Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-03-10 CPC Packet
Variance/Conditional Use Variance e ter • THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday March 10 1997 at 7 p m in the Margaret Rivers Room at the City Public Library 223 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of February 10 1997 AGENDA 1 Case No SUB/97-9 A minor subdivision of Lots 9 and 10 Block 1 Marsh s Second Addition, located at 1333 South Third Street in the RB Two Family r Residential District Kevin Regan applicant (Continued from February 10, 1997 meeting ) 2 Case No SUP/97-10 A special use permit request for St Croix Valley Life Care Center to conduct counseling services located at 1104 South Everett Street in the RB Two Family Residential District Mary Lou Junker applicant for St Croix Valley Life Care Center 3 Case No V/97-11 A variance to the front yard setback at 12525 North 72nd Street 32 feet proposed 50 feet required in the A-P Agricultural Preservation District Windsor Companies Inc applicant Case No V/97-11 Other business 1 Discuss Long Lake meeting CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 PLANNING COMMISSION Feb 10, 1997 Present Jerry Fontaine, chairman Glenna Bealka, Dave Charpentier, John Rheinberger, Kirk Roetman, Don Valsvik, Darwin Wald, and Tom Wiedner Others Steve Russell, Community Development Director Absent Terry Zoller Chairman Fontaine called the meeting to order at 7 p m Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved approval of the minutes of Jan 13, 1997, all in favor Case No. SUP/97-5 A special use permit for a five -unit bed and breakfast located at 626 N Fourth St , in the RB, Two Family Residential District Arthur and Elaine Halbardier, applicants The applicants were present Mr Halbardier said they were ware of the • conditions of approval and were asking for the prior approvals granted for the B&B Mr Wiedner asked about special events that might be held Mr Halbardier said small weddings, anniversaries, corporate daytime meetings were among possible special events Mr Valsvik noted the B&B has been operating for a number of years with a good record Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Wald, moved approval as conditioned, all in favor Case No. V/96-3 A variance to parking requirements for rehabilitation of existing UBC building to a banquet facility (101 parking space demand, 0 provided) at 301 S Second St in the CBD, Central Business District St Croix Catering, owner This case was continued from the January meeting Mr Wiedner abstained from the discussion and vote • Representing the applicant were attorney Robert Briggs and Robert Anderson Mr Fontaine noted the Planning Commission had asked for City Attorney David Magnuson's opinion on the issue It was the recommendation of staff that a variance is not needed Mr Briggs said he had read and concurred with Mr Magnuson's opinion Mr Roetman asked if the recommendation represented going back to the terms of the original Special Use Permit Mr Russell responded in the affirmative Mr Fontaine noted the Parking Commission has asked the Planning Commission to support the recommendations regarding the formation of a downtown Parking District Karl Ranum of the Parking Commission spoke briefly about that group's recommendations Mr Rheinberger moved to follow staff's recommendation and take no action on the variance Mr Roetman seconded the motion, all in favor (Mr Wiedner abstaining) Mr Valsvik, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved to recommend to the City Council that the UBC site be improved as a parking lot as soon as possible, as recommended by staff, and to endorse the recommendations of the Parking Commission Motion passed unanimously (Mr Wiedner abstaining) Case No SUP/97-2 A special use permit request for St Croix Valley Life Care Center to conduct counseling services at 920 W Pine St Mr Russell stated the special use permit application has been withdrawn Mr Russell suggested that those present for the hearing be allowed to speak for the record Ford Runge, 901 W Pine St , submitted letters stating "permanent and total opposition to the commercial use of the property " He said all contiguous property owners and most in -line -of -sight owners were opposed Concerns centered on the impact of the use on the residential neighborhood, parking/traffic, exception to the current zoning of the property, and safety issues Also speaking in opposition were Paulette Poffey, 904 W Pine St , and • Dick Dunnigan, 917 W Pine St • Mr Wiedner, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved to accept the withdrawal of the application, all in favor Case No, SUP/97-3 A special use permit request for a five -unit bed and breakfast at 319 W Pine St in the RB, Two Family Residential District John Wubbels, applicant Mr Wubbels was present for the discussion He said he was aware of all the conditions of approval He said he planned to operate the facility as it has been in the past and did not foresee any changes in the future Pat Peterson, 320 W Pine St , asked if regarding lighting and signage She also would be permitted Mr Russell said the the new operator, a separate special use new owner wishes to conduct special events the same regulations will apply asked whether special events same regulations will apply to permit would be required if the Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Valsvik, moved approval as conditioned, all in favor Case No SUP/97-4 A special use permit request for a 3,300-square-foot music center addition to the west side of Stonebridge Elementary School located at 900 N Owens St in the RA, One Family Residential District Independent School District 834, applicant Present for the discussion were Stonebridge Principal John Johnson and Rick Dahl of the district's architectural firm Mr Dahl briefly explained the project and went through some architectural renderings and elevation plans Mr Fontaine asked about the proximity to neighbors and asked whether the sound would be contained Mr Dahl explained the measures taken to mitigate acoustic issues Mr Wald, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as conditioned, all in favor Case No V/97-6 A variance for exterior signs for HealthEast Med Home located at 1260 W Frontage Road in the BP-C Business Park Commercial District Rose Schafhauser, applicant Ms Schafhauser was present for the discussion and said she was aware of • the conditions of approval The need for a variance is due to the fact that the name of the business is too long to fit on one line without making it unreadable The requested signage is two lines of 18" uppercase letters Mr Valsvik, seconded by Mr Rheinberger, moved approval as conditioned Mr Wiedner questioned whether the length of the business name represents a hardship Vote was 7-1, with Mr Wiedner voting no Case No. V/97-8 Variance to the setback at 1004 S Holcombe St (southwest corner of Holcombe and Anderson streets) in the RB, Two Family Residential District Steven and Monica Sorensen, applicant Mr Sorensen was present for the discussion He explained they are trying to meet the city's stipulation attached to the sale of the lot that the existing maple trees remain He said they were trying to position the structures, house and two -car garage, to meet their needs and to reduce the risk to the tree(s) Mr Russell noted one of the issues is the proximity to the junior high school and the high traffic at the intersection He said the concern is to keep the right-of-way clear, particularly on the west property line He also noted that the garage could be moved and still meet setback requirements if it is placed on the west portion of the property He also noted that if the house faced Anderson, it could be within 15 feet of the front property line because of the setbacks established by existing houses After considerable discussion and several withdrawn motions, it was agreed, with input from Mr Sorensen, to amend the variance request to provide for a 10 foot rear yard (south) setback which will allow the garage to be placed on the west portion of the property and the house to front on Anderson Street Mr Roetman made the motion to approve the variance as amended Mr Rheinberger seconded the motion, all in favor Case No SUB/97-9 A minor subdivision of lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Marsh's Second Addition, located at 1333 S Third St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Kevin Regan, applicant Present for the discussion were Mrs Regan and Philip Eastwood Mrs Regan referred to a letter from City Coordinator Nile Kriesel stating the second lot is a buildable lot, an opinion they used in determining to stub in water and sewer services for the lot Mr Eastwood said the intent i is to do a survey and take square footage off the existing lot to bring the other lot up to the required 7,500 square feet Mr Fontaine suggested a survey ought to be completed before the subdivision is granted in order to clarify lot lines He noted that if the survey is taken prior to granting the subdivision, the Regans might not have to reapply for a variance to the property line to accommodate the garage on the existing lot Mr Rheinberger, seconded by Mr Wald, moved to continue the request to the March 10 meeting Case No SUP/97-7 A special use permit for modification of a bed and breakfast to increase the number of rooms from three to four at 210 E