Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/07 . MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 19, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 4:35 P.M. Members present: Charlene Jasan, Donna Mankowski Jim Marchessault. Others present: Ross Bintner, Water Resources Engineer; Ken Hedberg, Council Liaison. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve prior meeting minutes, Jasan, Mankowski - Pass (3:0) III. OLD BUSINESS . A. "Dive the Lake" event recap. Mankowski gave a summary of the event saying there were 55 divers participating and 17 volunteer boats. The divers filled a 10 yard dumpster with trash. There were also television, radio and newspaper coverage. Bintner added that this was only the second annual event, and that is was a growing event that has the potential to spread into a state wide effort. Mankowski added that the event has already coordinated with the Minnetonka event. Bintner added that the LAC was involved in the early stages of the planning but it was the Lake Association that really pushed forward with planning and organizing the event. Mankowski stated that Captain Jacks, Waste Management, Fongs, the bait shop, T-shirts and more, and many other local businesses were sponsors of this event. . B. Potential Dock Regulation Marchessault introduced the item and asked the Council Liaison, Hedberg to update the LAC. Hedberg stated that the legal advice is scheduled to be heard by Council on July 16th. LAC will be engaged once better direction from the City Attorney is received. Bintner asked if, since some of the LAC discussion is premised on having the legal piece of the puzzle, would it be appropriate to go forward with some discussion lacking that. The current guidance was reviewed by LAC members and some feedback has been proposed. 1 . Hedberg added that the dispute resolution piece would be forthcoming but a clearer policy may be part of the recommendation of the Attorney. Hedberg stated that the current guidelines have some issues with them and may need to be updated. Hedberg asked for staff view of the issue. Bintner summarized the history of the LAC and City dealings with this issue, saying that is was complicated by varying lake levels and the cycle of new homeowners on the lake with different ideas about dock placement. Bintner explained further that in previous attempts to address this issue the LAC has become familiar with legal 'grey areas' in regards to lake lot configurations, property ownership, riparian rights, and the different regulations that surround this area. In its dealing with the on ice parking issue, the same complexity of property rights and ownership were involved. Each time the LAC has come back to the stance that "guidelines" were the preferred solution because putting the City in an enforcement position was always tricky. Bintner elaborated that the LAC has discussed different 'projection methods' of lot line extension or perpendicular to shore and that he found technical issues with both. . Hedberg described his attempt to craft a guideline that would address the complexities of the issue. Hedberg said he stated with a discussion of the premise of Riparian rights and suggests that projection methods can be helpful, but should not be relied on solely because it doesn't seem to match with riparian law. Bintner stated that legally we can research and suggest options, but whatever we come up with will have to be given to a lawyer to make a final decision. What he had read had seemed to agree with Hedberg's interpretation that Riparian rights were a key to the issue. Bintner added that "the public" is given Riparian rights in the same way, when a public Right of way or access is on a lake, we all have the right to use it. Mankowski said she liked the wording in the guidelines forwarded on by Hedberg. Mankowski referred to the complaint list that the City keeps saying that there were more complaints on the issue of private dock rental. Mankowski asked if this was already covered in city regulation. Marchessault added that in a previous meeting it was stated that the DNR still regulates commercial marinas and this problem may fall under their jurisdiction. Bintner stated that it seems like there would be city regulation for the use of a private residence for commercial purposes, but that he would have to check into that with the Planning Department because it was outside his area of expertise. . Hedberg agreed that the City Attorney should confirm that if they have not yet. Mankowski stated that the complaint list seemed to indicate that the City was giving incorrect information on this subject if it is indeed not allowed by City standards. 2 . Jasan stated that of the 14 inquiries, 8 of them are related to the renting of dock spaces and that this was a issue with the public since these beaches seem overcrowded and that sometimes the adjusting of docks is a result of a neighbor crowding or renting more docks in a property and that the next person compensates. Bintner agreed and said that if the issue is one of City process that he could confirm that the ordinance was being followed, short of that he would report back to the LAC next month. Bintner asked if this round of LAC discussion was limited to dock placement. Hedberg stated that the council direction limited it to placement at this time and that this was a issue of enforcement, or lack of and that a code enforcement position is now hired and will be starting soon. IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. STAFF UPDATE . A. Webcam update: Bintner stated that a pole has been placed and the first test of the webcam has been made but there are a few additional technical hurdles that have come up unexpectedly that will need to be addressed. The webcam was open to the LAC and staff to test for a short period and the resolution was surprisingly good. Further testing will be done allowing the LAC or Council to review the setup prior to going live to consider privacy concerns. B. Misinformation in ThisWeek paper about 20' winter on-land parking restriction: Bintner explained that there was an article describing the "on-land" parking restriction recently put into effect in which they got the first three facts in the article. Since the error, three corrections have been place in the paper. