HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/07
MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 19, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M.
Members present: Dan O'Keefe, Harry Alcorn, Donna Mankowski, Charlene Jasan,
Jim Marchessault.
Others present: Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer, Ross Bintner, Water
Resources Engineer, Ken Hedberg, Council Liaison; Bret Krick, Sheriff deputy;
Michael Peterson, Communications Coordinator.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve prior meeting minutes, Marchessault, Mankowski - Pass (5:0)
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Winter Access Issue: Reconsider recommendation number 1, 150' No
near shore parking ordinance and DNR response.
Bintner gave a summary of the January meeting explaining participants
and overall tone and direction of the discussion. Bintner further
emphasized that the purpose for the feedback was to get the DNR input
on the proposed ordinance prior to council approval.
Mankowski added that the DNR was clear that they would not support
any parking restrictions on the ice. Krick stated that a main reason the
DNR opposed limitations was safety concerns. "Why rescue someone in
forty feet of water, when I can rescue them in five."
Bintner stated that the DNR was also uncomfortable with the perception
that this ordinance would benefit only private landowners and restrict
public rights.
Marchessault asked if Lake Minnetonka has a 150' parking restriction
saying that a resident near the access claimed they did, and if they do
why the double standard?
Bintner stated that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has rules
that dictate how vehicles can move within the 150' shorezone, but that the
rules do not restrict parking in any way. Bintner further stated that he has
confirmed the intent of that language with the District and the Hennepin
1
County Water Patrol as to its practical enforcement. Alcorn asked about
the alternative given by the DNR proposing a snow fence along the shore.
Krick stated that the law enforcement came up with snow fence as an
alternative to try to denote the property line for trespass enforcement, but
acknowledged that the uncertainty of actual public/private land
boundaries along the lake remains a difficulty to enforcement.
Bintner stated that the snow fence idea seemed like the status quo,
because people can already put up a no trespassing sign. The question
of property ownership is still open fence or not.
Mankowski advocated for putting fence on the lake funneling people away
from the shore. Marchessault said the DNR was clear on not allowing
that. Hedberg asked if the City can regulate what might be private land.
O'Keefe and Marchessault said yes, and they do.
Krick stated that any possible ordinance will have to be worded carefully
to not be to expansive or inclusive. Marchessault said that the unknown
ownership issue must be solved.
Alcorn stated that the lack of enforcement due to unknown ownership was
the biggest problem. Krick suggested crafting the ordinance to eliminate
the unknown ownership problem.
Bintner asked if an ordinance is considered would an exception be put in
place for owners to park on their own beach, or if a distinction would be
made for the type of shoreline, beach or lawn.
Krick stated the goal should be to get people to park with all wheels on
the ice.
Jasan said she didn't like the idea of an exception because of the
inconsistency it would create in perception. Krick agreed it might be
confusing.
Jasan stated that the public at the meeting wanted the group to narrow
the definition of the vehicle not to include snowmobiles or A TVs. Krick
agreed.
Alcorn asked what the penalties are for trespass or an ordinance. Bintner
stated that trespass and the public ordinance are both misdemeanor
criminal penalties.
Hedberg asked if we wanted to eliminate parking on the shore, why not
make the restriction broad. Mankowski asked what would happen if the
ice was above 904. Jasan stated that many lake ice uses were not Prior
Lake residents and would not know what the significance of 904.
O'Keefe stated he had a problem with recommending restrictions on what
private property owners can do with their properties. He asked why not
2
just treat the two problem areas that exist today, rather than making it
broad based.
Alcorn asked if limiting parking 100' from the access would be an
acceptable solution, stating that it would solve the problem. Bintner
stated he asked the same of the DNR at the last meeting and they would
not support any ice parking limitations.
O'Keefe asked if then we would be just moving the problem down 100'.
Alcorn stated that it would prevent public from driving on unsure ice.
Bintner stated that any ordinance would be rejected by the DNR if it was
perceived as more dangerous than the status quo.