Laurel St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Mark Balay, applicant, for Doug and Deb Thorsen Present for the discussion were Doug Thorsen and Mark Balay Bob Raleigh spoke in favor of the request noting B&Bs are one of the few ways that allow owners to maintain historic homes Mrs Bealka, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved approval as conditioned Semiannual review of special use permit SUP/89-26 for trolley booth at 305 S Water St in the CBD, Central Business District Stillwater Trolley, applicant Mr Raleigh spoke briefly about the changes made in the last year -- the addition of a new trolley, varying the routes, etc He noted he has never had a problem or complaint that he has been unable to resolve Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Rheinberger, moved to grant the SUP indefinitely, with review upon complaint Mr Roetman suggested adding that the SUP is non -transferable as a condition of approval, that was acceptable to Mr Wald and Mr Rheinberger Motion passed unanimously Other business Mr Fontaine and Mr Russell gave an update on the AUAR study It was noted the Planning Commission and Park and Rec Board would hold a meeting to receive input on the Long Lake water surface use at 7 p m Feb 17 in the Stillwater Senior Community Center 0 Mr Roetman asked about the status of the in -home business ordinance and the possible regulation of antennas Mr Russell said the city has placed a moratorium on antennas The ordinance regulating in -home business and commercial uses in residential areas is before the City Council and will come back to the Planning Commission if the Council makes significant changes to the ordinance Mr Wald, seconded by Mr Roetman, moved to adjourn the meeting at 8 50 pm Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 0 9 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM 0 CASE NO SUP/97 5 f Planning Commission Date March 10 1997 Project Location 1333 South Third Street Comprehensive Plan District Two -Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicant's Name Kevin Regan Type of Application Subdivision Project Description A minor subdivision of Lots 9 and 10 Block 1 Marsh's Second Addition Discussion This case is continued from the February 10 1997 meeting so a survey of the parcel could be completed The applicant plans to give six feet from Lot 10 to Lot 9 to make it a buildable parcel Inclosed in the attached packet is a letter from Nile Knesel written when South Third Street was improved and assessments were made in 1989 Conditions of Approval 1 The property line shall be adjusted to allow for a five foot setback at the existng garage 2 A legal survey of the property is to be submitted with the application Recommendation Approved as conditioned Attachments Application Form Sketches • January 23 1977 Ms Sue Fitzgerald City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 SUBJECT Minor Subdivision Dear Ms Fitzgerald Please find enclosed the completed application for minor subdivision of the property in question The intent here is to give six feet from Lot 10 to Lot 9 to make it a buildable parcel As you will note our property includes Lot 9 Lot 10 and the South Half of Lot 11 That is 125 feet in width The depth of the property according to city parcel maps is close to 134 feet The total area of our land is approximately 16 750 square feet After contacting City Attorney David Magnuson this request for approval is made on the strength of the enclosed letter from Nile Knesel when South Third Street was unproved and assessments made in 1989 Mr Magnuson said the letter constitutes the city s de facto position on the property and its suitability for building a single family home Our decision to stub sewer and water into Lot 9 was made on the advise of Mr Knesel and his consultation with the city zoning administrator at that time We will have the property surveyed —and bear that expense —once approval for the minor subdivision is granted The property we propose subdividing is an attractive high piece of ground ideal for the construction of a small single fammly home Please let me know what assistance you might require to bring this matter to a timely and favorable conclusion Very Truly Yours Kevin M Regan 1333 South Third Street Stillwater Minnesota JAN-16-97 THU 16 22 CITY OF STILLWATER FAX NO 6124390456 P 02 1 -�Case 7 No Date Filed `� Fee Paid. ' • Receipt No PLANNING ADM i TISTRATYON FORM ACTION REQUESTED FEE") COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER ` Certificate of Compliance 70 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET — Conditional or Special Use Permit ,—. Design Review $70 I70 STILLWATER, MN 53082 — Planned Unit Development - "0_ - 1270 _, Variance S70 — Comprehensive Plan Amendment S300 Zonmg Amendment 5300 Subdzwsiop� I V-.11Resubdivls S 100+$5011M on I S50 - Total Fee The applicant IS responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and Supporting material submitted in connection with any application PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 13►oyo\- �zz�-� 33 So 'T V\' c S� ,assessor's Parcel No i o `mac' Z--Z- o0 Zoning District � Description of Project 7 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data informatron and evidence submitted herewith to all respects to the best of my knowledge and belief, tare and correct 1 fur her cerltfy I will comply with the permit fit is granted and used " 1F Property Owner l- N V= Representative Mailing Address �'"^-lmg Address g Telephone No l clephone No CAsg - o -1 � Signature \ Signature AND PROJECT DESCRIP I I( N Lot Site (dimensions) l' s x Total building nor Area s fr Land Area �, �1S �-a Existing s ft q Height of Buildings Stones Peet q Proposedsq Principal Paved Impervious Area sq h (`iADI)MONA.L ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUTRED AS PAR' OF APPLICATION REVIEW Revbed 9115U'➢3 c i l I l ater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA November 2 1989 Mr Kevin Regan 1333 South Third Street Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Kevin I have discussed your water service charge/assessment situation Kith the zoning administrator He investigated your property and has found that your property contains sufficient area to build a single family residence Hopefully, this will help you to decide on whether or not to have the service charge carried as a hook-up charge or as an assessment I will need to know by November 14, 1989 if you want to have the charge certified as an assessment because November 15, 1989 is the final county certification date Please feel free to call me at 439-6121 if you have any questions regarding this matter NLK/smc • Sincerely, i 'Nile L Kriesel City Coordinator CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 1 � • L lei r ater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF BEARDiG ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 1989 Kevin Regan 1333 South Third Street Stillwater MN 55082 TO WHOM IS MAY CONCERN Notice is hereby given that the council will meet at 7 00 p m on September 27 1989 at City Hall to pass upon the proposed assessment for the improvement of South Third Street between the south line of Walnut Street and the north line of Orleans Street and also Orleans Street between the east line of South Fourth Avenue and the west line of South Fourth Street The following is the area proposed to be assessed South Third Street between the south line of Walnut Street and the north line of Orleans Street, and also Orleans Street between the east line of South Fourth Avenue and the west line of South Fourth Street The improvement consists of sanitary sewer repair, water services, drainage, street -corrsttruction and appurtances Your parcel is described as follows 10401 2200 The amount t e special .assessed against your particular lot, piece or parcel of land i $ 3,294 02 You may at anytime prior to certification of the assessment ^ the countx- auditor, pay the entire assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Stillwater No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this assessment You may at anytime thereafter, pay to the Washington County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and you may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City of Stillwater Treasurer with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above, the rate of interest that will apply is 8 percent per year The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the city clerk's office The total amount of the proposed assessment is $232,016 95 Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of the proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further . notice to the affected property owners as is deems advisable CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing the following • procedure will be followed 1 The city will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination and by the introduction of exhibits After each witness has testified the contesting party will be allowed to ask questions This procedure will be repeated with each witness until neither side has further questions 2 After the city has presented all its evidence the objector may call witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desire The same procedure for questioning of the city's witnesses will be followed with the oc3ector's witnesses 3 The objector may