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Mankowski mentioned that some new Buoys have been damaged by boats hitting them and that it is illegal to anchor to or tamper with these buoys. VII. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ross Bintner Water Resources Engineer . 3 2007 DOCK INQUIRIES DATE NAME QUESTION RESULT 3/14 Paul Lindquist Dock regulations Sent info 3/26 Sandy (Realtor) Buying empty lot on Lord Gave DNR info. Street to rent out dock space. Was told by another realtor it was legal - no restrictions on renting slips. 4/3 Bonnie Oberitz Dock placement information Sent info. 4/11 Unknown Neighbor renting dock spaces. Faxed info. Did not want to official report at this time. 4/30 Shelly Bush Island View Association Sent info. would like to move docks 5/14/07 Lori Bellen Has boat slip on PL - wanted Gave her DNR boating info. website for info 5/16/07 Stacey Stu1berg Dock/floats and renting slips Faxed info to friends. 5/07 Confidential Multiple docks - placement - DNR/Sheriff bulling neighbors 5/17/07 Confidential Dock extension obstruction DNR/Sheriff navigation (Oakland beach) 5/23/07 Unknown Neighbors renting docks- does not want to formally report at this time. Candy Cove area. 6/1/07 Walk-in Young man just bought lake Info. property and wants to rent docks space - wanted regulations. 6/5/07 Confidential Neighbor using 2 docks- Will get back with wants one removed per code. solution 6/7/07 Unknown Complaint on neighbor renting Pixie Point address 5 dock slips for $2,000 each. Should not be running business in neighborhood. Parking and noise complaints. 6/7/07 Confidential Complaint on 14958 Pixie Will return call Point - renting dock slips. with solution. Visitors tie up dogs and leave - dogs bark all day and night. Trash. Owner believes she is within the law. Docks and Access in Public Waters Do I need a permit for my dock?* No permit is needed to install, construct, or reconstruct your dock on property you own if you comply with the following: . A dock is a narrow platform or structure extending toward the water from the shoreline. A dock may provide access to moored watercraft or deeper water for swimming, fishing, and other recreation. . The structure, other than a watercraft lift or watercraft canopy, is not more than 8 feet wide and is not combined with other similar structures so as to create a larger structure. . The dock is no longer than needed to achieve its intended use, including reaching navigable water depth, The structure is not a hazard to naviga- tion, health, or safety. . The structure will allow the free flow of water beneath it. . The structure is not used or intended as a manna. . The structure is consistent with the guidelines of the local unit of govern- ment. . Docks placed on rock-filled cribs are located only on waters where the bed is predominantly bedrock. Restrictions on docks and other structures* You may not place a dock or other structure in public waters if the structure: . obstructs navigation or creates a hazard; . is detrimental to fish or wildlife habitat or is placed in a posted fish spawning area; . is intended to be used for human habitation; . includes walls, a roof, or sewage facilities; or . is located on property you do not own or have rights to use. '''''ou have questions conceming the contents lis brochure, contact your DNR Area hydrologist. See contact information on reverse side. *Based on Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6115, What you should know about docks and other water access structures Docks and watercraft lifts are commonly used access structures on Minnesota lakes and rivers. If you own waterfront property, a temporary structure that provides access to a lake or river is preferred to a permanent structure. Permanent structures are more likely to sustain ice damage, and a snow-covered structure over the ice poses a hazard to recreation- al vehicle users. The blue box to the left lists installation guidelines for docks and access struc- tures like boat lifts. These guidelines are intended to minimize impacts on water resources and shoreline habitat. If you follow these guidelines, no permit is needed from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Local units of government may have additional dock rules related to public safety and other local issues and should be contacted. A shoreline owner may request a permit to install a dock wider than 8 feet. The permit applicant must show a specific need and show that the wider dock represents the minimal impact solution to that need. Docks serving single- family homes or residential planned unit developments generally will not need a dock wider than 8 feet. Public docks and mooring structures that are otherwise not serving as a marina may need to be a wider structure and will be reviewed individually. Docks that have no permit and that exceed the 8-foot-wide limit are subject to enforcement action, including a citation, an order to remove the dock, and fines for both the landowner and the dock installer. Design and locate your dock and boat lift to avoid interfering with your neigh- bor's use of the water. Docks and boat lifts should be placed so that mooring and maneuvering of watercraft can normally be confined within the property lines if they were extended into the water. This dock is wider than 8 feet, so it needs a DNR permit. Refer to the blue box at left for other guidelines relating to dock permitting. 