The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/15/06 r MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 15,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) Meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Harry Alcorn, Charlene Jasan, Dan O'Keefe, Donna Mankowski, James Marchessault. Others present: Larry Poppler, Assistant City Engineer; Shari and Bret Borth, Roger Kamin, and Gilbert Anderson, Private Citizens; Warren Erickson (Council Liaison), and Michael <unknown> (Parks Advisory Committee). II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve prior meeting minutes, Marchessault, Alcorn - Pass (5:0) (' III. OLD BUSINESS A. Dock Issues: The LAC was tasked by the City Council to create a set of guidelines for the placement of docks. Alcorn presented a history and DNR guidelines that are currently in place. The LAC discussed the option of using the current DNR guidelines as our regulation. The DNR guidelines include provisions for rental, saying that if there is a commercial use, then a DNR permit is required. Marchessault recommended that the City Council adopt the DNR guidelines. Erickson suggested that setbacks are an item that is not covered in the guidelines. The LAC discussed specific and hypothetical examples dealing with narrow lots. Erickson asked if the DNR permit would be used as the basis for an ordinance or if it would simply be referenced. LAC discussed pro/cons of doing an actual ordinance or just guidelines. r Alcorn made a motion that the LAC recommends the DNR guidelines be used by the City of Prior Lake as our guidelines. (pass 5:0) 1 r B. Winter Public Access: The Public Hearing will scheduled for September 26, 2006 to take pUblic comment on winter lake access. O'Keefe introduced the winter access issue. Alcorn suggested that the conversation be limited to information gathering rather than discussing the issues of overlapping enforcement by DNR, City and Sheriff. The LAC recapped many issues that were previously discussed in prior meetings including parking, access, damage to beach, disturbance to nearby residents. Suggestion was made that member of the public wishing to make public comment be asked to provide some demographic prior to giving comment. Erickson suggested that a time limit be given for participants wishing to give public comment and that additional information can be in writing. r f The LAC thought it would be appropriate to open the discussion up to all winter access to the Lake, not just Sand Point and Shady Beach. O'Keefe made a motion that the LAC supports the park advisory committee's idea site a dock or boat slips at Sand Point Park. (Pass 5,0) IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. STAFF UPDATE A. Poppler reported that the City received an anomalous fecal coli form bacterial test following last week's rain. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Lights for key buoy locations: The LAC discussed safety and the potential for using lighted buoys in key locations. The options of additional reflective tape or lit buoys was proposed. Mankowski explained that the Lake Association pays for buoys on the lake and that the sheriff department installs and maintained them. Potential sources of funding for additional buoys were discussed. (' B. Meeting Time The next meeting will be scheduled for September 12, 2006. 