be represented by counsel 4 Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied however they may be considered and araue.3 to the council as to the weial-t of iters of evidence or testimony presented to the council 5 The entire proceedings will be tape-recorded 6 At the close of presentation of evidence, the objector may make a final presentation to the council based on the evidence and the law No new evidence may be presented at this point An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429 081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the mayor or clerk Under Minnesota Statutes Section 435 193 to 435 195 and Stillwater City Code, Chapter 56 05, the Council may, in its discretion, defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events (a) the death of the owner provided tnat the spouse is otherwise not eligiD le for the benefits hereunder (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof, (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status, or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment Any assessed property owners meeting the requirements of this law and the ordinance adopted under it may apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for such deferral of payment of the special assessment on the property (Please call City Hail at 439-6121 if you desire more information about the special assessment deferral) ty Clerk dwww��� ter THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF HFARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 1989 Kevin Regan 1333 South Third Street Stillwater, MN 55082 lL TO WHOM IS MAY CONCERN Notice is hereby given that the council will meet at 7 00 p m on September 27 1989 at City Hall to pass upon the proposed assessment for the improvement of South Third Street between the south line of Walnut Street and the north line of Orleans Street and also Orleans Street between the east line of South Fourth Avenue and the west line of South Fourth Street The following is the area proposed to be assessed South Third Street between the south line of Walnut Street and the north line of Orleans Street, and also Orleans Street between the east line of South Fourth Avenue and the west line of South Fourth Street The improvement consists of sanitary sewer repair water services, drainage stree t-eQF�ruction and appurtances Your parcel is described as follows 1040 2250 The amount to be specially, assessed against your particular lot, piece or parcel of land is $, 2,277 11 You may at anytime prior to certification of the assessment to the�ourfty auditor, pay the entire assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment to the City of Stillwater No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this assessment You may at anytime thereafter, pay to the Washington County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and you may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City of Stillwater Treasurer, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above, the rate of interest that will apply is 8 percent per year The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the city clerk's office The total amount of the proposed assessment is $232,016 95 Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of the proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as is deems advisable CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following • procedure will be followed 1 The city will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination and by the introduction of exhibits After each witness has testified the contesting party will be allowed to ask questions This procedure will be repeated with each witness until neither side has further questions 2 After the city has presented all its evidence the oo3ector may call witnesses or present sucn testimony as the objector desire The same procedure for Questioning of the city's witnesses will be followed with the objector's witnesses 3 The objector may be represented by counsel 4 Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied however they may be cons_dPre-' and arrn e t_ the c :_nc' 1 az to t- e nclyti z of _zE.is of evidence or testimony presented to the council 5 The entire proceedings will be tape-recorded 6 At the close of presentation of evidence the objector may make a final presentation to the council based on the evidence and the law No new evidence may be presentea at this point An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429 081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the assessment and filing sucn notice with the district court within ten (10) days after service upon the mayor or clerk Under Minnesota Statutes Section 435 193 to 435 195 and Stillwater Citv Code Chapter 56 05 the Council may in its discretion defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of anv of the folloalZg events (a) the death of the c ^er prc -a=d that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the benefits hereunder (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof (c) if the property should for any reason lose its homestead status or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment Any assessed property owners meeting the requirements of this law and the ordinance adopted under it may apply to the City Clerk for the prescribed form for such deferral of payment of the special assessment on the property (Please call City Hall at 439-6121 if you desire more information about the special assessment deferral) ty Clerk Im r� J� b 1- 1 va 0 • • • I/ 11-0tt�z — a 2,t x 23 510-�d,i,hut p.+c Cc� t{Xzo I 1-ti A 1 -1, PLAN DRAWN WITH FOLLOWING VARIANCES I Garage is placed on east side of lot 2 House entrance is on anderson St 3 If one car garage setback on east is reduced from 30 ft to 16 ft If two car garage setback on east is reduced from 30 ft to 6 It 4 Garage setback from Anderson reduced from ')0 ft to 15 ft to allow for direct access to garage from inside house I 5,II- ll 0 \ Plan drawn as specified by current restrictions Challenges of this plan 1 Backyard is broken up by placement of garage 2 Area west of garage is greatly underutilized and detached from the rest of the yard 3 Two car garage would not be possible because it would be too close to the tree 4 House entrance on east and garage on west would out of practically I require another entryway on the west side of the house This 2 entry design proved difficult in such a small house plan used up additional square footage Inside the house and makes for a long distance from house to garage Moving the garage further est (variance to west setback) would help to utilize backyard space better "u would require a 60 foot path be kept clear in the winter i - OhG 2 q I Zo Iq y o I I I I N{ 0 0 • e I i+Jo I I 1 7ai i� I I F Ir t , Fb4l in-ru l Plan drawn with foliow,ng vanancU 1 Garage is placed on east side of lot 2 House entrance in on Anderson Street 3 If two car garage then setback on east Is reduced from JD feet to 2Q feet Note 48 footings 10 It Inside 30 It drip line 4 Garage setback from Anderson reduced from ZQ feet to ]_5 feet which makes possible direct access to garage from inside house utiy v4 2i i` 25 Zia � iS Lea✓c .J 1f T Df T tc • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUP/97-10 Planning Commission Date March 10, 1997 Project Location 1104 South Everett Street Comprehensive Plan District Two -Family Residential Zoning District RB 0 Applicant's Name Mary Lou Junker, St Croix Valley Life Care Center Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description A Special Use Permit to conduct counseling services Discussion The request for a Special Use Permit to utilize a residential house for conducting counseling services to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy The house is owned by the Lakeview Hospital Foundation and has been offered for the above use until the hospital needs the land The center employs six part time volunteers and two part time paid employees Two staff members will be on duty at a time to answer phones and meet with clients The Center is open Monday through Friday between the hours of 9 00 A M and 5 00 P M The facility will not be used for overnight visits The property has a two car garage and room in front of the garage for two more cars The Center does not expect more than three people on the premises at a time • The Center is proposing a 2' x 2' wooden sign that will read "St Croix Valley • Life Care Center" The sign will not be lit Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the proposal, city staff recommends the following conditions 1 The use permit shall be reviewed before the Planning Commission and City Council for revocation, if complaints regarding the use of the property are received by the Community Director 2 No exterior lighting be allowed 3 The Special Use Permit is not transferable to other organizations that may inhabit the house Recommendation Denial Findings 1 The proposed use does not conform to the requirements and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form Sketch/Letter 0 FEB- 4-97 TUE 14 37 CITY OF STILLWATER FAX NO 6124390456 P 02 Case No SLj/0 Date Filed Fee Paid ` • Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRAT ION FORM ACTION REQUESTED FEE." COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _-__ Certi&ati- of Compliance $70 CITY OF STILLWATER X Conditional or Special Use Permit 