Krick asked if an ordinance could be worded to eliminate the unknown
ownership by saying "no parking where signs prohibit."
Bintner asked how a private citizen could prevent use of public property,
saying the proposal still leaves the unknown ownership question open.
Krick said it could be done on a permit basis involving the City approving
the signs. Mankowski stated that an opt-in ordinance should be the goal.
Hedberg said that the LAC should ask staff to present options. O'Keefe
said perhaps a 20' inland buffer. Hedberg said the LAC should outline
the goal of parking taking place wholly on the ice and have city staff come
up with a solution that meets all the goal for all property configurations.
Alcorn asked if the question of giving the neighborhood a gate and control
of the gate to the neighborhood was still open. Jasan stated she thought
by making people use a different access than they came in on was a
danger.
Poppler stated that after exploring that possibility the City determined that
it was an unacceptable liability due to trapping people on the lake. Alcorn
asked if the gate should be removed. Bintner stated that the sheriff still
has the option to close the lake entirely and the gate should remain for
that reason.
The LAC asked City staff to give recommendations on the possibility of an
ordinance restricting parking on shore 20' from the edge of ice.
B. Webcam funding and partnership.
Pop pier stated that last year the LAC recommend that the City Council
put money into the City CIP for a webcam and that the Council decided to
fund the option. Staff has been working to put together some locations
for the webcam and has come up with some criteria that are needed for
any webcam. Poppler stated that a building was needed to house the
computer equipment, network access was needed, and power was
needed. Poppler stated that four locations were considered that met the
three criteria.
3
Poppler outlined the four options being, the Crest Water Tower, Sand
Point Beach, Watzl's Beach, and the restaurant on upper Prior Lake,
Captain Jacks.
Mankowski said if Jacks was already doing there own on the south end,
the City should do theirs on the north. Poppler stated that the purpose
might be perceived as private and the camera view might not be as nice
at Captain Jacks.
Popper further outlined each option. Bintner showed photographs of
each option in panorama. Peterson explained that some cameras have
zoom and pan options and that fixed locations can be set for users to
manipulate and choose their view or auto cycle can be set online.
Peterson outlined different camera options and pricing ranging from
$1000 to $2700.
Alcorn asked if there is opportunity to get partnership from the Cable
provider. Poppler said he was exploring that possibility.
LAC consensus was to recommend the Watzel's beach option. (5:0)
LAC recommended budgeting further money for an additional webcam for
the Sand Point location in future years. (5:0)
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. STAFF UPDATE
A. New Council Liaison
Hedberg introduced himself and gave a brief summary of his community
background, interests and areas of focus.
B. New Meeting time and location
LAC Wants to continue to hold its monthly meeting on the third Tuesday
but would like to consider moving the meeting time to 4:30-6:30.
C. April 2 Joint LAC! PAC! CC meeting
D. Winter access issue: Progress on recommendations 2 and 3 to City
Council.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ross Bintner
Water Resources Engineer
4
Memorandum
DATE:
March 16,2007
TO:
Lake Advisory Committee.
FROM:
Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer
cc:
Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
RE:
Requested Staff Recommendation.
HISTORY
At it's February 19, 2007 Meeting the LAC asked for staff to outline and recommend
options to substitute a previous LAC recommendation to City Council that was intended
to provide a shoreline buffer and prevent beach damage from vehicle parking. This
memo serves to outline the issue and provides the LAC with staff's recommendation for
course of action.
On November 6, 2006 Staff presented a list of recommendations to the City Council for
consideration. These three recommendations were intended to help balance the public
and private property concerns regarding winter ice access at Sand Point Beach and
Shady Beach. Recommendation number 1 was presented as follows:
Recommendation I: The Lake Advisory Committee recommends that the City Council
direct staff to create a "no near-shore parking" ordinance a minimum distance of 75 feet
from shore.
