Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/07 ~O~~" 1m' /t: "';;',' '\,'" l.... ,'~ i UtflJ I \ / \ " / \ '/ '".t.r t-" ~~,/ 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 9, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:25 P.M. Members present: Donna Mankowski, Charlene Jasan, Jim Marchessault. Others present: Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer, Warren Erickson, Council Liaison; Bill O'Rourke, Police Chief; Bret Krick, Sheriff deputy; Kevin Studnika, Scott Co Sheriff; Adam Block, DNR Conservation Officer; Lieutenant Scott Carlson, DNR; Kim Elverum, DNR Waters; Cari Grayson, PAC, and 8 members of the public. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve prior meeting minutes, Mankowski, Jasan - Pass (3:0) III. OLD BUSINESS A. Proposed 150' no near-shore parking ordinance. Marchessault introduced the issue saying that new on the table was a response from the DNR on the proposed ordinance and asked Kim Elverum of the DNR to characterize the response. Elverum stated that he forwarded the proposed ordinance to many areas of the DNR including the Commissioner. Responses came back unanimously against the proposed ordinance for three main reasons including; endangering public safety by moving parked vehicles further out on the ice, a reasonable option for safety exists in that the county sheriff can close down the ice, there was a lack of public benefit to the ordinance and it seemed to benefit only a small minority of riparian owners. Marchessault asked for comment from members of the public. A member of the pUblic asked if there were a fishing tournament if there can be a variance from the 15' cluster parking rule. Bintner stated that a variance procedure exists in 703 already and that the Scott Co Sheriff can issue one. www.cityof~riorlake.com __.~. __,._._ .___ .__,.._____~.,.......>__ _.,.__~_ ..____.____,~__.'_..~_"._~.,_'__~_., ~ ..~_._".~__ ._______~,__.._~..,_.., ~~~__~.__,~_.__.. '__,'__ ,____.._ _..~._._'_ .,.,._.,._. ....___..___,.__. _.. '".'.,_,'m.~~. ~._.._._.o____..______,____._~.~_.. Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Marchessault clarified that the ordinance under discussion is not public law, it is only a draft proposed for feedback from the DNA. Erickson asked how enforcement would take place. Krick responded saying that witnessing the parking or getting admission from the parties would be used. Elverum stated that he could find no precedence for this ordinance in local rules and said in his experience communities overreact and pass a comprehensive fix, only to repeal parts or all a few years later. Elverum stated that a step by step approach is recommended over a comprehensive approach. Erickson explained how the City of Prior Lake and homeowners along Shady Beach Trail have been experiencing problems with property damage and noise and litter. Elverum ran through a list of counties that have closed lakes over the course of the last year. Bintner stated that sheriffs are often afraid to close lakes because of the message it seems to send about the safety of the lake and asked if there were any lawsuits to anyone's knowledge on the subject. Elveum stated that he knew of none. Poppler asked if the new sheriff would change the departments position on this topic. Studnika stated that he is reluctant to shut the lake down. A member of the public asked why snowmobiles would be included in the proposed ordinance. Mankowski stated that she said that there may be no reason to prevent snowmobiles from parking within 15' of each other. Public asked how snowmobiles would be warned of the ordinance. Bintner stated that signs would be placed at the public accesses. Public asked if signs would be placed at trails as well. Bintner stated that if the ordinance were passed and approved by the DNR, additional signage at the snowmobiles trails accessing the lakes would make sense if the ordinance included snowmobiles. Elverum said that the weight of snowmobiles parking together isn't a big problem and that they have more problem with them roaming over sections of thin ice. Public asked if he visits a friend on the lake, why he would have to park 150' away if unable to park on the shore. Erickson stated that this ordiance would not be effective on Spring Lake until it was modified at a time when the City of Prior Lake encompasses Spring Lake. Bintner asked if the cluster parking portion of the ordinance had any precedence or support. Elverum stated that the 150' portion had a lot more discussion, however there was some analogy to the 10' separation 2 requirement the DNR enforces for distance between fish houses. Block stated that this was less an issue of weight and safety rather a good neighbor