70/170 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET —. Design Review -0- S1 ILLWATER, MN 55082 PlarinLd Unit Development $270 Varialz(.L S70 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3$ 00 — Zoning Amendment S300 Subdivision $100+S50/lot Resubdivision Tot-il Fee The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting materi it submitted in connection with any application *Address of Project Zoning District PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 1104 South Everett Description of Project Assessor s Parcel No I D 1 0 9 9 5 3 5 5 C "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects to the best of my knowledge and belief true and correct I fu,,their certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used ' Property Owner Lakeview Hospital Representative Jeffrey .l_ RnhPrtson Mailing 4ddress 927 West Churchill Street Mailing Address n Telephone No 430-a502 Lot Size (dimensions) 1 1 0' x Land Area Pd / A Height of Buildings Stories Principal 1 eledhone No c�4ignature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 0 5 ' Total building floor Area i' 1 Existing 1315 sq ft Feet Proposed N / A sq ft Paved Impervious Area sq ft sq ft O'iADDITIONAL ENGINEERING COSTS MAY BE REQUIRED AS P4,RT OF APPLICATION REVIEW R visLd 9/19/95 • ST. CROIX VAL_EY - LIFE CARE CENTER 206 South gxeeQey Street Room 201 SttQQwateR -Minnesota 55082 `J'eeephone (6(2) 429 S964 February 4, 1997 Mr Jeffrey J Robertson Lakeview Hospital Foundation 919 W Anderson Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 RE Information for Application for Special Use Permit Dear Mr Robertson The property offered by the Lakeview Hospital Foundation for use by the St Croix Valley Life Care Center, would be used to provide counseling services to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy The staff at the Center consists of six part time volunteers and two part time paid employees The Center's office hours are Monday through Friday between the hours of 9 00 am and 5 00 pm Two staff people will be on duty at one time Therefore, there are not more than three people on the premises at any given time during the typical business day, and no more than three parking spaces are needed to accommodate the number of vehicles used by the Center and its client The property has an existing garage with room for two cars, and off street parking in front of the garage The Center's use of the property as an office will not impact traffic and street parking no more than would be expected if the property were used as a private residence The Center would have a small identifying sign that would be unlighted and attached to the house Neither the use nor the appearance of the building will conflict with, or distinguish it from, the surrounding residences Please let me know if any additional information is needed Thank you for your support of the Life Care Center Sincerely, Mary Lou Junker Administrator 1 ter THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA February 26, 1997 RE SPECIAL USE PERMIT Dear Property Owner The City of Stillwater has received a request from Mary Lou Junker for a special use permit for St Croix Valley Life Care Center to conduct counseling services located at 1104 South Everett Street in the RB Two Family Residential District Case No SUP/97-10 The Planning Commission will be considering this case at a public hearing on Monday March 10 1997 at 7 p m in the Margaret Rivers Room at the City Public Library 223 • North Fourth Street If you have any comments or concerns regarding this request please attend the meeting All persons wishing to be heard in reference to this request will be heard at this meeting Steve Russell Community De,,elopment Director Enclosure CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 612 439 6121 J _ --------- —------/10---- -- - - � GARstii„� Ib IT I � I I , \o �� /!o4 so e0ou: rrE sr Z�l ter.* a L/2)( Zt� L-j I9XA, 3 $Crib lAwl r ,* PART- OF col' 3I yo RIrzE0. S Sidi DrrrSioN J I 1 _ SLdL, Fhb P — LQi SITE //D i /D5r I q I Mhsu¢E Dt<c'ouous TREE )A01% = LILAC co $1MILA2 Q- -0 = 01' WDOCF4 FEilLE - - - - PIZDVLfl �i L rNG -� vx5r eoynal of Soynr EJE¢�*rC t r - S(,(I L 1L�� EMORIAL )N • TEM- EN-?/-N ,E PYISTIIV G �'V IEiY MEMORIAL 0 � LIVIr --r-N-11\T EN T ERAN - =. WALKWAY . 98 STALLS i I'I • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/97-11 Planning Commission Date March 10 1997 Project Location 12525 North 72nd Street Comprehensive Plan District Agricultural Preservation District Zoning District A-P Applicant's Name Windsor Companies Inc Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to the front yard setback (50 ft required 32 ft requested) Discussion The request is to construct an addition to an existing family room The expansion will be to a farmhouse that is over 100 years old The proposed addition does not encroach further into the required 50 foot setback area then the existing The 16 ft x 16 ft addition will maintain the historical integrity of the existing home • Conditions of Approval 1 All materials and paint colors to match the existing house Recommendation Approved as conditioned Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property not created by any act of the owner exists In this context personnel financial difficulties loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity and that a variance if granted would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments • Application Form Elevations Site Plan 1 C15e No Date Filed 40 Fee Paid Receipt No 5-5-4/ PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITI OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, NIN 55082 ACTION REQUFSI ED f i 1 l" Certificate of Compliance 70 Conditional or Special Use Permit 70/170 _ Desian Review 0 Planned Unit Development 270 _ �Variznet 70 _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment '00 Zoning Amendment $1,00 _ Subdivision S100 lot Resubdivision ',-'()___ Total Fee The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accur-tcy of all forms lnd supporting ni itei i it submitted in connection viith anv application PROPERT'i IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 114S25 �2�r• Assessor's Parcel No Coning District Description of Project 'I hci eby state the fvi egacnz statunents and all data information and et idence suhmrttc d het c it ith m all rerpeetc to the hest of my knoitledge and belief true and co►rect 1 furthe► Le►tify I it ill comph it ith the I?f ►Hirt ij it is gi anted and used " Propertv Owner oo ' ZVI+SE Representative W("Va4- hNtES - �t ulin� Address ( 2S2$' 'Lk Sf Nlailing Address < 175 C 1,-W36 S'�iw -j M1JeIr P�tJL, V-�tM-► to Telephony No 8Z'aLot Telephone No 30 Signature (/ �� KA�� _ Signature f- SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot S17e (dimensions) x s�-1 Total budding floor Area ?i0;0 sq tt Land Area C101; ! l Existing 'fiOpp sq It Height of Buildings Stories Feet Proposed Ott sq ft Principal 2 Paved Impervious Area sq tt 0"ADDITIONAL FNGiNEFRING COSTS M \Y 13f Ri QI 11MD k` MR Of kPI'I K k 110'% 111 II `s RL%i cd ` I WINEDSOR Corporation February 21, 1996 To City of Stillwater Planning Comnussion/City Council Re Variance Request for 12525 N 72nd Street This exnstnrng house is a histoncal farm house and is used exclusively for a single family residence The proposed remodehng/addition does not encroach further into the new setback area then the existing The design of the addition maintains the histoncal integrity of the existing home, yet providing more reasonable hving space for a family No additional traffic will be generated Maintaining this house as a family residence will help maintain the rural historical chain of this area The addition and restoration, add to the future longevity of this historical treasure There is no adverse effect of on the surrounding • neighborhood ARCHITECTURE • CONSTRUCTION a LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION o PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 1175 East Highway 36 Saint Paul Minnesota 55109 (612) 482 0205 FAX (612) 482 7537 4 ® 0 7/ L +vr � 11/1� i 5� f]-,/ I -, • �Y. � � •'���=—`��yl_ `�- Y r,a _ �_ .�.,,e•zr � ����_ :�r-�_�:; „� y � �" t,:,:.�,, �Z.1_ �i �` � x KY � �5`t`;'; �' `yam s�� T€.f "��.�."= " "'«r�` �' c.z� s 'yfa' 'h?... e'k-+•�c-.+� -7. t r _ tV s -� `� f a..r„S.-'' 4 ,;s f ''�'a t'y �` _c'%t' L+ i','iw'E"5:; -„"3^ �� ��~"j y,,�'4i^Y's-��- ^t' r � r t }{.. � - - a•;J x .iki uv�' Sg ta,:� t ��..� ti � � �r� �,�. t ^-- `�,^, F `Z-h,r � u� _ �a .,t ` ., _ . �Y 9 r3-` ��-• r P.r,,t�.N.� >'' � '�'et' s � �'�Mt �`s`.r Y'ia y'�.,' ,�-�•_ ��w� Si > d~ -r� fi` �`, _' .- � s T'a e`� x��.r< r� BRUCE A F OLZ &ASSOCIATES • LANO SURVEYING o �• - STILLWATER, MINNESOTA r n,r� �� - i ;— _ _ y _ WASHINGTON COUNTY C I M i AT NI/4 CORNER SEC 30, CENTER 8 8 INCH DIAMETER 3 T30N, R20W TOP MAIN PLATE OF WELL POINT DISTANT 899 14 FEET WEST OF THE aD=,� CASING 195 FEET EAST ANO NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 330 00 55 FEET SOUTH OF THE NW FEET OF THE SEI/4-SE 1/4 p0� NNW CORNER / CORNER OF LOT I, ,1ACKSON 9 Swv4_SE I/4 ESTATES ELEVATMN = z p NE CORNER MZ SEC 30 00, 935 73 FEET o°p SEI/4 Swl/4 Q Q S 8944615 W I _ ?hQ SEC 30---133 5 61 - o I , N 89 46 I'rE — S89°46'15'1N11 .�. --- 574 79 --- - _ 11 e W aM r — —^�.