2 B. Winter Public Access: The Public Hearing will scheduled for September 26, 2006 to take public comment on winter lake access. I O'Keefe introduced the winter access issue. Alcorn suggested that the conversation be limited to information gathering rather than discussing the issues of overlapping enforcement by DNR, City and Sheriff. The LAC recapped many issues that were previously discussed in prior meetings including parking, access, damage to beach, disturbance to nearby residents. Suggestion was made that member of the public wishing to make public comment be asked to provide some demographic prior to giving comment. Erickson suggested that a time limit be given for participants wishing to give public comment and that additional information can be in writing. The LAC thought it would be appropriate to open the discussion up to all winter access to the Lake, not just Sand Point and Shady Beach. O'Keefe made a motion that the LAC supports the park advisory committee's idea site a dock or boat slips at Sand Point Park. (Pass 5,0) IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. STAFF UPDATE A. Pop pier reported that the City received an anomalous fecal coli form bacterial test following last week's rain. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Lights for key buoy locations: The LAC discussed safety and the potential for using lighted buoys in key locations. The options of additional reflective tape or lit buoys was proposed. Mankowski explained that the Lake Association pays for buoys on the lake and that the sheriff department installs and maintained them. Potential sources of funding for additional buoys were discussed. B. Meeting Time The next meeting will be scheduled for September 12, 2006. '-- 2 VII. ADJOURNMENT THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ross Bintner Water Resources Engineer .1' ~ t - - lflill t> . . i' t. ..,.J!\wA.. .,V.I:2... . .10 If ;-~ ' ...~~i,. ',.' ~ . '~,~ ..:.J_ - ,~- . .,....:: ....,l, "1~i / LO-r ~ ./ ;/ I r,1f>?/ ~ // //t~,;~/ ! /' . ' " - .. ~ - so-r+ ....-,' t.o-r- !.JIll,... IlIt.. iNi. __.. .~Jt .,..','C!ii 11~", .';;. ,~~'i1,;J'-A; .. __i..'III*'", ~ ' ~ SnCL()'bnr +fl OJ 5 ~ L2ft; ~ d ,')77 67:- /bt?v";- ), ~ AJ1'd~~)-( qS-~ - /1-47-- &1~--?/ 1 /3re--/- do rIA 5'\ ~ ~ 0\5 S~ "'IS',- 'J &-J ~ /' .~ ,J1YJ.II'1 rOJ-~1- K~ VV/i'1I1 @ mc..h s j'... 0oJlY1 ;V\ \ (J~.fL: YA-4/0 ~ Ad\ \ \\1\_ {1\;4.tv, if' c?'C;-::l- (jy s- 9 ~:J. 7 r - .,--.... ,- ,..-.. :,.,;~l1'\ttt1kt!;9~~~'ith'~~;~t'"lor.1pa~'AgvjSQJ'y, 1:l~l(i;~i~~a~~()I~~lJoWjf'g: '.,' "" ,,' ,.' ..' " ...' .',".'.' '"Wl ,p~tli$tQfYan~~rtenh:it~stance~wittl~o~h a~~~ ,...,otH~..".,~~em~;~ppro{'ri$te;" ,." ..., ..,;. ," ", 'lfI~$ti~t~:w~t:01her'citje~d()"t()'~;~jjl.tff4nd!Smforceacoess .isspes. Sc"edI,JJeand.CDn~u~t'oneorm<;Jr~RubJjpmeetlng$lo reeeiveiopyt,.'on: ' ,c', a: "iTO WhateXt~nt,jf.oY,is eitl)tlrneededforJake 'access. . . '~:' b,When are theyneed~d,~ndf9rwhat purpose. ::~!:!,c.lc:lentify thept()blems;~~ociatedwith the accesses, "j'" d,.ldentitypotentiaJ.options/solutions. I(Syntl'1esizelhe:aboveinformatlcm and prepare a written report with :'r~commendations for Council consideration. ;These~ctionsc9uldbe comple~e.dbyearlY thisfaUsQ that whatever the City Council approves can be implemented by Novembe.r this year. ,The committee would,ofcourSe,begiven assistance from the staff inresearch,soheduling, l'eportwritingan(ja,nyother administrative support they may need.. Staff iimewil!perequired to do research, arrange public meetings, attend the meetings arYd'facilitate report preparation. Since the committees are volunteer, costswlUbe modest. ALTERNATIVES: fDDirectlhestaff together with the committee 'identified above to research, LJ conduct 'public meetings and make recommendations .to the Council ,as _ , outlined in this staff report. 2. "fake no aption aUhis time and request additional information from the City staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT: .0_. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Alternative #1. Re~?tJfrrk FrankcBoyIos'Cr7'"f ^,,-\ c. Engineering Department MEMORANDUM City of Prior Lake 17073 Adelmann St SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 TO: Prior Lake City Council FROM: Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) DATE: Thursday, June 22, 2006 RE: Private Dock Regulation HISTORY: ~002 In fall of 2002, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stopped regulating private docks less than 8 feet in width. Their rationale for discontinuing dock enforcement was two-fold. First, many of the complaints they received were minor in nature. A lift canopy blocking one's view of the lake or a dock violating setbacks was seen as low on the list of DNR priorities. Second, considering the above when coupled with state funding short falls, the DNR felt higher priority tasks should receive their resources. It is possible that they concluded that if cities desired such enforcement, they would adopt a program of their own and fund it. Since the DNR relinquished its dock authority, the City's approach has been to use Minnesota Rules section 6115.0210 sub paragraph 4: The structure or mooring facility will: . Allow the free flow of water beneath it. . Be consistent with or allowed under local land use controls. . Be limited to a length of the structure that necessary to accomplish its intended use, including reaching navigable water depths. . NOT constitute a hazard to navigation or public health, safety, and welfare. . NOT used or intended to be used as a marina. . NOT more than eight feet in width. . NOT combined with other similar structures so as to create a larger structure. . NOT use wood pilings if build on rock cribs. ~he Lake Advisory Committee (LAC) has discussed the issue with regularity ever since to determine if there is need for a dock ordinance. G:\WatecBodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc 2004 (', 2004, the LAC wanted to look at White Bear Lake and other cities' regulations to consider whether they , should be used as a template for a Prior Lake ordinance. They also considered developing common sense guidelines to deal with the most common disputes. At its May 2004 meeting, the LAC discussed requiring fee licensing for private docks. This would provide funding for ordinance enforcement. However, the committee questioned the value of dock enforcement considering cost and public reaction. The LAC also questioned whether there was a need for a complex ordinance which would require variance processes, funding and enforcement resources. It wanted to review the old DNR rules: ALL Docks must: . Allow water to flow freely beneath. . NOT be a hazard to navigation. . NOT be a hazard to public safety. . NOT be used for human habitation as a boathouse or a marina. . NOT include fuel handling or sewage facilities. . NOT be placed in a designated fish spawning area. .r-- Permanent Docks must: . Be a single linear structure less than 6 feet wide. . Be less than 50 feet long OR not extend into water greater than 4 feet deep, whichever is less. . Be only one per waterfront lot. . NOT use wood pilings if build on rock cribs. Seasonal Docks Must: . Be removed before winter freeze. . Have components which are removable from lake or streambed by non-mechanical means. On the annual LAC boat tour in July 2004, the LAC made it a priority to view and photograph some irregular dock situations. (See attached Exhibit A) To determine if an ordinance was warranted, the Committee asked the Planning Department about how many calls they receive each year on this issue. Jane Kansier, Planning Director, attended the September 2004 LAC meeting. She reported that the City receives approximately 50 calls each year concerning docks, most in early spring. In response to those complaints, the City only acts on disputes where there is a violation of zoning ordinance, otherwise complaint must be taken to civil court by the respective property owners. At the September meeting, the LAC discussed putting some minimal language in an ordinance to address some of these calls. However, with only 50 complaint calls for nearly 1000 private docks (5%), the LAC questioned whether the volume of complaints justified an ordinance. r G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc The LAC made the following recommendation: r a. There is not sufficient demand for an ordinance pertaining to docks. b. The task of managing