Proposed PUD

Sources: 2016 Hennepin County Interactive Maps

/

Excelsior Bay

West Arm Bay

Seton Lake



2016 Browns Bay Marina (Site 2) Mandatory Environmental Assessment

Worksheet (EAW) Timeline

Date Activity 10/12 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board review &

authorization of draft EAW document

10/13 1. Send press release to Lakeshore Weekly News

2. Submit notice to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) forpublication in 10/24 EQB Monitor (Submission deadline 10/17)

3. Distribute EAW to official EQB distribution list

4. Submit letter to Natural Heritage Info System

5. Post on Hot topics

10/17 Confirm EAW was published by this deadline.

10/24 Publication date of EAW on EQB Monitor

11/23 30 day EQB comment period ends

12/14 Decision made on need for environmental impact statement (EIS) at Regular LMCD Board Meeting

12/15 1. Distribute notice of EIS need decision (EAW distribution list &anyone else who submitted timely & substantive comments)

2. Submit EIS need decision to EQB for publication in 12/26 EQBMonitor (Submission deadline for publication is 12/19)

3. Update Hot Topics

12/19 Confirm EIS need decision was publish by this deadline

Send 1/11/17 public hearing notice for publication in LWN 12/27 edition (safe date for holiday schedule changes).

1/11/17 Hold Public Hearing on Application

ITEM 10A

Browns Bay Marina (Site 2) EAW Page 1 of 15

EQB July 2013 EAW Version

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at

the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: The EQB webpage of Environmental Review

Guidance Documents / http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The

EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant

environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for

completing the EAW form.

Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be

addressed collectively under EAW Item 19.

Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period

following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and

completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for

an EIS.

1. Project title: Browns Bay Marina (Site 2)

2. Proposer: Browns Bay Marina (Site 2) 3. RGU: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District

Contact person: Luke Kujawa Contact person: Emily Herman

Title: Co-Owner Title: Administrative Assistant/Technician

Address: 1444 Shoreline Drive Address: 5341 Maywood Road, Suite 200

City, State, ZIP: Orono, MN 55391 City, State, ZIP: Mound, MN 55364

Phone: (612) 208-1800 Phone: (952) 745-0789

Fax: (612)-208-1779 Fax: (952) 745-9085

E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

4. Reason for EAW Preparation (check one)

Required: Discretionary:

O EIS Scoping O Citizen petition

X Mandatory EAW O RGU discretion

O Proposer initiated

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s):

4410.4300, subpart 25 and subpart name: Marinas & Harbors.

Construction or expansion of a marina or harbor that results in a 20,000 or more square foot total

or a 20,000 or more square foot increase of water surface area used temporarily or permanently for

docks, docking, or maneuvering of watercraft; the local government shall be the RGU.

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm

mailto:[email protected]


5. Project Location (three parcels) County: Hennepin

City/Township: Orono

PLS Location (That Part of Govt. Lot 1, Section 11, Township 117, and Range 23)

Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Minnehaha Creek Watershed District

1444 Shoreline Drive; Parcel with Structure

Tax Parcel Number: 11-117-23-22-0017

GPS Coordinates: N: Latitude 44.961401, W: Longitude -93.558784

1442 Shoreline Drive; Parcel with Dedicated Shoreline Only

Tax Parcel Number 11-117-23-22-0005


1440 Shoreline Drive; Parcel with Dedicated Shoreline Only

Tax Parcel Number 11-117-23-22-0004


At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW:

County map showing the general location of the project; U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries

(photocopy acceptable); and

Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan

and post- construction site plan.

6. Project Description

a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50

words).

The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) is anticipating the receipt of a new

multiple dock license application from Browns Bay Marina (Site 2), located at 1444

Shoreline Drive in Orono, MN 55391. The proposal is to reconfigure the existing non-

permanent dock structures utilizing conforming side setbacks and length dimensions;

resulting in the repeal of a currently approved variance for both the north and south

extended property lines.

The currently approved variance provides for a zero foot setback to the south and the

allowance of three dock fingers to extend over two differently zoned properties. Chapter 2,

Section 2.03, Subd. 9, “Dock Extensions” does not allow a multiple dock or mooring area

or commercial dock to extend across the extended zone line between sites zoned

differently by a municipality. The north extension was allowed based on the proposer

reducing the available dock use area of the subject site by approximately 50% and within


the spirit and intent of the LMCD Code of Ordinances.