� v �w .CE �TERLINE � 72 ND N88048'48" I i - - - i _c� AS TRAVELED _ 58 0 I1 -- 509 09 - Q11- r __ -- ---� 03 " ro NORTH LINE SWI/4-SEI/4/ nto r Qj -- ----- 411 00 �10 88 48'48"E i 3C 54�?"E INz SEC 30 N �G 1(A t3Q I �'VI°t1 12"W N88°48 48 E I+5 �pQ jol �'N73 It I ro rye I NORTH LINE SEI/4-Stl I �5Ip I �8 SEC 30 I `'oQh V' a°�tiMINI%l BASEMENT FLOOR Q r ELEVATION = 893 8 FEETkill tit �< c+� n 2 AC 00 ,� \ \a i��♦-dl \� �J �� L- �✓ hh �/ 00 J ` (,,;' > nz (v �> \ice o'hj/// �� C�� ,\I tz I OI14 co A- M fi I 4n co �CQ h <- "�A MINIMUM BASEMENT FL00 h � 4 �Q tiQ'o c N ELEVATION = 893 8 FEET -� d t o _ ` C VQ ?"�0 O C-4 4 j208" ^^ 3 r y — J O t^/ 3i �` L-►52 75 z c�'�•�.°°Oo •�� 3 b3 /0 �,_ -- " 45 AC �' \� ♦ o3g55 5 (j1v /moo �_� O095 2 S O,R `��� •i 5 Qo/ \5884 54 _ N ° �1w) .i ( 0 9Jo O y� C 3,3 1_ _ i - - _ 81 51 18"Iy (> 7 ^ 00�� 49g_39 _ Q 6r vcbF -` 14, N ° 0 C' + 1a g - 228 00` =- C_, �cr O O44 _ 0 in 10 tu s \ p�� 2 \\� _ - 675 AC ° p \ 1�1'�,MLh1 3..Sc41E`.T FL�OR�', j \ -IO oz \\ ELEvA7tON = 393 8 FEET o 0 ►-'MINIMUM BASEMENT FL00 j� «- 1 \ 0����1 I W WELEVATION = 893 8 FEET JJJ LL Tit a [TV r � $i t !!! r Y i 1 M1l�TY �}�rl L 1 �r z• I �� �6 F�a�1� a a 1 � o 0 3 0 ���L` ,ll.11l�a 1�7,J{►� 1Jr 1 y. F1 Q N r , It Y{I���� f, I low 3 mI. n 1, m 9 1 1(1if ! 1 i I i o ' " 1 o v 0 1T1 C) N n m � D o 0 0 0 0 • MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission FR Steve Russell, Community Development Director DA March 6 1997 RE REVIEW OF INPUT FROM LONG LAKE MEETING Attached to this report is the record of the February 17, 1997, public input meeting on Long Lake I have also included additional written comments received before and after the meeting that have not previously been reviewed by the commission At the March 10, 1997 commission meeting, the results from the February 17 1997 meeting can be reviewed and discussed along with the new information I have also included with the material an article on the impact of motor boats and water quality The AUAR will address the use of Long Lake It would be good to get that information before • formulating a final recommendation regarding surface use of the lake The commission at some point may want to hold a joint meeting with the parks board to develop a coordinated ordinance recommendation Recommendation Review and discuss results from meeting and attached information Attachments cc City Council Parks Board 0 9 Public Meeting Long Lake Surface Water Use Feb 17, 1997 Park and Recreation Board members present David Junker, chairperson, Linda Amrein, Nancy Brown, Rich Cummings, Al Liehr, Ken Meister, Del Peterson, Leah Peterson, Mike Polehna, and Steve Wolff Planning Commission members present Jerry Fontaine, chairperson, Kirk Roetman, John Rheinberger, Don Valsvik, Darwin Wald, Tom Wiedner and Terry Zoller Others Council Member Gene Bealka, Community Development Director Steve Russell, Sherri Buss, Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik See attached list, note there were others in attendance who did not sign in Park and Rec Board Chairperson David Junker opened the meeting at 7 10 p m He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to receive comments only S1 Mr Russell gave some brief introductory comments Ms Buss, Bonestroo and Associates, talked briefly about the AAUR environmental assessment and mitigation study which is currently in progress Planning Commission Chairperson Jerry Fontaine opened the meeting for presentations and comments Lee Miller, representing the Long Lake Homeowners Association, gave a presentation describing the physical characteristics of the lake He also provided a map indicating the possible number of watercraft that might use the lake once development occurs in the phase 1 annexation area The boat density could be as high as one per 1 5 acre or less, according to the Homeowners Associations calculations, the rule of thumb is 1 boat per 15/20 acres for waterskiing, 1 per 10 acres during peak use on the St Croix River, he said Miller also spoke briefly about a problem that is occurring with snowmobilers using the lake as a cut -through from the DNR property north of the lake Don Peterson, 7130 Mid Oaks, said when he purchased his property in 1974, he was told no motors were allowed on the lake He said large boats • on the lake erode the shoreline and intensify problems already existing due to high water levels He said smaller boats and catamarans don't create a problem, large boats with large motors are a big problem Al Hager, 716 Nightingale, also said he was of the understanding when he bought his home that no motorized traffic was allowed on the lake He said while snowmobiles on the lake are no problem, per se, there is a problem with speed Mr Zoller asked who told homeowners that no motors were allowed on the lake Carolyn Lauermann, 650 Nightingale, said they were told by Orrin Thompson people When boats started appearing on the lake, she said she contacted Stillwater Township but never received a response back Dick Peterson, 7160 Mid Oaks, said he, too, was told motors were not allowed He said he thought the no -motor policy was part of covenants drafted for the Jackson Farm, but the covenants never got recorded Later, Mr Peterson noted that by law all abutting property owners, which includes the city of Stillwater, have a right to use the entire surface of the lake He said the city needs to figure out a way for all residents to share in the resource, and he said self -regulation won't work He said he has seen kids of jet skis chasing geese and "buzzing" docks He suggested a solution might be to allow small motors and/or electric motors He further noted by statute, the city can regulate the size of motors, speed limits and hours of operation There could be any combination of such regulations, which are all spelled out by state statute Susan Wahlen, 1180 Nightingale, said she was never told that motors were not allowed She suggested the city has no right to take away the opportunity to use pontoons and boats with small motors and said she didn't think such use would cause any damage She said the lake isn't big enough for big boats, people who try to use the big boats will probably wreck their motors, she said Later, Ms Wahlen reiterated that the lake is not conducive to high powered motors, but said small motors won't bother wildlife She also questioned the data regarding erosion Ned Gordon, 2970 Marine Circle, said he had watched his shoreline disappear over the weekend due to erosion caused by jet skis and big • power boats He also suggested there is a discrepancy in policy between the current use on Long Lake and Lily Lake, where no motorized craft are allowed If the decision is to allow boating, the lake is safe for only the smallest of craft, he said Mr Gordon also spoke of the problem of motorized boats stirring up sediments in the lake that eventually will get to Brown's Creek John McCarthy, 2913 Marine Circle, said water quality of the lake is bound to go down with the use of motors He also noted the DNR won't allow the water level control gate to be opened if the water quality is not improved Dave Ruch, 1124 Nightingale, spoke of the differences of opinion regarding use and even the desired water levels on the lake He suggested that a high concentration of power boats would not be desirable, but called for "compromise" below that level of use Lori Mildon, 3034 Marine Circle, said the lake can't handle the number of boats that might come with the new development and said large boats on the lake is a safety issue Kerry Mildon said they previously had a jet boat on the lake and observed the wake it created, he also spoke of the pollution caused by leaking gasoline Nedra Meyer, 2929 Marine Circle, suggested allowing motorized craft will disrupt the wildlife and breeding habitats Laurie Maher, 3018 Marine Circle, provided pictures of wildlife she has observed on the lake She said she, too, was told power boats were not allowed on the lake when she purchased her home She also expressed a concern that homeowners in the new developments will clear cut their lots for views of the lake She urged the city to look at the city of Woodbury's ordinance which requires 150 feet of shoreline dedication and allows only electric motors Rudy Lauermann, 650 Nightingale, asked whether there would be park land dedication on the western side of the lake Mr Fontaine responded that initial plans call for a walkway on the western side that would connect up with other trails in the annexation area Les Hartmann, 2907 Marine Circle, said walkways, if developed, should be of natural materials and not paved Jon Engelking, 1220 Nightingale, said the concern with the water quality of Long Lake has nothing to do with boats, it has to do with the runoff from Cub/Target He said the churning of the water caused by motors can actually improve water quality He also said the physical characteristics of the lake will, themselves, restrict use He said the lake is for everyone's enjoyment, not just conservationists but recreationists, as well Later in the discussion he said if the decision is made to regulate use, a speed limit of 25 mph might be acceptable Mr Engelking stated the erosion of the shoreline is more due to wind and high water levels than it is due to boats He reiterated that the biggest problem with the water quality of Long Lake is due to runoff from Cub/Target and other parts of the watershed and called for some kind of watershed management planning Mike Putnam, 1166 Nightingale, said the