a dock ordinance is too complicated based on the asymmetrical nature of many lake lots. c. The jurisdiction between the below the 904 elevation is in question. Therefore the Lake Advisory Committee recommends that in matters of dock disputes and questions the City should continue to refer to Minnesota State Statutes and that no ordinance be adopted pertaining to docks at this time. 2005 At the April 2005 meeting, a resident attended to discuss the City's dock policy. She thought that the City should provide written guidance on dock location so residents can know what is expected. She believed that with nothing in place, many people have issues around the lake that are not reported to the City. She suggested establishing a 10 foot setback from projected lot lines. The Committee discussed the feasibility of establishing a setback ordinance including its negative affect on pie-shaped lots, who could be unable to have a dock with such an ordinance. The LAC decided to check lot configurations with GIS at the next meeting. At the May 2005 meeting, GIS confirmed that most lakeshore lots are perpendicular to the shoreline making a setback ordinance a practical option. The LAC decided to invite officials from White Bear Lake and Minnetonka to a future meeting in order to discuss dock issues. r-'-he LAC met with Judd Harper, from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) at the November . ~005 meeting. Lake Minnetonka has five times more shoreline than Prior Lake and the LMCD has a board representing 14 municipalities surrounding the lake. Harper provided the following information about his organization's dock regulations and enforcement: . Enforcement is complaint based. . 40 hours a week staff time are required for dock ordinance enforcement. . Every four years, a lake use study is performed by a consultant. . Yearly boat counts are done. . Boat numbers are restricted, but not dock numbers. . LMCD hires surveyor for contentious lot line issues. . They require 10' to 15' setbacks for docks from property line extensions. . Maximum dock length is 200'. . Maximum dock width is 8'. . Permits required and variances granted based on certain criteria. . Variances are approved by board and are memorialized with property title. ~ G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc 2006 (' t the January 2006 meeting, the LAC created a list of pro's and con's regarding the creation of a dock . Jrdinance: Pros . Gives everyone guidance/ All play under same rule. . Protects the rights of landowners that have actual infringements. . Provides service to residents by involving City to mediating disputes. . May serve to limit the number of boats and docks on the lake. Cons . City intrusion into private dispute. . Cost to City to administer. . Staff time of city to administer. . Lose-lose nature of the complaints. . Many exceptions to possible ordinance due to the wide variety of unique shape of lots along the lake would require judgment calls. . Wide variety of lot shape, configuration, and legal status may make potential ordinance complicated. . May not be support for an ordinance. A motion to recommend the creation of a dock ordinance to the city council failed 1 :5. The LAC also, discussed a variety of alternatives to creating a dock ordinance. .~ . Status Quo. . City produces guidelines for best practices. . A non-enforced ordinance used only in lawsuits. . All docks must be permitted at the beginning of the year. . Education initiative by City. . An ordinance limiting on-shore activity. . An ordinance limiting amount of boats. . An ordinance limiting the rental of dock space on residential lots. . Referral of complaints to mediation service. The Lake Advisory Committee recommended that staff log all calls received pertaining to dock issues for the remainder of 2006. At the May 2006 meeting a resident explained a dock situation she is currently experiencing on her property. (See