This site maintains dock structures and watercraft storage at 1444 Shoreline Drive;

however, the shoreline measurements for 1442 and 1440 Shoreline Drive are also

dedicated to the density offered at 1444 Shoreline Drive.

Proposed site plan is subject to minor changes once the exact dock structure material is

chosen. This could include the reinsertion of some currently approved corner pedestals for

lighting (currently 24 at 2.8' for a total of 67.2') and the widening of the dock structure

based on materials used or installation of pumpers (estimated one foot).

b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction,

including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the

existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will

cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications

to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or

remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.

Browns Bay Marina (Site 2) has proposed to reconfigure its multiple dock facility on

Tanager Bay. Currently, the facility is approved for 40 Boat Storage Units (BSUs) on

approximately 240 feet of continuous shoreline (via the three listed tax parcels noted

above). The site has a BSU density of one for each six feet of continuous shoreline.

The applicant is proposing to submit a new multiple dock license application for the

reconfiguration of the dock structure utilizing LMCD Code Section 2.03, Multiple Docks,

Mooring Areas, Commercial Docks, and Launching Ramps and incorporating Ordinance

217 for Qualified Commercial Marinas.

The proposed project would not increase the number of BSUs. The applicant is proposing

to reconfigure and reconstruct all dock structures within the facility (see Approved and

Proposed Site Plans). Conforming side setbacks would be met on both the northerly and

southerly extended property lines. In utilizing Ordinance 217, the dock structures will be

extended to 200 feet out from the 929.4’ ordinary high water level; maintaining a

conforming length. Currently the site has an approved variance (see 6a). The proposed

reconfiguration would allow this variance to be repealed upon approval of the LMCD

Board of Directors.

A "Qualified Commercial Marina" is a privately owned, revenue producing business that rents

storage for 13 or more watercraft on Lake Minnetonka. A facility does not qualify as a

"Qualified Commercial Marina" unless all rented BSUs on the Lake are freely available to the

public without requiring membership in any organization and without providing any priority or

preferences to members of any organization.

Additional BSUs may be used for purposes other than rental to the general public, subject to

the following limitations:

No more than 20% of all BSUs may be used for any combination of the following uses

(watercraft held for sale by the marina owner, watercraft being repaired by the marina


owner, rental watercraft, emergency storage of a disabled watercraft for up to three

business days, or BSUs made available under a priority or preference to owners of

specified real property under real estate interests created prior to 1995).

No more than the number of BSUs rented to the general public may be used for any

combination of the following uses (transient use, storage of commercial or government

lake maintenance watercraft, or storage of governmental watercraft for emergency

response or law enforcement uses).

This mandatory EAW is directed exclusively to the multiple dock facility on Tanager Bay.

It does not address:

Issues other than those associated with the water and the environment at or below

929.4 N.G.V.D. on the Lake, the ordinary high water mark established by the State

of Minnesota for Lake Minnetonka.

A second marina owned by Browns Bay Marina directly to the east, licensed

separately by the LMCD as Browns Bay Marina (Site 1).

Construction of the proposed expansion project will consist of seasonal dock structures

(designed and constructed to be removed from the Lake on a seasonal basis with all

components capable of removal by manual means without use of power equipment,

machines or tools other than hand held power tools). The applicant does have the ability to

leave the dock structures in place over the winter. Installation is planned for operation by

the 2017 boating season subject to Board approval.

Lake Minnetonka is a designated infested water containing Eurasian Watermilfoil, zebra

mussels, and flowering rush. Proper measures will be taken to mitigate spread by

thoroughly inspecting and cleaning all equipment prior to placement of any structure into

the water. The proposer is MN DNR certified as a Lake Service Provided. Whether the

proposer or a hired contractor installs the dock structures, staff has been assured it will be

performed by a MN DNR certified Lake Service Providers.