shallower the lake level, the more concern there is regarding water quality -- the lower lake level makes the problems worse Rick Meyer, 2929 Marine Circle, reiterated the concern about the coexistence of wildlife and big boats He also expressed a concern that the DNR might decide to shut the Long Lake outlet if the water quality doesn't improve If the outlet can't be opened, he said he (and others) would be in "big trouble" due to flooding Marc Putnam, Charles Cudd Co developers of the Newman property, said the developers are concerned about the outcome of the water surface use issue However, he said, the first marketing concern is for the protection of the resource -- the land Regarding water usage, he said it would "obviously" be better for developers to be able to offer dockage and the use of craft such as canoes and catamarans Written comments, attached, were received from Richard Huelsmann, 12610 62nd St N , and Ted and Jennifer Harms, 2904 Marine Circle Mr Fontaine closed the meeting to public comment at 9 p m Mr Junker thanked those in attendance for their comments He stated the two boards (Park and Rec and Planning Commission) would use the comments to "make the best recommendation we can to the City Council " Meeting adjourned at 9 p m Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary Others in attendance at the Long Lake public meeting of 2/17/97 Ned and Eileen Gordon 2970 Marine Circle Allan Hager 716 Nightingale Blvd Rocky Hyberger 2922 Marine Circle Lee and Helen Miller 2962 Marine Circle Rudy and Carolyn Lauermann 650 Nightingale Blvd Laurie Maher 3018 Marine Circle Darryl Bixby 2930 Marine Circle Sandra Fabio 2946 Marine Circle Paula and Robert Kroening 12480 N 72nd St Dick Peterson 7160 Mid Oaks Nedra and Rich Meyer 2929 Marine Circle Mary Anne Tucker 7171 Mid Oaks Ave Don Peterson 7130 Mid Oaks Ave Mike and Diane Putnam 1166 Nightingale Blvd Jim and Ilo Staloch 12394 62nd St N Dave Ruch 1124 Nightingale Blvd Ted Wright 800 Nightingale Blvd Lori and Kerry Mildon 3034 Marine Circle Les Hartmann 2907 Marine Circle Susan Whalen 1180 Nightingale Blvd Rosemary McKenzie 12620 72nd St N Karla Hyberger 2922 Marine Circle Jon Engelking 1220 Nightingale Blvd 0 Stillwater City Council Feb 17 1997 Re Long Lake Surface Use Dear Council We live on Marine Circle adjacent to the Park land that fronts Long Lake We have lived here since 1990 and have seen many changes in the usage of Long Lake When we first moved here the lake was primarily used by people with canoes enjoying the natural setting Over the past several years we have seen a wide range of motorized boats including 16 aluminum boats with 10hp motors all the way to boats that are much larger with 75hp motors Jet skis and pontoon boats are also a frequent sight on Long Lake We have seen some close calls involving canoes and motorized boats This will only increase as the development around the lake continues We feel it is more suitable to being a nature oriented lake as opposed to what it has become We have made a few calls to the city of Stillwater over the course of the last 5 years in regards to monitoring the speed and size of the watercraft used and received differing opinions on whose jurisdiction Long Lake was part of the City or the County We would suggest that the best use of Long Lake be a nature oriented lake with non - motorized canoes and watercraft ay C yL la v i2, �i 0 RICHARD L HUELSMANN 12610 62ND STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 February 14, 1997 City of Stillwater Planning Commission City of Stillwater Parks Board City of Stillwater Community Development Director 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen On Wednesday, February 12 1997, I received in the mail an undated and unsigned "Notice of Public Hearing On Surface Water Use of Long Lake" concerning a meeting on February 17, 1997 I do not recall seeing any publication of this meeting notice in either of the City's official newspapers Due to a previous commitment, and the untimely short notice of the subject hearing, I may not be able to attend the meeting Therefore, I am subnuttmg my comments in writing By way of background I am a major property owner, with significant shoreline, on the south end of Long Lake (see attached map) Had I known in 1990 (when I acquired the land) what I know today, it is highly unlikely that I would have purchased the land and built the house that we moved into on April 1, 1993 Since 1995, I along with other former Stillwater Township home owners, have had to devote countless hours to governmental meetings and hearings in order to try to preserve the character and property values of an area that was substantially developed along large lot (2 1/2 acres plus) guidelines, and is now threatened by high density development, primarily on the western shores of Long Lake In addition, the developments of Market Place and the Highway 36 corridors of Oak Park Heights and Baytown have caused significant water runoff and related problems for the Lake in question The "surface water use" of Long Lake is lust one of many problems associated with development in the area -- development that is different from the long -tune "rural" character of the area The proposed high density development on the western shores of Long Lake creates all kinds of issues that must be carefully identified, evaluated and then dealt with in a manner that does not unduly benefit nor penalize those Long Lake residents who acquired their properties in tunes when conditions and development standards were significantly different than those contemplated by the proposed "annexation" area Phase I developments I would expect that the comments at the subject hearing will range from the extremes of (1) 41 absolutely no motor powered craft of any kind to (2) unlimited, uncontrolled use The "no motors" extreme unduly penalizes those who acquired their Lakeshore property under conditions and with expectations different from those associated with high density development With the planned high density development of the western lake shore, the • City of Stillwater Planning Commission Page 2 February 14, 1997 current "unrestricted" usage cannot be continued as the lake is two small to accommodate unlnrnted usage As the city develops its policy position for the surface water use of Long Lake, there are two major factors that must be considered as foundations for any policies (1) Long Lake is a "meandering lake" without a legally defined shoreline The legal property descriptions of all owners of lakeshore property include specific lands underlvmg the lake Accordingly, the lake is totally privately owned and is not in the public domain and has never had public access to it (2) Approxunatek 60% of the lakeshore has been developed under rural/township large lot gi.udelmes Only a small portion, off Marine Circle, has been developed to date by "City" density standards (see attached map) 0 Any use policy must consider and respect the above factors My recommendations for a surface use policy for Long Lake are as follows (1) No public access for the launching of water craft of any kind (2) No public beaches or other areas that alter the existing natural landscape within 50 feet of the shoreline (3) The western shore city style developments be prohibited from forming associations or other forms of organizations that would grant all property owners within the developments access to and usage of the lake — only those residential property owners with lots abutting the shoreline would have access (as is the current situation) This prohibition is necessary to preserve the rights and values of current residential property owners (which constitute over 60% of the shoreline) and to protect this small lake from over crowding and consequent environmental damage Alternatively, it would be acceptable to have no more than two associations that collectively are limited to the number of "boats" (see below) that does not exceed in total the number of boats that could have been on the lake had the western shore been developed along rural/township standards (assuming one "boat" per 21/2 acre lot) (4) Watercraft use should be limited to "boats" -- as that term is generally understood (excludes jet -skis, ski-doos, etc ) -- that are either not motorized or are motorized by not more than ten (10) horsepower This effectively eliminates excessive noise nuisance, excessive speed and water "skung" 0 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Page 3 February 14, 1997 (5) Docks should be prohibited -- water craft would be restricted to that which is "pulled onto the shore" A proliferation of docks significantly detracts from the aesthetics of the natural shoreline The present practice of unrestricted dockage has resulted in some large docks protruding into the lake that include benches and other additions creating the appearance of a "deck" in the lake (6) Snowmobile and other similar usage should be prohibited, because of the noise nuisance The above policy recommendations reflect significant compromise for all involved However, in my opinion, thev represent a reasonable solution to some very difficult issues No one wins, no one totally looses there is "give and take", the traditional serenity and character of the pristine area for the most part is preserved, while at the same time, allowing new homeowners on the western shore with lake front property (or via the alternatively described limited "associations") access substantially equivalent to that of existing lakeshore property owners who purchased their lands under different conditions and with different expectations I have a small 14 foot fishing boat with a 25 HP motor, the boat has generally been used 5 or 6 tunes a year I do not have a dock If my recommendations are adopted, I will have to dispose of the 25 HP motor (at a loss) and purchase a motor with 10 or less HP I am willing to do this There are trade offs for all concerned Again, the extremes of (1) "no motorized craft" of any sort to (2) unrestricted use are not the answers My recommendations provide a reasonable solution Finally, I want to specifically state that I am not a member of The Friends of Long Lake Homeowners Association Inc, and I do not consider that organization to be a representative of my interests Thank you for considering these matters Very truly yours, Richard L Huelsmann CAK • Copies to Gene "Taco" Bealka, Councilman David T Magnuson, City Attorney tiii; ,I f �i 1�i�...1lli �r�,'e�� "1 , � 11'`1�t �'Jii�� (,il►. , li 1�!