provision so that an ice fisherman cannot fish right on top of someone already there. Block stated that it is enforced on a complaint basis and that he does not go out looking for 10 foot separation. Poppler asked if the same complaint basis could be used for vehicle separation. Block stated that because people leave their vehicle they may know anyone has parked next to them. Elverum stated that he met with Block, Carson, Krick and Studnika to come up with alternatives to the ordinance. The group suggested that homeowner use a snow fence of orange filter fence to mark their shoreline to provide a visible barrier so that parking on-shore is dissuaded. Krick stated that the City of Prior Lake is doing something similar at its beach now. Jasan stated that she didn't believe this solution would solve the problem related to cars parking on the ice, bunching up. O'Rourke stated that the problem of trespass can be simply solved by telling those parked on the shore that they are unwelcome, or by posting a sign stating that. Erickson asked if the sheriff would consider giving a warning or testing the thickness of the ice and set some criteria on when to close a lake. Studnika stated that he is wary of making that determination. Krick stated that recently he put thin ice signs out on the ice near the wagon bridge recently. They stated that permanent signs such as that at shady beach were placed in more locations and many were stolen. Mankowski said the committee will have to take all this information and decide whether to modify its recommendation to the City Council. Marchessault asked for further citizen input. Member of the public responded that he recommended that if a problem exists at Shady Beach, the problem should be treated there, not as a lake-wide solution. Member of the public stated that ice conditions for years have been thin between Sand Point and Shady Beach and that closing one or the other would increase traffic over a riskier ice location. Mankowski asked if a limited parking restriction would be viewed differently by the DNR. Elverum stated that he doubted a parking restriction would meet with any favor at the DNA. O'Rourke stated that he was required by City Council to provide extra enforcement and that between 10 and 11 every night for 10 nights, only 1 person was cited using the access. 3 Sintner recapped the three recommendations that the LAC gave to the City Council and status of each. The first was the ordinance, the second was working to open the DNR access at Sand Point, and the third was increased signage and enforcement. Jasan stated that the first recommendation seemed like it wouldn't work with the DNR requirements. Mankowski said she doubted any further attempt to pass a no-parking limitation on the ice wouldn't be approved by the DNR. Jasan said that an education effort could be tried and just like the lake buoys, after time, people will learn. Bintner asked if the three members present were considering retracting their first recommendation to the Council. All three members concurred, Saying they wanted to discuss further in February with all members present. Erickson stated that in the long term improving the Sand Point Beach access and proving a stable winter access at that location is the most desirable solution. IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. STAFF UPDATE A. Shannon Lotthammer left the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District to take a job at the MPCA. The District is currently working to fill the District Administrator position vacancy. VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ross Bintner Water Resources Engineer 4 Ross Bintner rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: rogerkamin@mchsLcom Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:10 PM Ross Bintner rogerkamin@mchsLcom Re: FW: Rescheduled LAC ~ Re: FW: Rescheduled LAC Hi Ross, Thanks for emailing me to let me know of the next Lake Advisory Committee meeting and also the minutes of the January 9th meeting. I have been out of the state for all of January and most of February, so I was not able to be at the January meeting and will not be able to be at the February meeting either. Since I will not be able to be at the meeting, please pass on my comments to the committee. I cannot express how frustrated I am after reading the minutes to the January 9th meeting. First of all, someone should at least amend the minutes to avoid a very misleading statement. At the bottom of page 3 the last paragraph stated "O'Rourke stated that he was required by the City Council to provide extra enforcement and that between 10 and 11 every night for 10 nights, only 1 person was cited using the access." Someone should add a statement