LMCD records indicate that a mandatory EAW has not been previously prepared for this

multiple dock facility. Water surface area occupied by the proposed docks, including dock

structure and maneuvering space, is 25,618 square feet. Further details of these

calculations are outlined in Attachment One.

c. Project magnitude:

Construction/ Infrastructure Elements Size

Total Project Acreage Linear project length Number and type of residential units Commercial building area (in square feet) Industrial building area (in square feet) Institutional building area (in square feet) Other uses – specify (in square feet) Structure height(s)


This Section deals with land construction information that is not related to docks placed in

the water. The project area is applicable to the extent of the water surface covered by the

dock structure and maneuvering space identified in Section 6b. Total project area of water

surface occupied by the proposed expansion project is 25,618 square feet.

d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit,

explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.

The LMCD is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota under Minnesota Statutes

Section 103B.605, Subdivision 1. One of the powers of the district is to regulate the

storage of watercraft and structures within the Lake. In doing so, the LMCD licenses sites

(residential, municipal, marina, homeowner association, etc.) that maintain five or more

restricted watercraft. To this end, the RGU requires a license from the proposer for the

expanded project. The proposed project will continue to offer public access to the Lake

while recommending the repeal of the currently approved variance in conforming to the

LMCD Code of Ordinances.

e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property

planned or likely to happen?

O Yes X No

If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans

for environmental review.

f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project?

If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.

X Yes O No

Not specifically a subsequent stage but more an ending to original goals. Prior to 2007, this

site was purchased by the proposer. Since that date, the proposer has rectified a dock

structure that was not in compliance with an originally the approved variance (9/25/85) and

reconfiguring the site to meet that demand. An EAW was contemplated for this process;

however, it was determined by the EQB that due to the reconfiguration meeting the extact

square footage measurements of the previously approved site plan, an EAW was not

required. The site’s density and shoreline measurements remained unchanged.

The approval of the 2014 reconfiguration required the submittal of an as-built survey upon

installation of the structures. Upon receipt the LMCD noted a few minor discrepancies in

the approved plan and worked with the applicant through a Minor Change application to

rectify the matter; providing for the currently approved site plan attached.


7. Cover types

Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after

development:

Cover Type Before After Cover Type Before After

Wetlands Lawn/landscaping Deep water/streams Impervious surface Wooded/forest Stormwater Pond Brush/Grassland Other (describe) Cropland

TOTAL


8. Permits and approvals required

List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial

assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental

review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including

bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are

prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.

Unit of Government Type of Application Status

LMCD New Multiple Dock License Pending EAW MN DNR General Permit with LMCD Pending EAW City of Orono Comments to LMCD Pending EAW

Note: Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to

individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in

response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make

sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19.

The RGU will conduct extensive review of this proposal with the proposer during the general

review of the multiple dock license application. The RGU will hold a public hearing, with the

further discussion and analysis by the Board of Directors scheduled pending results of this

EAW.


9. Land use

a. Describe:

i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site,

including parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.

One “commercial-preferred” parcel and the shoreline of two “residential lake shore”

parcels are associated with this operation (all under common ownership). All

structures and the business operation are operated through the “commercial-preferred”

parcel. The other two sites simply have their shoreline dedicated to the currently

approved license for density purposes. No dock structures or watercraft storage are

allowed to be erected on the two residential lots. One lot currently has a home that is

being rented while the other is unoccupied.

As noted above (under 6b) the proposer owns a marina/boat club directly to the east of

this site. Additionally, a marina is located directly to the south of this site that is not

associated with or owned by the proposer. To the south of 1440 Shoreline Drive and

continuing around Tanager Bay are properties that maintain residential lakeshore.

ii. Plans: describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available)

and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a

local, regional, state, or federal agency.

Dock structures on Lake Minnetonka are subject to a water resources management plan

of the RGU, namely its "Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka;" dock structures

ordinances, and boat density policies. Although the site cannot increase the total

number of BSUs as they were previously approved as a legal, non-conforming site, the

facility can increase the total square footage of the structures and BSUs out to 200'

from shore (as a Qualified Commercial Marina). The RGU has additional ordinances

that establish an authorized dock use area, including length limitations and side setback

requirements.

iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild

and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.


b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in

Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.

The LMCD defines the dock use area (DUA) of all sites maintaining 929.4 feet of

lakeshore. This process provides for defined setbacks and dock length restrictions

for the storage of all structures. Whether the nearby land uses are zoned commercial

or residential, they are subject to the defined regulations as outlined in Chapter 2 of


the LMCD Code of Ordinances; specifically sections 2.01 and 2.02.