5-2007 Page 1 of2 Docks and Access in Public Waters 4' 5' I' These two docks do not require a permit because neither is more than 8 feet wide. 5' ~2n8' 12' wider than 8' 10' 20' The configurations above require a permit from the DNR because they are wider than 8 feet. If the dock is designed and used for access to navigable water depth, a DNR permit will rarely be needed. A dock does not need a permit if it is no more than 8 feet wide, is de- signed to simply meet the need of reaching navigable depths, and follows the other guidelines on the front of this brochure. Intensive shoreland development causes deterioration of a lake's ecosystem. Dock installations and their associated uses are factors in this deterioration. Studies of lakes in the Midwest show that docks and boatlifts may shade out important aquatic plants and eliminate critical habitat where fish spawn, feed, grow, and find shelter from predators. Shoreline views may also suffer when large dock systems are installed. Also, there is a growing concern about the private use of the water surface if docks and associated structures extend too far, cover too much surface area, or span the entire owned frontage. The proliferation of dock configurations and dimensions is a topic of concern to the DNR, lake associations, anglers, lakehome owners, and others. Finding the appropriate balance between reasonable access and resource protection requires collaboration by all of those interests and other citizens. Purpose of the dock rules Another issue of concern is any attempt to control access to a lake bed or water surface. Even when land ownership extends into the lake bed, all who own land abutting the water or gain legal access have the right to use the entire surface of the water. For this reason, a dock configuration should never close off part of the lake to other users. The removal or destruction of aquatic plants is a regulated activity under the Aquatic Plant Management Program. Any destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation is prohibited unless authorized by an aquatic plant management permit from the DNR. DNR Contact Information DNR Information Center Twin Cities: (651) 296-6157 Minnesota toll free: 1-888-646-6367 Telecommunication device for the deaf (TOO): (651) 296-5484 TOO toll free: 1-800-657-3929 This information is available in an alternative format on request. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Depart- ment of Natural Resources is available regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, or disabil- ity. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4049; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. DNR Waters website lists Area Hydrologists: www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters If DNR Waters in St. Paul: 500 Lafayette Road, Box 32 St. Paul, MN 55155 (651) 259-5700 If your lake access is on a shallow area where emergent vegetation is common, a boardwalk, floating walkway, or dock across the vegetation may be needed to reach open water. "':i UMIl.IIIDlIICa . 5-2007 Page 2 of2 Ross Bintner Cc: Subject: Ken Hedberg Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:51 PM Ross Bintner; 'Harry Alcorn'; 'dano@netlake.com'; 'Mankowski, Donna'; 'jimm@bsp- mail.com'; 'cjasan@bossardt.com' 'Krick, Bret'; Larry Poppler; Michael T. Peterson; 'Mike Kinney' RE: June LAC From: Sent: To: If you own akefront property.... One of our assignments out of the May LAC meeting was to review the guidelines that Ross distributed, redlining them with suggested changes. Attached is my shot at this. The first four paragraphs would replace the first paragraph of the DNR guidelines. You'll see that my draft assumes a couple of things from the City Attorney's research. I'm not second-guessing her report due to the Council on June 4th; nevertheless, here's a preview of what she told me: 1. The City does have the authority to regulate dock placement and other such shoreline things. 2. The DNR guidelines are indeed misleading and dead wrong in many circumstances. 3. An ordinance obligates the City to conduct active code enforcement, with all the associated costs and complications. Further, the real issue is between property owners to settle. 