What issues the recommendation attempts to mitigate or resolve:
This recommendation is an attempt to give homeowners along the lakeshore a buffer
from vehicles parked on the ice to prevent damage to shore and move noisy activity away
from homes.
Background information as to why the LAC chose this over other alternatives:
The alternative allows the sheriff to regulate parking near the shoreline. Provisions could
be written that regulates how close vehicles can be parked together. The alternative to
this ordinance is the status quo, which the LAC felt was unacceptable.
Issues relating to the recommendation:
Coordination with the DNR and sheriff will be needed to craft an ordinance that is legal
and enforceable. Potential liability issues exists that must be explored before approving a
potential on ice parking ordinance as well.
This recommendation was pursued by the City through the use of an ordinance limiting
parking within 150' of shore. This option was eventually rejected by the DNR.
G:\ Water _ Bodies\LAC\LAC ISSUES\2006\Winter Lake Access\0703 I 6 Staff Recommendation Memo,DOC
MOVING FORWARD
Three goals were ,targeted by the 150 on-ice parking limitation. They were:
. Prevent clustered parking near shore.
. Promote safer use of ice surface.
. Provide a buffer from noise and visual impact of parking on-ice
. Balance motorized and non-motorized recreation by preventing damage to near
shore skating rinks.
. Prevent damage to shorelines from parking on shore
The inability to limit on-ice parking makes meeting the first four goals difficult through
regulation alone. However, it is still possible to regulate parking on shore.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The proposed ordinance would be part of section 901, Traffic Code. This section of the
code references Minnesota statute and defines a motor vehicle as a passenger vehicle
licensed and meant primarily for travel along highways. The definition does not include
snowmobiles or A TVs.
Attached you will find a copy of the proposed ordinance, however in summary it reads:
901.208
Winter Shoreline Parkintl Restrictions: In order to prevent damage to
shoreline or beach and damage to water quality resulting from shoreline
erosion, it is unlawful for any Person to stop, stand or park any Vehicle or
permit it to stand on land within 20' of the shoreline of any Lake. This
restriction will remain in effect from November 1st until March 31st of the
following year. A violation of this subsection shall be a petty misdemeanor.
The ordinance limits parking on land within 20' of the shoreline between November 1
and March 31. It is intended to clear up confusion about property ownership that has
troubled law enforcement regarding trespassing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In the opinion of staff, the need for this ordinance is intermittent and location and
weather dependant. Shoreline damage from parking is an isolated and event specific
occurrence. The winter of 2005-2006 saw beach damage at Sand Point Beach and
after the towing of vehicles that fell through the ice. If this ordinance were in place at
that time, it could have only prevented the damage at Sand Point Beach. The LAC will
have to weigh the potential benefit of this limitation versus the citywide limitation.
G:\ Water _ Bodies\LAC\LAC ISSUES\2006\Winter Lake Access\070316 Staff Recommendation Memo,DOC
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO.1 O?- XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 901 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that:
1. Sections 901.208 through 901.212 are hereby renumbered to be 901.209 through 901.213
respectively, leaving 901.208 unfilled.
2. Section 901.208 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby added and will read thus:
901.208 Winter Shoreline Parkin" Restrictions: In order to prevent damage to
shoreline or beach and damage to water quality resulting from shoreline
erosion, it is unlawful for any Person to stop, stand or park any Vehicle or
permit it to stand on land within 20' of the shoreline of any Lake. This
restriction will remain in effect from November 1st until March 31st of the
following year. A violation of this subsection shall be a petty misdemeanor.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of
,2007.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of
,2007.
Drafted By:
Prior Lake Engineering Department
17073 Adelmann Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
g:\water_bodies\lac\lac issues\2006\winter lake access\070316 proposed ordinance.doc
Memorandum
DATE: February 16, 2007
TO: City Council, Frank Boyles
FROM: Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer
cc: Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer
RE: LAC Webcam recommendation
Last year the Prior Lake Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) recommended funding in the
CIP for a webcam on Prior Lake and the City Council approved funding for this purpose
for 2007.