The proposal will not increase the watercraft density but will reconstruct and

reconfigure the docks to be conforming with the regulations; resulting in the

proposal to repeal the currently approved variance. The marina activity has been at

this site (under various different owners) since 1977. The uses have been

compatible.

c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential

incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.

The site remains in operation as it has since the late 1977’s. Currently another long-

standing marina is operating directly to the south of this site. A potential positive is that

the proposed reconfiguration will be reducing the number of personal watercraft (PWC)

currently licensed for storage at this site. Although, by Code, the proposer is not limited in

what type of watercraft will be stored at the site, the reduction of PWC could be a positive

aspect to the neighboring residential property owners.

10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms

a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any

susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,

unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karsts conditions. Discuss any limitations of these

features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify

any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.

b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications

and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site

conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as

steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil

excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between

construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify

measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including

stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related

to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.

NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydro geologic investigation assessing

the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create

an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water.

Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be

consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in

EAW Item 10.



11. Water resources

a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below:

i. Surface water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial

ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake,

wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource

value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the

current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project.

Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.

The project is in Tanager Bay, part of Lake Minnetonka (27013300).

ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if

project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite

and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there

are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine

this.


b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or

mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.

i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and

composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater

produced or treated at the site.

(1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any

pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water

and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of,

municipal wastewater infrastructure.

(2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),

describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for

such a system.

(3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater

treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent

limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or

groundwater from wastewater discharges.



ii. Stormwater – Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior

to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff

from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving

waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe

stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff

controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff.

Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to

address soil limitations during and after project construction.


iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or

groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use

and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required.

Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water

supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or

required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental

effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources

available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate

environmental effects from the water appropriation.


iv. Surface Waters

(1) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland

features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative

removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical

modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed

wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid

(e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate

environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory

wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor

or major watershed, and identify those probable locations.

(2) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or

alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent

channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent

inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant


removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects

from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including

in- water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize

turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how

the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body,

including current and projected watercraft usage.

The proposed project will not increase the number of watercraft stored at this

multiple dock facility. Dock structures will only be increasing in square footage by

an estimated 4,702 from the previously approved license.

12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes

a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental

hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water

contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks,

and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from

pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction

and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from

existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a

Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.

b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes

generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method

of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage

and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the

generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.

c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous

materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including

method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below

ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental

effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to

avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of

chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include

development of a spill prevention plan.

d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes

generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of

disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling,

storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects

from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and


recycling.


13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features)

a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the

site.

b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern)

species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of

Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close

proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA) and/or

correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained and attach the

Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species

survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.

c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems

may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of

invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects

to known threatened and endangered species.

d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects

to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.

Fish, wildlife, and habitats on or near the site are consistent with other areas of Lake

Minnetonka. Therefore, staff believes the proposed project would have little to no impact.

The majority of the area where the new docks and slips will be installed is where the

existing structures have been in existence for many years. The extension of length would

be the constant change in that the original 1980’s license provided for an estimated 138

foot dock length from the 929.4’ shoreline. The currently approved license provided for an

extension to 152’ and the proposed site plan offers the maximum qualified length of 200’

as a Qualified Commercial Marina (described above).

As part of this process, the preparer will notify a number of regulating agencies, including

a Natural Heritage review.

14. Historic properties

Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties

on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact

areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during

project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize,


or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.

The RGU, through distribution of this EAW, will confirm there are no properties listed in

the Register of Historic Places and no known archaeological properties in the area that will

be affected by this project.

15. Visual

Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related

visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual

effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.

Lights may be visible from dock lighting. The extent of the light which may be used on a

licensed multiple dock facility is a matter for control by the RGU.

16. Air

a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of

any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any

hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects

to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory

criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air

quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other

measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from

stationary source emissions.


b. Vehicle emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air

emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify

measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that

will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.


c. Dust and odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of

dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may

be discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the

project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will

be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.



17. Noise

Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated

during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the

project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors,

3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will

be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.

Noise may be generated during the installation of the dock structures. No greater noise

will be generated during the normal operation of the marina.

18. Transportation

a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1)

existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic

generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4)

indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of

transit and/or other alternative transportation modes.

b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic

improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional

transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total

daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW.

Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of

Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: Minnesota

Department of Transportation Access Management Resources

/http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance.

c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation

effects.

Shoreline Drive runs north and south of this site. The proposed project will be

constructed within the waters of Lake Minnetonka. Navigation through the channel and

within Tanager Bay will not be affected.

19. Cumulative potential effects

Note: Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed

under the applicable EAW Items.

a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental

effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative

potential effects.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html


b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation

has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project

within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above.

c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other

available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for

significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects.

The proposed project is meeting a long standing goal and the RGU believes

additional phases are not proposed for future expansion. As noted above, the

density of watercraft cannot increase at this site. Additionally, the proposer is

providing shoreline that will remain as a buffer as long as the residential properties

are not zoned commercial. The RGU is not aware of additionally proposed

changes throughout the Bay’s shoreline by other property owners; all of which are

subject to their defined DUA.

20. Other potential environmental effects

If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19,

describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify

measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.

The RGU does not believe any additional environmental effects will be affected by the

proposed project.

RGU CERTIFICATION

The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment

Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.

I hereby certify that:

The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my

knowledge.

The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or

components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project

as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200,

subparts 9c and 60, respectively.

Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.

Signature: ___________________________________________ October 13, 2016

Emily Herman, Administrative Assistant/Technician Date



Browns Bay Marina (Site 2)

Multiple Dock License Dedicated to 1440, 1442, and 1444 Shoreline Drive, Orono

BROWNS BAY MARINA (SITE 2)

1444 Shorelien Drive 1442 Shoreline Drive 1440 Shoreline Drive

ATTACHMENT ONE

Manuevering Space

BSU #'s (W x L) Ft. (Sq. Ft.) Manuevering Space (Sq. Ft.)

1-6 75 x 30 2,250 1,716

7-12 75 x 26 1,950 1,716

13-18 70 x 26 1,820 1,586

19-26 100 x 30 3,000 2,210

27-40 169 x 30 5,070 3,650

Area within crane pad 10 x 65 650 N/A

14,740 10,878

Browns Bay Marina (Site 2) EAW Square Footage Calculations

Dock Structure

25,618

Subtotal Square Feet

Total Square Feet

DATE: October 12, 2016

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Executive Director

SUBJECT: Code Amendment Minor Reconfiguration (Chapter II)

ACTION

Board consideration of adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter II, Section 2.015,

subdivision 4 regarding minor reconfiguration of nonconforming structures.

BACKGROUND

At the September 28, 2016 Board Meeting, the Board directed staff to prepare an ordinance

amendment for nonconforming structures to allow minor reconfiguration to the slip areas under the

minor change application section Chapter II, Section 2.015, subdivision 4. The purpose of the

amendment is to allow an owner to reasonably increase the width of the boat storage unit (boat slip)

on condition that the overall footprint of the dock does not increase, the number of boat storage

units does not increase, and the aggregate length of boat storage units (boat slips) at the dock does

not increase. For example, current code language prohibits an owner from replacing the dock

fingers between slips with Dolphin poles to accommodate the trend toward wider watercraft under

the minor reconfiguration criteria.

The attorney drafted the attached ordinance amendment to the LMCD code of ordinances

regarding minor changes to nonconforming structures. If the Board approves the code

amendment, this situation would be allowed through minor change application to the Executive

Director so long as there is no expansion of the dock footprint, increase in the number of boats,

or increase in aggregate total length of the slips.

BOARD CONSIDERATIONS

How does this amendment affect other properties (48) that are nonconforming structures?

Is there a benefit or negative impact to Lake Minnetonka or its users?

Is the requirement legal, reasonable, and enforceable?