that says, (However, the weather was warm and the ice was thin so there was little or no activity during this period.) Also, the key word in O'Rourke's comment was "cited". He did not use the word "sighted". I want everyone to know that I personally counted 10 vehicles come off the lake one night that I was home a week or so ago, and a police car was there, but they only stopped one vehicle to talk to them. So the lice records do not accurately reflect the actual activity. The records will only show _de citations that the Officers choose to ticket. So please continue to have the City provide greater enforcement of the Shady Beach Trail access road hours. When I was home, I observed that the police where not there at all on one weekend night and there were about 10 cars that came off that night between 10 pm and 11pm. One truck came off at 12:30 am. If each of these vehicles had been ticketed, then the message would get around fast that the City is serious about this. Right now I am disappointed in the lack of tickets being handed out. The minutes were also frustrating in that everyone is again passing the buck. The DNR does not want the 150 foot ordinance and the Sheriff will not close the lake to vehicles even though other Counties do when the ice is really not safe. The DNR expects homeowners to put up unsightly orange fences to prevent parking on shorelines. Also frustrating is that there was no mention in the minutes regarding what Lake Minnetonka is allowed to do. If you refer to their lake ordinances, they require vehicles to traverse 150 feet straight out from their access roads. Did anyone ask the purpose of this ordinance? I would think that this alone would make people think twice before driving out on the ice. Why can't we have this ordinance? Even though it is true that vehicles on Lake Minnetonka can then drive back to within 150 feet of shore to park, they probably are not turning around and driving back to park near the access road. Their ordinance is helping to preserve the ice near the access road by not having cars immediately stopping and just parking near the road. So we should be able to have the DNR approve a similar rule that could be posted. This would deter vehicles from driving out on the ice when they know they have to traverse 150 feet out before coming back to park closer to shore. Another frustrating issue is that the minutes made no mention of Lake Minnetonka's ordinance not allowing vehicles to be left unattended for long periods. What is the purpose of this ordinance? It has to be for safety and not wanting vehicles to fall pugh the ice because owners are expected to be aware if the ice starts to melt around ~ucir vehicles. This is the problem we have. So why can't we have a similar ordinance that says vehicles cannot be left unattended for more than say four hours. If they were required to move their vehicles after four hours, or be ticketed, then they would be able to observe that the ice is melting around their vehicles. This would help avoid the 1 problems of vehicles having to be towed out of the lake over private property. Since Lake Minnetonka has an ordinance, we should be able to have something also. Anything like this would help the situation, but the Sheriff's office must then enforce it so that people get he message. Also frustrating was that there was no mention in the minutes that anyone asked if the City is allowed to have a no parking on shoreline ordinance because it does not need DNR approval at least on the shoreline within say 100 yards (because everyone can visualize the size of a football field) of the City Park access roads. The City should have this authority since these are City Parks (including the Shady Beach Trail Access Road) and not the authority of the DNR because it is not on the ice. If this is not true, then ask yourself why the police has the authority on land and the Sheriff when on ice? The DNR is trying to pass the buck to the homeowner by suggesting unsightly orange fences on their shorelines. Please don't let the City pass the buck also. The City should have some kind of ordinances near these City park access roads. Are you aware that the Shady Beach Access Road does have posted "No Parking" signs on the road itself? So why can't this be expanded to around the shoreline of the access roads? The City then must ticket the violators so that people get the message. Our neighborhood appreciates the efforts that the Committee is making on this. Please seriously consider the suggestions that are made here. Something has to be done and it takes the cooperation of everyone. Please do not pass the buck back to our neighborhoods. Thanks everyone for your help. I wish I could be at your meeting. Roger Kamin 14253 Shady Beach Trail NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 e Cluster parking ordinance should be possible even if it is reduced to 10 feet to be ,.e same as the fish house ordinance. Did anyone ask the DNR if they would go along with that ordinance? This only makes sense for safety reasons and would also be a "good neighbor provision" much the same as the fish house rule. It would give everyone more room for loading and unloading equipment as well as the safety of otherwise too much weight in concentrated areas. 