4. Therefore, she recommends formalizing our approach a bit, but short of an ordinance. She suggests a policy, to better describe landowners' rights and the rules and limitations they need to respect. Also, she suggests that the City join a municipal arbitration service. Then, we can offer this service to landowners in dispute, providing a more streamlined and less costly means of resolving their disputes before resorting to lawsuits, without putting the City in the middle of the disputes. All this and more will likely show up in her report on June 4th. Meanwhile, the draft I wrote captures my understanding of these matters, subject to modification, clarification, and others' input. - Ken -----Original Message----- From: Ross Bintner Sent: Mon 5/21/2007 1:56 PM To: 'Harry Alcorn'; 'dano@netlake.com'; 'Mankowski, Donna'; 'jimm@bsp-mail.com'; 'cjasan@bossardt.com' Cc: 'Krick, Bret'; Larry poppler; Michael T. Peterson; Ken Hedberg; 'Mike Kinney' Subject: June LAC Attached you will find May meeting minutes and the current guidelines that the City recommends. You will also find a link to the two Conservation District Ordinances, below. An agenda for the June LAC will be sent out following the June 4 City Council Meeting. June LAC Meeting scheduled for: June 19, 2007 1 If you own lakefront property, under most circumstances you have a clear right to access the water, including placing docks and watercraft lifts in the water to provide that access. These are referred to as riparian rights, using a legal term for shoreline. If you are unsure whether your property is a riparian property, consult a qualified real estate attorney familiar with lake shore situations. If you live on the lake but your property is technically non-riparian, in certain cases you may be able to implement straightforward procedures with your neighbors to amend your property description to make it riparian. Your attorney can assist you in such procedures, if available to you. Your right to access can only be taken away for important public reasons, such as safety, navigability, etc. Your neighbor may not remove your access to the water by way of the placement of their docks and lifts. j ..,...!'" k... .'r... Docks and watercraft lifts are commonly used structures on Minnesota lakes and rivers. Temporary structures to provide access to a lake or river are preferred to permanent structures, due to risk of ice damage, and the greater risk to recreational users posed by snow-covered structures over the ice. -L ,.0 ~ Where can I place my dock? :> The rule of straight line extension of property lines into the water will give you good guidance in '" "." some situations, especially where the shoreline is relatively straight and the lots are platted with regular boundaries. However, this method fails to balance the lake access rights of all owners in \ situations of sharp shoreline curves, inlets, coves, bays, channels, or in situations of unusual property plats. On Prior Lake, these unusual situations are very prevalent due to the shape of the lake and the nature of the original platting of much lakeshore property in the late-19th and early- \ i 20th centuries. In these situations, the rule of extending the property lines 'to the center of the lake' or bay will give you better guidance. This is sometimes referred to as the perpendicular extension rule, in which you estimate an extension of your boundary into the water perpendicular to the shore from the point where your lot line reaches the shore. In all cases, these rules only offer guidance. The absolute rule is that all shore owners have a right to access the water including placing docks and watercraft lifts to gain that access, and adjacent owners need to respect their neighbors' right to access when establishing their own access to the water. This policy establishes limits and rules for size, set-backs, and use of these structures that will keep you in compliance with City regulations and DNR guidelines, and assist you in respecting your neighbors' rights. Through this policy, the City also makes available mediation and arbitration services in the case of disputes that cannot be easily resolved, before resorting to civil court action. Mediation and arbitration is typically quicker and lower cost than a lawsuit. The blue box to the left lists installation guidelines for docks and access structures like boat lifts. These guidelines are intended to minimize impacts on water resources and shoreline habitat. If you follow these guidelines, no permit is needed from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Local units of government may have additional dock rules related to public safety and other local issues and should be contacted. A shoreline owner may request a permit to install a dock wider than 8 feet. The permit applicant must show a specific need and show that the wider dock represents the minimal impact solution to that need. Docks serving sing1efami1y homes or residential planned unit developments generally will not need a dock wider than 8 feet. Public docks and mooring structures that are otherwise Council passes ice parking ordinance http://www.thisweek-online.com/2007/may/25070526ordinance.htm Capitol Roundup covering the issues and politics of Minnesota government l't1hlhhcrs,loe. Council passes ice parking ordinance If approved by the DNR, drivers would be required to park at least 20 feet from shore Posted: 5/25/07 by Jessica Harper Thisweek Newspapers The Prior Lake City Council approved a new winter parking ordinance that requires drivers to park their vehicles at least 20 feet from shore when parking on the ice from Nov. 1 to March 31. Violating the ordinance will be a petty misdemeanor, resulting a $700 fine. "It's the best we can do, and it's something to provide a rule that landowners and neighbors can apply, and that police can enforce," Council Member Kenneth Hedberg said. This is the second winter parking ordinance passed by council this year. An earlier ordinance required vehicles to be parked at least 150 feet from shore, but that was denied by the Department of Natural Resources which had concerns that rescue works may have a difficultly reaching vehicles that may