ITEM 10B


STATE OF MINNESOTA

ORDINANCE NO. 230

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE MINNETONKA

CONSERVATION DISTRICT CODE OF ORDINANCES

REGARDING MINOR CHANGES TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT

ORDAINS:

Article I. Legislative Findings. The Board of Directors (“Board”) hereby finds and determines as

follows:

(a) There are approximately forty-eight (48) nonconforming structures on the Lake that are on

file with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (“LMCD”);

(b) Lake Minnetonka Code of Ordinances (“Code”) places reasonable restrictions on

nonconforming structures that allow them to continue, but in a way that also respects other

users of the Lake and the goals and policies of the LMCD;

(c) Chapter II, Section 2.015, Subd. 4 allows owners of nonconforming structures to seek

permission to reconfigure the structure by submitting a minor change application to the

LMCD Executive Director;

(d) The Executive Director may approve such requests if they meet certain conditions listed in

the section including: (2) All watercraft stored at the reconfigured facility conform to the

length limitations of Subdivision 9 of [Section 2.015]; and (6) There is no increase in the

square footage of slips outside of 100 feet from the shoreline at elevation 929.4 NGVD and

that;

(e) The restrictions imposed by these conditions can prohibit minor changes to nonconforming

structures that are objectively reasonable in that they may result in a minor increase in the

square footage of slips, but does not result in an overall increase in the footprint of the

structure;

(f) For example, an owner that wishes to replace the fingers between slips with Dolphin poles

to accommodate the trend toward wider watercraft without increasing the number or length

of the slips, or otherwise increasing the footprint of the structure, is reasonable and is

currently prohibited under condition (6) without reducing some other portion of the structure

to avoid any increase in total square footage;

(g) Owners are also deterred from making minor changes to their nonconforming structures

because doing so requires them, under condition (2), to potentially prohibit or remove

watercraft that have previously been allowed to be stored at the structure;

(h) The Board determines that creating a limited exception to the conditions placed on the

minor change reconfiguration of nonconforming structures that do not increase the footprint

of the structure is in the best interest of the LMCD.

Article II. Exception. Chapter II, Section 2.015, Subdivision 4, of the Lake Minnetonka Code of

Ordinances is hereby amended by adding the double-underlined material as follows:

Minor Change Applications Approved by Executive Director. The Executive Director

may approve reconfiguration of non-conforming structures other than Qualified Commercial

Marinas, Qualified Sailing Schools and Qualified Yacht Clubs without a public hearing and

without Board approval if, in addition to the requirements of Subdivision 3 of this Section, all of

the following conditions are met:

1) The proposed reconfiguration does not include a conversion of slides to slips.

2) All watercraft stored at the reconfigured facility conform to the length limitations of

Subdivision 9 of this Section.

3) There is no substantial change in the amount of the Lake obstructed or occupied by the

dock.

4) There is no substantial change in the use of the dock or type of watercraft stored at the

dock.

5) There is no increase in the number of BSUs stored outside of 100 feet from the shoreline

at elevation 929.4 NGVD.

6) There is no increase in the square footage of slips outside of 100 feet from the shoreline

at elevation 929.4 NGVD.

If a proposed reconfiguration does not, in the reasonable determination of the Executive

Director, result in an increase in the footprint of the nonconforming structure, the Executive

Director may approve the minor change application without requiring compliance with

conditions (2) or (6) above, provided the proposed reconfiguration otherwise complies with the

Code. For the purpose of this provision, the “footprint” of the existing nonconforming structure

shall be the total outside dimensions of all parts of the particular structure being reconfigured.

The term does not include other structures that are not connected to or immediately adjacent to

the structure being reconfigured even if the additional structures are part of the same dock

license. No approval of a minor change application shall be deemed to exclude compliance with

conditions (2) or (6) unless such exclusion is expressly stated in the approval issued by the

Executive Director. A reconfiguration approved under this provision shall not constitute an

expansion of a nonconforming use under Section 2.10, subdivision 3, and if it results in an

increase in slip size, a special density license shall not be required under Section 2.05,

subdivision 9.

The Executive Director may approve reconfiguration of non-conforming Qualified Commercial

Marina structures, Qualified Sailing School structures and Qualified Yacht Club structures

without a public hearing and without Board approval if, in addition to all provisions of

Subdivision 3.a) of this Section, all of the following conditions are met:

1) The proposed reconfiguration does not include a conversion of slides to slips.

2) There is no substantial change in the amount of the Lake obstructed or occupied by the

dock.

The Executive Director may refer any application to the Board and shall refer any application

that the Executive Director proposes to deny.

Article III. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective the day following its publication or a

summary thereof.

Adopted this 12th

day of October, 2016.

BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

James Jay Green, Chair

ATTEST:

Gregory J. Thomas, Secretary

Date of Publication: October 18, 2016

Effective Date: October 19, 2016

ITEM 10C