2 Memorandum DATE: December 1,2006 TO: Frank Boyles, City Manager Lake Advisory Committee FROM: Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer RE: Beach Testing Results and Policy Because high bacteria concentration in swimming waters can cause a hazard to public health and welfare, each summer the City of Prior Lake monitors bacteria levels at its two public beaches. A summary sheet is attached showing levels sampled in Prior Lake during the Summer of 2006, generally these levels are low. Details on the testing program follow: Time Frame: Location: Frequency: Criteria: Beach Closure: Testing Method: Second week in June (Beach Opening) through the third week in August (Beach Closing) Sand Point Beach and Watz1's Beach Once every two weeks. Beaches shall be closed if E-Coli concentration average over 126 CFU/lOO m1, or a single test indicates concentrations over 235 CFU/lOO ml. If E-Coli levels show a hazard to public health, the beaches and will be closed until test results show levels the threshold for hazard. The Engineering Division will contact Parks and Recreation to coordinate beach closure. The City will take additional tests daily until levels are shown to be below 100 CFU/100 mI. If an illness that may have been caused by high levels of bacteria is reported, the City will take additional tests to ensure the E-Coli is at a safe level. Samples will be taken by the Engineering Division at the approximate center of the swimming area. The sample will be taken at a depth of 2.5 feet. The closed sample bottle will be submerged to a depth of 6" below the surface of the water. The bottle will be opened under water, collecting the sample. The sample will be taken to the Engineering Division for laboratory pickup. The samples must be tested within 24 hours of the sampling. G:\WatecBodies\lake water quality\E-Coli Testing\Beach Test Results 2006.doc Reporting Test results will be available within one week. If the test results show that the E-Coli levels are becoming elevated, the Engineering Division will request that the laboratory provide test results as soon as they are available. The test results will be tracked and monitored by the Engineering Division. A summary sheet will be distributed at the conclusion of each summer. Test Results: G:\WatecBodies\lake water quality\E-Coli Testing\Beach Test Results 2006.doc 2 . f :2: (f) Colony Forming Units/100 mL OJ OJ ::J 1i Cl.. (f)- "0 Q. OJ ~ CD OJ OJ ..... I\) (') CD I\) .f::>. 0) CD 0 I\) .f::>. 0) CD 0 ::J OJ 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 (') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::J I\) 0 0 w c.... w I\) C :> I\) I\) c.... CD w I\) ~ )> w CDc to I\) 0 0 .f::>. I\) c.... "tI I\) 0 .f::>. C :::::!. ::J 0 c.... .., 0) I\) C r 0 to ::J Q) ~ C.f::>. I\) c.... (1) OJ I\) W ~ rn - (1) 9.0) .f::>. I\) c.... (') . -...J C 2- en III s: 31\) ..... )> .p.. ..... C 0 "C to CD ::J I\) ;:;: 0 0 0 CJ1 :::::!. c.... ::J I\) .f::>. C CO CD :0 (1) w I\) c.... en -...J to I\) C C ;:; )> en -...J CD CJ1c to ..... 1\))> ..... 0 I\)C to I\) 0 0 0) c.... 0) 0) C 0) -...J ::J CD c.... CD I\) I\) C ..... ::J CD CJ1 c.... CJ1C 0 CD '< I\) CJ1 I\)c.... o~ '< . w )> I\) I\) I\)c 0 to 0 )> CDc to ." --.., n \ I , ~~...... \ ',,- (' \ -0 '- ,I ,.../ :::0 - 0 :::0 "..,J....! en ~ / .. 1..'-'.'-' )> ^ I{ 3: m I,' \J m r- . - () Z 0 Q r r- ~ 0 0 ',- (") z -0\ )> - ~ -I n -, -4 0 0 - 0 ::u -, - Z z en G) -0 ::0 0 G) I""; ~ , s: s." ~ 4G~ 898 896 l' c1t)7.{P - - ' ~" /. ~ , I (,t, ;b~ '. -; Ic.J; ( {~:~A') \ .., ~ it ~ _~. r"".~ -'.~ . , 906 904 o~\)) NA;f:-',,( \ k r\ IV""} ,;, 902 :.... ..J c o ;: co > ~ W 900 894 0 LO 0 LO ...... ...... 0 0 0> 0> 0 0 T""' lo' T""' C\J ~ - - - - T""' T""' T""' T""' - - - - T""' T""' T""' T""' t.. i")"/ ~,' \(,~. .~, , () t, .j. I., ~ 1.J .Li) \'f :<.. S"\ '\ From:SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFF / 952 498 8732 09/02/2008 20:03 1305 P.002 DAVE MENDEN · scan COUNTY SHERIFF lJ>..W ENFORCEMENT CENTER. 301 FULLER STREET SOUTH. SHAKOPEE, MN 5~ 911 Emergency Only. (952) 496-8300 . FAX: (952) 496-8305 . www.co.