attached Exhibit B) As of June 22nd, the City has received 13 calls this year about dock issues. (See attached Exhibit C) CONCLUSION: Since 2002, the LAC has reviewed private dock regulation through listening to residents, personally viewing dock situations and examining policies from the state and from other cities. It has determined and recommended that creation of a dock ordinance is not warranted at the time. The LAC will continue to ~xamine the issue and make recommendations based on the changing needs of lakeshore residents. The , 4uestion is: does the city council desire the LAC to take other or more aggressive action? G:\WatecBodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc Exhibit A r I , - Lake Advisory Committee Boat Tour July 20th 2004 The LAC held their annual boat tour on July 20t\ 2004. The boat tour was guided by Donna Mankowski. Others attending were Harry Alcorn, Marv Mirsch and Larry Poppler. A variety of items were viewed and discussed. The weather was beautiful for the tour and many other boaters agreed as many vessels were boating that evening. The dock and boat rail issues were discussed at recent meetings, so viewing some of the irregular docks and boat rail systems were a priority for the Committee. These pictures show that if topography on a small or pie shaped lot will greatly influence dock location. c. r- c G:\WatecBodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc ~ The size of docks can vary greatly. This photograph shows a double-decker floating dock. The resident spent a C great deal of money on this dock and it shows. Does the dock impede the view of the lake by neighbors? This is a cheaper imitation of the above double-decker dock does not have railings and does not look as nice as C' :e on~ ~own a~~_ve:o these docks require regulation? r G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc .01 The size of canopies over boat lifts can vary greatly. This picture shows a large canopy covering a large boat. c' c. A picture of a dock built on the shoreline below 904 r G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc I . A small number of boat rail systems exist on Prior Lake. The size and quality was discussed. c c r G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc J Exhibit 8 c c' The above pictures show a dock situation about which homeowners have corresponded with the LAC. r G:\Water_Bodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMQ,doc ----J c Bay near Lakeside A venue. In this bay, the lot lines converge at the waters edge. A dock setback could not be applied to this area. - .l.,)~j.~ '" c' Mitchell Pond Homeowners Association Dock (\ G:\WatecBodies\LAC\LAC Memo\LAC MEMO.doc 10 r 2006 DOCK INQUIRIES DATE NAME QUESTION RESULT 4/10 Asked for dock regulations Sent handout. ~ 4/13 Unhappy with lack of Unhappy will call =T_J I.'e regulations. Neighbor has 3 foot the mayor. - access for dock. Compo does not like the potential dock in her "area" . 4/18 Someone put a dock at the end Staff verified dock B - - t of West Ave (on City property) was on public street and is verbally hassling people and told resident to who want to fish. remove dock. 4/25 I- 6_ __~~_ Neighbor put dock/lift/boating Contacted PL '-1 - ass Street equipment on private property Police - police felt and is arguing that is public it was civil. Told to water. work out problems between neighbors. 4/27 Ongoing problems with trespassing neighbors - police r-- did not care & won't enforce. 4/28 -- Questioned dock location and Told him DNR will Unknown Address will angle dock into neighbor's enforce. navigatable waters. Doesn't care ifis no enforcement by City. 5/8 .-.. Questioned ifhe could put a Told him to contact dock in Green Heights private association. It was easement. (42 lots) open to all in subdivision. 