At its February 19 meeting the LAC reviewed four sites for a webcam meant to feature
the water resources and recreation of the lake. The four sites reviewed were:
1. Crest Avenue water tower.
2. Lakefront Park.
3. Sand Point Park.
4. Captain Jacks.
The criteria used to evaluate the four locations were:
1. Access to power (Critical).
2. Building nearby to house computer equipment (Critical).
3. Access to cable or telephone service (Critical).
4. Shows beauty of Prior Lake.
5. Provides user base and some utility.
6. Secure from vandalism.
7. Within budget.
A good discussion was held to develop a consensus of which site met the criteria the
best. In the end the group chose to recommend the Lakefront Park location due its
desirability, great view, nearby critical infrastructure and multiple user groups served.
The location judged second most appealing was the Sand Point Park location. The LAC
felt strongly enough about this location that they recommended that the City Council
consider future funding for a webcam at this location as well.
The two sites that did not garner as much support were Captain Jacks and the Crest
Avenue water tower. Reasoning behind not choosing Captain Jacks include: While this
could be a good partnership for the City, it may be seen as public financing of a camera
intended for private benefit due to the commercial uses seen for this location.
Furthermore, if a camera is already going in on Upper Prior, more coverage for Prior
Lake in general could be gained from a separate webcam location. Reasoning behind
not choosing the Crest Water Tower include: While this location showed a brilliant view
G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC ISSUES\2007\Webcam Memo,DOC
of northern Prior Lake, it did not feature the lake due to the distant. The view included
many neighborhoods and was not to the personal scale the other locations provided.
In summary, the LAC has asked the staff to:
1. Use 2007 budget dollars to construct a webcam at the point near Watzel's
beach.
2. Consider allocating future dollars to a webcam at Sand Point Beach.
This memorandum is being provided for information purposes.
G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC ISSUES\2007\Webcam Memo,DOC
List of 2006 Accomplishments and potential 2007 goals:
2006 in review:
. Webcam
. Winter lake access issue
o Opened DNR access to provide more options on N. Side oflake.
o Educated about shady access operation hours.
o Public hearing on shady beach access
o Public meeting and DNR and sheriff roundtable on proposed on-ice
parking limitation ordinance.
. Forwarded DNR guidance for dock regulation
. Proclamation and promotion of Lake Cleanup Day
. Support for Lake Associations "Dive the Lake."
. Water quality section of City Website.
. 3 LAC members participated in 2030 vision review.
2006 Goals:
. Review 2030 Vision for guidance.
. Water Quality
o Downtown drainage study.
o Review ofMS4 permit program and effect on water quality.
. Questions of lake level stability.
. Public Education
o Begin televising LAC meetings
o Continue promotion of "Lake Cleanup Day" and "Dive the Lake"
. Surface Water Use
o Continue to track Dock issues.
o Continue to track lake access issues.
G:\Water Bodies\LAC\LAC ISSUES\2007\2006 Review and 2007 Goa1s.doc
/~"
/ o~ 04''',,\
!~m~ \
! fo.., '~\ 4646 Dakota Street S.E.
It) ~ I Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
'\ ,/ -----------,,----------
~Esoi~ /
_/ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
ISSUES:
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
MARCH 5, 2007
5G
ROSS BINTNER, WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE PRIOR LAKE
LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (LAC) AUTHORITY TO HOLD AN ANNUAL
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED BY THE CITY'S GENERAL STORMWATER
PERMIT FOR SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM
(MS4).
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is for City Council to approve a resolution
granting the LAC authority to hold an annual public hearing which is required
by the MS4 permit held by the City.
Historv
The City of Prior Lake holds a General Stormwater Permit for Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). This permit is a requirement of the
Clean Water law and is administered by the State of Minnesota through the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). As part of the permit the City
was required to create a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)
and hold an annual hearing to receive comment on the program. In previous
years a summary of activities was presented to the City Council and the
Council held a public hearing to receive comments on the program. In recent
years there has been no public participation and no comments were received
on the plan.