~mn.us September 2, 2006 Prior lake Advisory Committee City of Prior Lake Prior Lake, MN 55372 To the Committee: After nearly completing my second year of water patrol, there are a oouple of changes I would fike the committee to consider with regard to ordinances on the ~. First, I would like to see the speed limit changed in particular after sunset. Currently, ordinances 703.402 and 703.403 read, "from one hour after sunset to sunrise..... I would like to see this changed to read. "From sunset to sunrise: The reason for this is that there are some nights, especially when cloudy, that forty miles per hour (or no speed Omll) is entirely too fast To avoid a serious accident in the future this needs to be changed. There are now too many wBtercraft on the lake at the later hours to justify aHowing these boats to travel that fast Second, I would like to see a phrase added to 703.401. I would like to add, "No person shaH operate a watercraft while towing a person on water skis, inner tube. aquaplane or simUar device while operating between the red and green channel markers directly north and south of the Wagon Bridge.. This would eliminate the problem of people puffing their young kids through that channel and not paying attention, This channel gets very congested at times and I have seen kids fall off of tubes and parents not even rearJZe it until someone got their attention. As you can imagine. this creates a mess when someone makes a u-tum in the middle of the channe~ while towing an Inner tube, to go retrieve their child. This could also be amended to include the channel going into Candy Cove. east of Reed's Island, lord's Street Bridge channel, going intoIout of Mud Bay and the channel markers south of Yacht Club Island. Thirdly. I would like to have a new ordinance stating that no tow-able device is allowed on the lake thaf is designed to ascend of the surface of the water in a manner other than a ski, kneeboard or wakeboard. This would eliminate anyone being able to use a product like the Wego Kite- Tube that has now been taken off the mar1<et due to serious injuries and deaths. Lastly, we should think about doing something about the length of ski ropes. The latest aaze Is called .surfing.. A Very short rope Is used and the person .surfs- on the wake directly behind tt1e boat This is very dangerous because a fall could result in serious injury due to the thR.lSt of some of these larger engines; carbon monoxide poisoning is also a very distinct possibility due to the proximity of the surfer to the exhaust of the engine. Thank you for your time, and feel free to contact me with any questions you may have about any of the changes that I am proposing. Sincerely, ~~ Deputy Bret J. Krick Scott County Sheriffs Office Rec-Safety Division An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer o Printed 011 recycled paper conraining 30% post CnlLWmer content Il'" Page 1 of 1 Ross Bintner From: Ross Bintner Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1 :41 PM To: 'dan.breva@dnr.state.mn.us' Subject: Sand Point Beach Lake Access dan. breva@dnr.state.mn.us Dan, We spoke this morning about maintenance of the Sand Point access on Lower Prior Lake. After we spoke, I went out to visit the access and see the nature of the complaints we have been receiving. I wanted to make you aware of the condition of the access I observed this morning. Currently Lower Prior Lake is at an elevation of 900.93, just shy of its average water level. After visiting this site I conclude that the complaints we are receiving are valid and that the access presents risk to safety and property. I have attached three pictures to illustrate the nature of the complaints. Pictures with file names ending in 20, 24 and 26 are attached. In picture 20 the east dock is shown extending into the water diverging from the concrete pavement blocks that make up the access. Picture 24 shows a space between the dock and the drivable surface approximately 6' wide and a drop from concrete to the lake surface of greater than 1'; this picture was taken from the dock. Picture 26 depicts the end of the concrete pad on the east side and the washout that is occurring at the end of the concrete surface. I agree with your assessment given on the phone that there is washout occurring at the end of the surface; however, the situation today is different from your recollection of your last site visit on two points: There is a large gap between the dock and driving surface and there is a drop-off not only at the end of the surface but on the east side as well. Ross T Bintner, P.E. Water Resources Engineer - City of Prior Lake P: 952.447.9831 F: 952.440.9678 E: rbintner@cityofpriorlake.com 10/3012006 . o N . .,,;.;-.n. ~:' - -- ~'. _. .r- ...: .~':.' : :: ~':>'::~. -~"'...-- "".~:.., ......,,~~ "1JlrI: """;'......... ...,< ~ ~.. Ii-