5/9 - Questioned City's policies for Faxed information. Natural Resources setbacks and regulations 5/16 ,....." Setbacks and regulations Brought issues to Lakeside Avenue LAC. 5/17 Would like to remain Neighbor selling dock slips. Will forward on to anonymous Parking problems. (Island View code enforcement. area) 5/31 Female Neighbor wants to sell dock Called DNR on that spaces. Does not think it is issue - up to City to legal. (Grainwood.) enforce. 6/6 Male Neighbor has 2 docks with 6 watercrafts - does not own. 6/7 --- Wants to know if you can legally Referred to Mike f' rent your private dock space to Peterson for others-( classified as commercial enforcement -based L:\06 FILES\06 CORRESPONDENCE\CONNIE\2006 DOCK INQUlRIES.doc marina and needs a DNR on Smith permit).(Boudin Association) complaint. -~ Stated neighbor is renting space illegally. 6/28 T ill Neighbor took over lakeshore Faxed regulations. . t ",:..- and lake view. Rude to neighbors and will do whatever he wants because lack of enforcement. Stressful to neighborhood. 71? Neighbor (Huntington) blocked Told him to call his navigable area for docking DNR 7/19 -. Neighborhood dispute Gave him info on dockage & told him to call police on the walkway dispute. 7/24 . Talked to Jane on regulations Told cannot block waterway. 7/27 ~ Neighbor sent certified letter Call DNR. stating he could not put out dock. 8/10 Anonymous Neighbor on Fairlawn Shores is Call police and/or renting dock space - problem Sheriff Water with parking and noise. Angry Patrol ~ no dock regulations. 8/11 Dino Howard I Questioning dock regulations Faxed info -, L:\06 FILES\06 CORRESPONDENCE\CONNIE\2006 DOCK INQUIRIES. doc ) ) ) PRIOR LAKE CHLORIDE MONITORING RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION ON CHLORIDE IN rngIL Februart 24. 2001 43.4 42.8 39.4 38.7 37.2 40,1 37.2 37,1 36.5 33,1 34.2 33.2 37.2 36,5 37.6 March 23. 2001 39.6 42,5 44,3 35.4 40.5 38,9 39.6 36,3 37.6 43.3 39.1 33.4 30.8 71,3 63,2 42.6 Mav 1,2001 32.9 31.8 30,8 31,6 30,9 31.4 30.8 29.9 30.6 28,4 28.6 28,8 28.5 30,7 30.7 30.3 Mav 30.2001 33,2 31.3 32.2 32,8 32,2 32.4 32.7 31.2 30,9 31,1 31.6 30.6 30,5 32,0 31.6 31,7 June 29. 2001 33.8 33,0 33.1 32.8 32.6 32.6 33.1 31.5 31.4 30,6 30.1 30.2 30.2 30,2 30.6 31.6 Julv 30,2001 34,8 36,1 36.0 36,0 34.7 35.4 35,3 32.8 33.2 31.6 31.6 32.2 31,2 33,6 32.9 33,8 SeD!ember 5~ 2001 36.6 37.0 37,9 35.8 35,1 35.8 35.9 32,3 31.8 30.2 31.9 31,7 32.1 33,4 33.0 33.9 SeDtember 27.2001 34.5 52.7 37,3 36.3 34.2 34,6 35,8 31,2 33.0 30.6 30.8 30.6 31.6 30.3 30.0 34,2 November 1. 2001 37.9 44.9 41.7 37.6 38.2 38.0 38.3 34,8 34,4 34.8 34,3 34,2 34.7 33.8 34,3 36.7 November 30,2001 36.8 37,6 49,2 36.4 36,6 37,1 36.6 32.7 32.4 32.6 32.6 33.4 33.2 33,6 35.7 Februarv 1. 2002 40,3 44.0 45.0 38,6 38.3 37,8 42,9 36.6 36.5 33,8 34.7 34.1 35.9 42,9 41.9 38,8 March i, 2002 39.0 82,0 85.0 35.4 41.3 34.0 39.0 29.7 34.5 33,2 35,5 34.1 36,4 36,8 39,4 42.6 Mav 8. 2002 38,3 38.4 39.3 38,8 38.1 38.1 38,0 32,5 33.3 33,1 32.4 32.3 33,1 43.8 43.9 36.8 June 11,2002 42.8 54.8 52.8 41,0 40.2 41.4 41,1 35.4 34.7 35.0 34.5 35.0 34,9 54,5 53.5 42,1 Julv 17, 2002 40.1 40.1 40.0 38.6 38,5 37.5 38,1 33,5 33.5 32.0 32,3 32,1 32.3 56,3 55.9 38,6 Aullust 9. 2002 39.3 38.7 38,6 37.8 37.9 37,5 37.6 32,7 32.6 32,5 32,7 34.2 32,6 46.5 38.1 36.4 Seoiember 4, 2002 31.7 32.4 32,2 32,8 30.4 30.1 30.5 30.2 31.9 30.1 31,2 October 2. 2002 29.0 29.4 29,5 33.4 33,0 32.8 32.6 31.6 31,4 30.4 30.8 30,2 29.9 28.0 28,0 30,8 February 3. 2003 34.9 40.0 40.5 39.1 48.6 41.0 41.6 35.9 37.5 36,7 39.2 31.5 36.0 41,4 40.1 39.2 Mav 3. 2003 37,3 37,5 38.7 36.9 37.5 39,6 38.2 34,5 33.8 33.2 33,8 34.5 33.7 43,7 44.9 37.2 Julv 2, 2003 36.9 36.6 36.6 37,7 37.4 37.6 37,9 34.3 34.5 33.9 37.1 33,6 42.3 42.4 37.1 Auoust 3. 2003 37.0 37.5 35,7 36.7 37,0 36.3 36,0 33.4 33,8 33.1 33.1 33.5 33.2 40,6 40,8 35.8 SeDlember 3,2003 38.5 38,3 39.3 38,9 38.9 39.7 37,1 36.7 35,9 36,5 35,8 35,0 42.7 43.5 38.3 October. 2003 ' Januarv 18. 