Current Circumstances
In an effort to promote public awareness and participation the informational
meeting and the public hearing could be held by the LAC to allow more time
and detail in the presentation of the program, and allow the a more informal
opportunity for feedback from residents. The permit does not require that the
City Council hold the public hearing and does not prevent it from being held a
committee level.
The 2007 annual public hearing is planned to take place at the April 1 ih LAC
meeting, held in the City Council chambers.
This effort is intended to follow the goals of 2030 Vision. Through a more
aggressive promotion of the meeting and relating the discussion of
programmatic elements of the SWPPP to the boarder goals of the community
we hope to promote more awareness and elicit participation of residents.
The SWPPP is a rigorous program intended to prevent storm water pollution
and has real financial costs, however; any changes recommended through the
LAC public hearing will first be analyzed by City Staff. Any subsequent
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
modification to the SWPPP, resulting from public input will need to be
approved by the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a resolution granting the LAC authority to hold an annual public
hearing required by the MS4 permit.
2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction.
3. Table this item until some date in the future.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
The Engineering Department recommends Alternative #1.
Steve Albrecht, Public Works Director/City Eng.
/o0R~,.,
It ~ ~ 4646 Dakota Street S,E,
~~~ Prio,Lak:~N 55372-1714
~~/
RESOLUTION 07-035
A RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY FOR THE PRIOR LAKE LAKE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO HOLD AN ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED BY THE CITY
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) PERMIT.
Motion By: LeMair
Second By: Erickson
WHEREAS, The City of Prior Lake holds a MS4 permit that requires an annual public hearing to
take comments on the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), and;
WHEREAS, Citizen awareness and participation is required to successfully implement the SWPPP
and protect water resources, and;
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) covers issues of water resources and
water quality, and;
WHEREAS, The 2030 Vision calls for the coordination of efforts through partnership and outreach
to citizens and the broader community.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The LAC will hereby annually provide a public forum for the review and communication of the
objectives of the SWPPP.
3. The LAC will hereby annually conduct a public hearing to take public comment on the MS4 permit
and program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2007.
Hauaen X Hauaen
Erickson X Erickson
Hedbera X Hedbera
LeMair X LeMair
Millar Absent Millar
YES
NO
U
Frank BO~, City Manager
www.cityofpriorlake.com
.._---_.,.__.._._._---_._~--_._~,----------~-_.~_..__._._~----,_.>._----_._",--- _._---_.~_.._------~------
Phone 952,447,9800 / Fax 952,447,4245
The following is a review of the 2000 "Comprehensive Lake Management Plan for Upper
and Lower Prior Lake" and it's the predecessor "Water Resource Management, A Guide
of a Balanced Future" which was the founding document of the Prior Lake Lake
Advisory Committee.
1990 WRM:
This document was a report prepared after an extended committee process that reviewed
four major categories of issues.
. Water Level
. Water Quality
. Water Use
. Governance
Over 30 people from varied backgrounds took part in the process, including private
citizens, engineers, law enforcement and DNR representatives. The charge laid down
was broad but the consensus was clear: lakes, wetlands and streams are this cities
principal natural resource and make this community special; their protection and
improvement is essential.
This document served to layout a consensus opinion of how to address lake management
issues at the time. The following is a brief point by point summary of major topics under
each category.
2000 CLMP:
This document was a report prepared by the LAC with input from DNR, WD, County
and citizen groups. Under this generation of the report, five categories were established
not including recommendations for implementation or education initiatives there were
also recommended. The categories were ranked by order of importance as determined by
a survey to residents, they were:
1. Water Quality
2. Lake Level Management
3. Surface Water Regulation
4. Shoreland Preservation
5. Land Use Practices
G:\WatecBodies\LAC\LAC ISSUES\2007\2000 CLMP Review.doc