• ''�! I ri 1 • i(.' � ' ►. !. r,, � �1✓q�lil �`.Y^J!,l�/1 I ! •I r. 11 � � 1� '.� %�' �I ��AN ILVE I mm .. I I%i ,�Iv E, F-- 0 A Final Report to the Bureau of Water Resources Management Lake Management Section Impacts of Motor Boats on Water Quality in Wisconsin Lakes Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Research Water Resources Section 1350 Femnte Dr Monona, WI 53716 Principal Investigator Timothy R Asplund 0 March 1996 'P .% V-01,% v t- CAW [,ws-'�S p 33 —> The effects of motor boats on sediment resuspension and concurrent effects on nutrient regeneration and algal stimulation were investigated in the summer of 1994 There were three components to the study a tab study designed to investigate the potential of littoral sediments to Promote algal growth (Assays), a study of the changes in water quality on 10 lakes during holiday weekends with high boating activity (Holiday Weekends), and a volunteer monitoring survey of 201akes documenting motor boat activity and changes in water clarity on summer weekends ({volunteer Monitoring I Algal growth was observed in all sediment assays, but the amount of growth dependent upon sediment chemistry Sediments with was low calcium concentration and high phosphorusofthetotalP generally supported the most growth Algal available P represented from 2 to 42% in the sediments, and was correlated to the amount of P extractable by NaOH (the Fe+Al boundfraction) 2 Hoh WWee n Motor boat use definitely increased on weekends compared to weekdays (200-350% increase) Water clarity usually decreased; associated with increases in turbidity, particularly in near -lake sites -shore saes Chlorophyll a showed no consistent trends Total P often increased in the mid, while ammonia Ngenerally decreased in both areas Shallower Lakes tended to experience greater changes in turbidity and total P than deeper lakes Motor boats may have caused the changes observed, although wind and rain effects cannot be ruled out The magnitude of change in water quality parameters that was observed over weekends was small compared to seasonal changes and differences among lakes: 3 -Volunteer dQWQ= Motor boat use increased consistently on weekends for most of the lakes in the study Water clarity did not show a consistent increasing or decreasing trend for any individual lake on weekends, but weekend Secchi disk readings were 10% lower than weekday readings on average for the entire data set Clear water lakes tended to show slightly larger drops in clarity than turbid lakes, and had more weekends with decreased clarity Again, the magnitude of change in water clarity was small compared to seasonal changes and dfferences among lakes Motor boats appear to have an influence on water clarity through increased turbidity from sediment resuspensron Boats have the potential to stimulate algal growth in lakes with soft - water, easily suspended sediments, but the actual impact is unclear Management efforts would best be focused on lakes or areas of lakes which are shallow, protected from mayor wind resuspens�on, have flocculent sediments with low Ca levels, sustain high levels of boating, and have the potential for good water quality 9T • Table 10 Correlation coefficients (r) for average lake parameters v percent weekends with changes and average magnitude of changes Number of lakes (n) for each correlation is the lowest of the pair Underlined values are significant at p < 0 05 n weekends with increased boat density S % weekends with decreased clarity S Mean change m boat counts S Mean change in water clarity S n 18 20 14 20 18 20 14 20 Area 20 -035 -013 -029 -038 010 012 042 024 Max. Depth 20 -005 026 029 040 004 033 -0 30 -0.47 Mean Secchi (NS) 14 -002 012 035 #,,.a -023 -0 25 -0 46 -M Mean Secchi (MI,) 20 -003 020 027 A-U -025 -0 09 -044 -0.63 Mean boat counts (NS) 18 fi O Q„Z -0 04 -0 18 Q,Q1 QlQ4 -0 11 010 Mean boat counts (ML) 20 033 Pja -0 23 -0 24 Qi$� p�Q� 0 l 1 0 13 The three components of this study have focused on the consequences of sediment resuspension by motor boat activity rather than the actual mechanisms of sediment resuspension Lagler et al 1950, Yousef et al (1978, 1980), Gucrnslu (1982) and others have clearly shown that boat propellers have the potential to scour and resuspend bottom sediments This study assumes that boats can resuspend sediments, but is focused more on the extent to which this occurs in lakes and the resulting effects on water clarity, nutrient release, and algal growth Thus the discussion will focus on these three consequences of sediment resuspension and the role that motor boats play Decreased water clarity or increased turbidity can negatively impact lakes in a number of ways Aside from the reduced aesthetic enjoyment to lake users, reduced water clarity can reduce light availability for submersed aquatic plant growth (Gucinski 1982, Murphy and Eaton 1983), upset the food web dynamics in lakes by affecting behavior or reproductive success offish (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991, Savino et al 1994) and invertebrates (McCabe and OSnen 1983, Cooper 33 d O1987), and reduce phytoplankton growth (Yousef et al 1978, Munawar et al 1991 ) Stem and Stickle (1978) and Kerr (1995) contain excellent reviews of the effects of turbidity and suspended material in aquatic environments Numerous studies have documented increased turbidity or suspended solids directly related to motor boat activity (Gucinski 1982, Hilton and Phillips 1982, Johnson 1994) r ctl and Hey (1987) found a direct relationship between boat speed and suspended sediment concentration near the sediment bed after a boat passage and documented diurnal changes in suspended solids in navigable areas that did not occur in nonnavigable areas Wagner (1991) noted increases in turbidity in shallow areas of 4 ponds during heavy boating periods (weekends), with the greatest change occurring from 2 NTU to 8 NTU in a 48 hour period In the Fox River Chain of Lakes, boating activity was found to resuspend sediments equivalent to a 20 mph wind sustained for 12 hr per day on weekends and 5 hr per day during the week (USACE 1994) In contrast, Moss (1977) found that there was not a correlation between boating activity and water clarity after algal turbidity was factored out for a series of sites in the Norfolk Broads In our study, water clarity decreased and turbidity increased more often than not on holiday weekends (Fig 12) However, no lakes experienced consistent decreases in water clarity or increased turbidity on all weekends In contrast, boating activity almost always increased on weekends, thus the mere presence of more boats did not always lead to reduced water clarity Similarly, in the volunteer survey boating almost always increased on weekends, while water clarity was more variable (Fig 14) Some lakes had more weekends with decreased water clarity than others, but only two had consistent drops in water clarity (Table 8) Other factors related to lake -specific characteristics or weather conditions on a given weekend likely produced the observed variability in the response 1 Changes in turbidity and water clarity appeared to be most prevalent in shallower lakes or in shallow areas of deeper lakes (Fig 13) Shallow lakes and areas would likely be more susceptible to motor boat stung, as the sediment surface would be closer to the boat wash and propeller and so more likely to be impacted (Garrad and Hey 1987, Yousef et al 1978) In the Holiday Weekend lakes, there was a correlation between increased turbidity and maximum lake depth (Table 6) with shallower lakes having greater increases in turbidity Turbidity tended to show larger increases in near -shore sites than in mid -lake sites (Table 5) and tended to increase more often in near -shore sites on weekends (Fig 12) Similarly, in the Fox River turbidity was strongly related to boat traffic in areas with water depth less than 2 m, but not at greater depths (USACE 1994) Thus, the effect of the increased turbidity in shallow areas on the rest of a lake would depend on percentage of the lake under a certain depth (2-3 m) and the size of the lake 2 In the Volunteer Monitoring survey, lakes with greater ambient water clarity experienced more weekends with reduced clarity than more turbid lakes (Fig 15) Pulses of