2Q04 46,1 44,2 41.7 43.0 43,5 42.8 40,9 39,9 39.4 39,8 38,2 52.1 53,2 43,2 March 22.:z004 47.4 39,0 40.8 27.3 26.1 25,1 26.3 28.2 35.7 41,2 37,0 32,7 Julv 5,2004 42.7 42.1 39.1 41,4 41.2 40.9 41.1 37,9 38.3 37.6 37,1 36.3 36,7 79,9 79.9 45.0 Aullust 1. 2004 41,5 41.7 42.4 43,1 42.7 40.2 40,2 36.9 37.0 37.2 36.5 36.4 36,3 64.7 64.3 42,8 Auoust ,19..2004 43.7 43,8 42.1 41.6 42.8 42,3 38,4 38,2 38.1 37.8 37,9 38,1 65,0 65,5 44,0 SeDlember 30. 2004 42.6 43,6 42.0 42.9 40.9 41,2 38,6 39.0 38.4 37,S 38,2 37,8 51,5 51,6 41,9 '. Januarv 11. 2005 45.4 46,1 43.1 44.6 43.3 41.9 38,7 39.5 52,7 53.5 44.9 March 31, 2005 33.3 57.9 35.6 34.6 24.6 21,3 25.8 42.6 42,3 38.9 35,7 Mav 2. 2005 41.0 40,5 39,7 39,8 40.4 40,4 35.5 36.8 36,0 36.3 35,8 35.8 49,4 49,6 39,8 June 7...2005. 41,4 41.6 42,1 42.2 42,6 41.7 36.9 37,4 36.4 37.2 37,7 36,0 56.0 55,8 41.8 Julv 7,2005. 47.7 45.6 42.0 43,1 49.3 50.7 50,1 38.5 42.8 41,8 45.8 40,9 44.3 75.2 85,1 49.7 ~uly 28, 2005 44.6 46.5 45.3 44.6 44.4 43,5 43.9 38,7 38,9 39.0 37.7 39.2 38.8 68.2 72,8 45.8 October 12. 2005 40.1 38.7 38.8 39.7 39,6 36.4 36,1 37,5 35.6 35.4 3.0 34.1 27,1 33.5 Januarv 5, 2006 38.8 48.0 39.0 41,8 41.3 41.6 42,2 35.9 37.3 45,7 42.2 37.2 36.9 40.6 41.5 40.8 Januarv 30.2006 43,9 44.8 44.7 48,7 44.9 46,2 46.0 44,2 42,3 40,3 41.9 40.3 40.9 41,1 43.6 Ayril 27. 2006 43.3 44.1 42.4 43.8 45,4 44.5 44.8 41,2 41.4 39.8 38.0 38.9 39.3 43.1 42.3 42.1 June 6. 2006 49.1 49.3 50.4 46.6 48.2 48,6 43,1 42.6 42,7 41,9 42.1 67,0 47.6 Page 1 of2 Larry Poppler (' From: Harry Alcorn Jr. Pharm.D. [H@alcorns.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 27,20067:19 AM To: Larry Pop pier Cc: dano@netlake.com Subject: PL LAC MN DNR Dock Lift Regulations: Larry, Great Job last evening! I went to the MN DNR web site after the meeting and found the following under regulations for MN docks 1 lifts and moorings ,In following up to the council recommendations and Dan Okeefe proposal for guidelines with Docks and Lifts I would like to offer the following: 1) City Council Concerns: a. Lakeshore owners renting 1 leasing 1 bartering for Docksl slips 1 mornings. b. Length and or width of dock Long dock with T, encroaching or exceeding property lines c. Dock with upper deck or "two story" d. Property lines if extended into the water. Docks placed or extending over property lines e. Number of boats per lake shore owner. ",--.. 2) MN DNR Guidelines a. Lakeshore owners renting 1 leasing 1 bartering for Docksl slips 1 mornings. NO Not addressed If a homeowner is renting 1 leasing 1 bartering for dock! slip or morning is this commercial use? b. Length and or width of dock Yes this is address, may not exceed 8ft width, see attached c. Dock with upper deck or ''two story" Yes this is addressed, see attached d. Property lines if extended into the water. Yes this is addressed, see attached e. Number of boats per lake shore owner No, Not addressed Why would we limit the number of boats only to Lakeshore owners? "Ifllive on the lake I can only have X number of boats, and ifllive off, I can have as many as I want"? Safety, Risks???? Ifwe wish to limit the number of boats, would we not have to address on and off the lake access for number of boats? ~. The DNR web site clearly states that if comply with their guidelines you do not need a permit, BUT if you do exceed any points, you need to apply for a permit! 6/27/2006 (' ,'- ~ Page 2 of2 Dan / Larry can we please put this on the agenda for the next meeting, thanks. Sincerely 1farry Harry Alcorn Jr. Pharm D. Chief Scientific Officer Da Vita Clinical Research 825 S. 8th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 . Tel 612 618 1002 lEI Email HAlcorn@DCRMN.com WEB www.DCRMN.com Important: The Information in this e-mail and attachments belongs to the sender and is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of, or reliance on, the contents of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying back to the ending e-mail address, and delete this e-mail message from your computer. Da Vita Inc. 6/27/2006