fall through thin areas in the ice. Previously, DNR officials have said they would not approve any limitations to parking on the ice. But, "the DNR has given some verbal commitments that they would pass this," Assistant City Engineer Larry Poppler, said. The council contends that the intent of the ordinance is to prevent vehicles from ruining beaches and private property. As far as safety, Prior Lake City Manager Frank Boyles said, people need to use good judgement and pay attention to warning signs when on the ice. The ordinance came about after five vehicles fell through the ice in 2005, causing damage to the beach as the vehicles were being towed out of the lake. The new ordinance still has to be approved by the DNR before it can go into effect this winter. Jessica Harper is at priorlake.thisweek@ecm-inc.com Commentfrom Ross Binhter, 6/4/07 Of the first three facts stated in this article, ZERO are correct. I would suggest, rather than post three corrections, a new article be written on the topic. I will suggest the title "ThisWeek Prior Lake, completely misses the boat." On second thought, "ThisWeek fell flat on ice" may be more seasonal. Commentfrom Ross Binhter, 6/4/07 6/12/2007 12:49 PM lof4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM: MAY 21, 2007 10 D ROSS BINTNER, WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 901, PUBLIC WATERS, OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this report is to consider an ordinance amending Section 901 of the City Code. The proposed ordinance includes adding a restriction to parking on land within 20' of the lake shore. This report includes the LAC recommendation that the Council approve the proposed amendments. Historv On November 6, 2006, the City Council reviewed recommendations presented by the Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) on winter lake access. A series of recommendations were presented including the creation of a "no near shore parking" ordinance. The event that originally prompted the review of this issue was an event where 5 cars fell through the ice near the Shady Beach access and property damage occurred towing these cars out of the lake. Staff prepared a proposed ordinance based on the LAC recommendation and City Council direction and engaged the DNR to gauge the likelihood of DNR approval for an ordinance that limits on-ice parking. The DNR unequivocally rejected any on ice limitations. While the Council could still move forward with the passage of on-ice restrictions and get an official denial from the DNR on this proposal, Staff took this information back to the LAC to get their opinion. After learning that the DNR would be unwilling to allow any on ice parking restrictions, the LAC chose to modify their recommended ordinance revision. The new proposed ordinance is described below. Current Circumstances The proposed ordinance adds to the scope of Section 901 of the City Code and includes these changes: 1. Renumbering paragraphs 901.208 through 901.212, to make room for a new paragraph. 2. Addition of a new paragraph 901.208. Section 901.208: The proposed ordinance reads thus: 901.208 Winter Shoreline Parkina 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 that is shoreward 20 feet from the point where the ice begins on any Lake. This restriction will remain in effect from November 18t until www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952,447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 March 31st of the following year. A violation of this subsection shall be a petty misdemeanor. ISSUES: If approved by the City Council, this ordinance will be forwarded on to the DNR for approval. The DNR will have 120 days from the receipt of the request to approve or deny the ordinance. Staff has forwarded a draft of this ordinance on to the DNR and comments from the DNR were added to the proposed language. If approved by the DNR the ordinance will then go into effect after being published in the Prior Lake American for the required notification period and Signs being places at all winter accesses. Enforcement can happen through the Prior Lake Police, DNR, or Sheriff's Department Water Patrol. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The adoption of this amendment has some financial impact on the City however it is hard to quantify. Signs must be produced and posted at each winter access and the ordinance will need to be enforced. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the following alternatives: 1. Adopt an ordinance amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance as proposed or with changes specified by the City Council and forward the revised ordinance to the DNR for final approval. 2. Deny the amendment to the ordinance. 3. Defer consideration of this item and provide staff with specific direction. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The LAC and Staff recommend Alternative #1 ; Steve Albrecht, Public Works Director/City Eng. 4646 Dakota Street S.E. Prior Lake. MN 55372 ,-....,-...-..-,--"'.-'.----...- ..,.~..,.. ,-". ~ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 107-09 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 Parkina 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 that is shoreward 20 feet from the point where the ice begins on 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 21 st day of May, 2007. ATTEST: W#-rr-- Mayor- Published in the Prior Lake American on the 26th day of May, 2007. www.cityofpriorlake.com Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245