Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 27 2015 Joint Meeting Work Session O� PR 0 r U 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake,MN 55372 'krvrsso'�P JOINT WORKSHOP PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL & SPRING LAKE TOWN BOARD APRIL 27, 2015, 5 PM PRIOR LAKE CITY HALL, PARKVIEW CONFERENCE ROOM A joint meeting of the Spring Lake Town Board and Prior Lake City Council has been scheduled to provide an opportunity to discuss items of mutual interest. In particular staff will be prepared to update the Board and Council on the following topics: Revision in the process and review of standards related to the Water Surface Use Regulations (WSUM) and Association Dock Slips. The Board and Council may have other topics they may want to discuss including road mainte- nance agreements and development related issues. Below is background information on the WSUM and Association Dock topics. A. Water Surface Use Manaaement(WSUM) Update WSUM is one piece of a suite of regulations that apply to Minnesota lakes and rivers. Local zoning, state and federal water quality rules, and state boating laws all regulate our lakes in different ways. Specific to use are the state boating laws and WSUM. The state boating laws are focused on the boat itself and address some lake use aspects. Specifically they address licensing, re- quired safety equipment, general boat requirements and operation, capacity, Boating While Im- paired (BWI), and towing. WSUM supplements the boating laws by providing a means of regu- lating water use based on local concerns specific to a water body. The goal of water surface use management, as defined by state rules, is to enhance the recrea- tional use, safety, and enjoyment of the water surfaces and to preserve these water resources in a way that reflects the state's paramount concern for the protection of its natural resources. In pursuit of that goal, an ordinance or rule shall: A. Accommodate all compatible recreational uses where practical and feasible; B. Minimize adverse impact on natural resources; C. Minimize conflicts between users in a way that provides for maximum use, safety, and enjoyment; and D. Conform to the state standards. The DNR is granted the authority by state statutes to oversee the creation of local WSUM regu- lations. In turn Counties, Cities, and Towns are given authority to create ordinances to regulate surface uses with the oversight of the state. These authorities are limited to the following areas: A. Type and size of watercraft; B. Type and horsepower of motors; C. Speed of watercraft; D. Time of use; E. Area of use; and F. The conduct of other activities on the water body where necessary to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use The City of Prior Lake has had some form of WSUM regulation in place since the early 1980s. The bulk of the current regulations were enacted in 1994, with relatively minor updates made in 2009. The Scott County Sheriff's Office is responsible for enforcing WSUM regulations and has one full time deputy occasionally supplemented by temporary employees assigned to provide enforcement services on all Scott County lakes and rivers. The City and Township began considering updates to the WSUM regulations for a number of reasons. The flood of 2014 highlighted the lack of any WSUM regulation on Spring Lake. This led to a disjointed process and associated frustrations during the flood and there was feedback to consider permanent rules. In addition there has been ongoing feedback from residents re- garding shoreline erosion issues at any lake level. These complaints have pointed to new use types on the lake since the last significant ordinance revision in 1994. In conjunction with this the Scott County Sheriff's Department has provided feedback expressing a rise in safety concerns. After gathering additional information and considering input from DNR officials, Sheriff's Depart- ment staff, and residents, City and Township staff hosted two public open house meetings to gather additional feedback from community stakeholders relating to our WSUM regulations. Dur- ing the meetings stakeholders were presented with options for WSUM regulation changes that would address public safety and shoreline erosion concerns. Stakeholders were asked to provide input on the potential change options. Stakeholders submitted a vast amount of feedback, the results of which is summarized below. These results are not represented as statistically valid but instead our effort to obtain feedback from as many stakeholders as possible. Feedback Summary The most contentious WSUM issues include area zoning, permanent slow no-wake zones, time of day speed limits, and high water slow no-wake restrictions. The comments received to date indicate the following: ■ Approximately 6%, or about 100, of those invited to the meeting through a mass mailing filled out a comment card ■ About a quarter of the stakeholders support at least one specific new slow no-wake zone within the various bays. ■ About half of the stakeholders support no change ■ About half of the stakeholders would like to revise the current ordinance related to a perma- nent slow no-wake zone. ■ About 2/3 of those with a primary interest in Spring Lake support adding a high water slow no-wake zone to Spring Lake. The total number of stakeholders for this process is unknown, and the reach of the public meet- ings was likely far higher than just the mailing list. Additional stakeholder feedback should be gathered. Policy Issues Several potential policy issues have been identified through the public input process. Themes such as education, enforcement, and lake use conflicts are inherent in many of the topics. Po- tential policy issues to be addressed are listed in no particular order: 1. Emergency high water slow no-wake provision for Spring Lake 2. Lack of WSUM provisions on Spring Lake 3. Public safety 4. Enforcement 5. Impaired waters &water quality 6. Impacts of boat and wind wake 7. Preservation of recreational opportunities Task Force Recommendation Based on the feedback received to date, staff has concluded that additional time is needed to gather information and receive additional stakeholder input. Staff recommends the formation of a WSUM Task Force that would be responsible for studying WSUM issues and making recom- mendations to the Council and Board on any potential ordinance updates and/or policy changes. The composition of the task force will be critical to its success. A balance must be struck to allow for the requisite public input while also considering that this group must be small enough to foster efficient and effective meetings. The following task force membership categories are recom- mended: 1. Active recreation 2. Passive recreation 3. Water quality— Prior Lake 4. Water quality-Spring Lake 5. Prior Lake Association 6. Spring Lake Association 7. Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District 8. Elected officials (one liaison for both City and Town) 9. Public safety (Scott County Sheriff's Department) 10. Technical experts (may include DNR, consultants, attorney, etc.) 11. City/Town staff A representative from each category would attend meetings, perform research and other tasks, and report back to the group. The meeting process is expected to take several months and will address the policy items during a series of at least 6 meetings. If the meetings begin in June 2015, task force recommendations would be brought back to the community for comment during another series of public meetings starting in January 2016. Conclusion It is important for the City and Township to carefully consider any potential changes to WSUM regulation. The recommended task force and extended timeframe will allow staff to respond to community feedback received to date and ultimately to determine which changes to our ordi- nance, if any, are necessary. Any updated ordinance must be well-crafted to address lake use issues but also enforceable in the field. Staff is looking for direction relating to the following items: 1. Process: Should we modify the process and create a task force to further explore WSUM issues? 3 2. Task Force Membership: If a task force is created, are the membership categories pre- sented likely to best-represent the community? 3. Policy Issues: Are there other issues that we should be considering? 4. Timing: Is the timeline outlined reasonable? 5. Spring Lake High Water Provision: Should staff immediately move forward with a public hearing and ordinance revision to address the lack of an emergency high water slow no- wake provision on Spring Lake? B. Association Dock Slips Six members of the Spring Lake Task Force and staff from the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township held their first meeting on April 8, 2015. Task Force members were provided with a brief history of the 2014 marina task force that was assembled to evaluate the City of Prior Lake marina ordinance requirements. Task Force members were informed that the goal of this process is to propose an ordinance which can be adopted by both the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township so both organizations will permit and enforce controlled access lots the same. Task Force members reviewed the current ordinance prior to the meeting. Staff confirmed that the purpose of this task force is only to review controlled access lots on Spring Lake. Controlled access lots on Upper and Lower Prior Lake would not be considered. Identify Issues/ Concerns Task Force members identified issues/concerns with the current ordinance; common themes in- cluded: • Improve the controlled access lot approval process to create buy in from residents. More public involvement should have occurred when the 2014 marina ordinance was adopted. • Reduce the number of slips currently allowed for controlled access lots; one slip per 12.5' provides too many slips. Controlled Access lots should have greater restrictions on the approved number of boat slips compared to residential riparian lots. • Spring Lake is a vulnerable lake. There was concern about Spring Lake becoming too active with boat traffic. • The current ordinance includes very subjective language that can have many interpreta- tions. Specific subjective language related to i) creating a volume of traffic that will be unsafe or cause an undue burden; ii) the facility will not affect the quality of water and ecology of the lake; and iii) the facility... will not be source of annoyance; etc. were refer- enced. • Concerns over alum treatment were noted. One Task Force member commented that the alum treatment was only placed at a 10' depth or greater so boat traffic should not affect it. It was also noted that future phases of alum treatment would be at a shallower depth. • It was noted that the goal of some residents may be to keep boats off the lake, which is not consistent with the DNR goal to encourage use of the public lake. • Lake safety and lake quality are important factors to consider. • Six boat slips per riparian lot seemed too high. The role of the task force to evaluate controlled access lots on Spring Lake only was clarified. Ad- ditional recommendations related to non-controlled access lots, such as limitations on watercraft, lake safety, lake quality, etc., may be offered as part of the final report; however, the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township only requested a review of controlled access lots. 4 Discuss Possible Solutions Task Force members discussed amending the requirement of one boat slip per 12.5' to one boat slip per 18.75'or 20'. Members also discussed requiring a conditional use permit for all controlled access lots to ensure a public approval process. Spring Lake Township commented that the CUP process for the township would be handled by Scott County. Scott County would also need to amend their ordinance. Next Steps Members were encouraged to research regulations of surrounding lakes (Christmas, White Bear, Marion, Minnetonka, etc.) to determine their requirements and approval process. It was noted that Lake Minnetonka may not be a comparable lake to Spring Lake. Task Force members felt Lake Minnetonka is more like Prior Lake with many coves and bays. Resident comments that led to this task force stressed that Spring Lake is an open lake and is not like Prior Lake. Thus, Lake Minnetonka may not be a good comparison. Staff will propose preliminary ordinance amendments for Task Force review and discussion at the next meeting on Wednesday, May 13th at 5:30 p.m. C. Other Discussion Issues At a staff level there has been periodic discussion regarding our ongoing efforts to assist one another on road maintenance issues and in the process assist residents of the city and township. There may be a desire for a more formal agreement in this regard. If this is an area of importance the board and council may wish to discuss. Development in the city or township affect both in numerous ways. The city staff has a brief report to share regarding the status of development in the city which could lead to additional topics. The work session will adjourn at 6:50pm. 5