sediment resuspension might be more discernable in clear lakes because turbidity is only elevated in response to some sort of disturbance Lakes with lower water clarity may have had higher levels of algal biomass or been more susceptible to wind mixing, causing weekend pulses of turbidity from boating to be 34 undetectable Boating would not have much of an additional Impact on these systems 3 Weather conditions likely caused variability turbidity There were differences m the magnitude in the observed changes in water clarity and with relatively good weather yand of change in Seechi disk depthsOpposed .on weekends allochthonous Material to the lake from st7) Poor o e�can affect waterpclarito hose with np Inputs of weather Hoff, increased clarity through Inputs of wavfes or cloud cover � 1tY u' obtaining accurate Secchi disk reading from h'� ids or Moreover, boating activity may be reduced in adverse uicreased wind Thus not only could effects of adverse weather be difficult to se could also a$`'ect he levels of boating erse weather conditions g�� o Paste from motor boat activity, it activity ccurrng on a given weekend The number of boats did not appear to affect the ma turbidity (Tables 6 and 10), nor did it affect the numb r of weekendtude of the s >n water clarity or In contrast, Johnson 0994) and USACE (1994) found that turbidity Vrh deer y water clarity Concentrations in their sites were directl tY °r Suspended solid results were obtained in nverine y Correlated to the number of boat passages day) and BasilSystems where boat traffic was heavyP geS �� traffic with y quantified Many of the lakes ,n he volunteer surveyhad (700 - �1400 boat passes instantaneous counts of less than 10 boats per 100 ha relative, L per in our study were only relative measures of boating activity to co ('table 8 Y light boat and may not have been accurate indices of the amount ) ��' he boat counts andFinm the boat counts do not give information abo compare weekdays to weekends t of boat traffic impacting the study site In (water skiing, fishing) the wa ut the type of activity the boat was engaging on lake It is possible that one boat the bin t as being operated, nor thephysical as several boats on resuspending sediments ear the sampling site could have as mu much effect on the Seasonal dynamics of water clan tY and turbidity were evident in both the Holiday Weekend SamP11IIg and the Volunteer Monitoring, and may Influence the impact of boat ui For However, water clan y Consistent trends m motor boat use over the summerg eXamPle, marked, clarity decreased, and turbidity, chlorophyll a (Fig 16) Y Thy Seasonal changes all but dwarfed e,and total P all increased rather ��Ple, most of the char he weekday to weekend changes For seasonal differences could �ari e water Clarity °n a weekend were less t similar trends Normal food Web P to 4 m or more i � 0 5 m (Fig 7B), while g 16) Many of edhe other lakes showed summer all Cycles, nutrient loading, and increased t�Peratures in late affect water clarity and may be more important than the small char weekends ges observed on Unclear is what long term or cumulative impacts boats have on the Garrad and Hey (1988) found that sediments with small -sized turbid state of some lakes suspension from one day to the next and so lead to cumulative impacts of boats particles (<6 2 µin) could remain in the next Unfortunately, warm weather leads to both peak summer (turbidity) from one day to and peak boating times, making cumulative Impacts of boahs�d cu on growth natural events It to discern from 10 35 • W ON s1, w • • HIM ML ProENS Pr Post %\ \ENS ProENS PostENS Pro ;0�ENS Pod : �. �- %\ % :1 • / j\ ENS Pro 01 LUMM zieasonat ana weeKena cnanges in motor boat density and water quality for Deer Lake, Polk Co "NE" = nud-lake "NS" = near - shore, "pre" = weekday samples, "post" = weekend ND = no data Another concern of sediment resuspension is the potential for resuspension of nutrients back into the water column, particularly as a mechanism of internal phosphorus loading (cf Andersen and I.astem 1981, Sondergaard et a] 1992, Phillips et al 1994, Winkelman 1995) In their experimental study on 3 Florida lakes, Yousef et al (1980) found that both total P and orthophosphate increased in the lakes after experimental boating runs Moreover, the increases occurred rapidly, within 2 hours of the initial mixing event, and persisted at higher than background levels for several hours Increases of P of this magnitude could potentially fuel algal growth and increase eutrophication in lakes, particularly if other P sources are minimal Wagner (1991) also reports increases in P concentrations in response to motor boat activity on some lakes, but gives very little information on the details of the observance In contrast, Johnson (1994) reported no discernable increases in nutrients despite significant increases in turbidity and suspended solids from hugh boating activity on the Upper Mrssissnppn River In our study, noticeable increases in total P occurred in a few lakes, but not nearly to the levels observed in Yousef et al (1980) The lakes with the largest changes, Round and Eagle Springs, had increases averaging 15 µg I i m the mid -lake sites (Fig 1OB) compared to the Florida lakes which had average changes of 17, 33, and 104 µg I' (Yousef et al 1980) The amount of increase in total P for all mud -lake sites was positively related to the average total P and negatively related to lake depth (Table 6), similar to the Florida lakes Turbidity also increased more in the • shallow lakes, suggesting that the increased total P came from sediment resuspension Udike in mud -lake sites, total P in near -shore saes did not increase appreciably on weekends (Table 5), though lakes with a large percentage of shallow areas had the greatest increases (Table 6) Increased P also occurred more often in the crud -lake saes compared to the near -shore sites (Fig 12) It is unclear why the mud -lake would show larger increases in P than near -shore, particularly because turbidity tended to increase more often in the near -shore sites It is possible that the resuspended sediments in the near -shore sites precipitated out the P instead of increasing it, particularly since most of the lakes included in the holiday weekend study were hard -water lakes In our sediment assays, we found that lakes high in Ca tended to have low amounts of P (Fig 3) However, the two soft -water lakes (Round and Deer) had quite different changes in total P, and were not noticeably different from the hard -water lakes (Fig 10) Ammonia-N is also an important nutrient for algal and macrophyte growth Ammonia levels are often high in sediment material, and resuspension of sediment material may increase ammonia levels in the water column While increased ammorua may fuel algal growth in the water column, the removal of ammorua from the sediments may hamper macrophyte growth and be detrimental to desirable plant growth in lakes In contrast to expectations, ammorua-N levels tended to drop on the holiday weekends (Fig 11B) in several lakes No relationship to lake characteristics was evident (Table 6), but significant decreases in NH3-N occurred 53% and 57% of the time in the near -shore and crud -lake sites respectively (Fig 12) Part of the explanation for the decreases may be that algae were talang up 37 • the NH3-N in response to increased P from the sediments However, there was not a relationship between increased total P and decreased NH3-N In fact, lakes with higher near -shore NH3-N had larger increases in total P on weekends (Table 6) Also, there was no evidence of increased algal growth as indicated by the chlorophyll a data Alternatively, increased mixing (evidenced by nses in turbidity) in the shallow areas may have redistributed or otherwise removed part of the NH3-N from the water column In some lakes, NH3-N was often quite high prior to the weekend, perhaps due to which allowed the NH3-N to accumulate Resuspension of sedimenons tls ay have causedundisturbed � N to attach to the sediment particles and settle to the bottom Interestingly, Munawar et al (1991) also noted occasional drops in ammonia-N after passages of large tankers in a Great Lakes shipping channel, but no corresponding increase in primary productivity, suggesting that the drop m ammonia-N was not related to algal uptake ... I - y n •1 As alluded to earlier, resuspension of sediments and subsequent release of nutrients may contribute to increased algal growth P in lake sediments takes many forms, only part of which is available to algae (Sonzogru et al 1982) Much of the unavailable P in lake sediments is either organic P or apatite P which is bound tightly to the sediments by Ca (S l ker eta] 1 is I Williams et al 1980) Thus the potential for nutrient uptake by algae depends on the dissolved P that is stured up by mixing of the sediments, or by direct uptake of P off of the sediment particles The sediment extractions which we performed indicated that dissolved P (Mi1L-Q-P) and Ploosely- bound to carbonate (NH�CI-P) were relatively minor components of the total Pin most sediments (Table 3) Fe+AI bound P (NaOH represented a larger portion of the total P and vaned inversely with the Ca content of the sediments (Table 4) Sagher et al (1975), Williams et a] (1980), and Klapwijk et al (1982), and others have noted a fairly good correlation between NaOH-P and algal growth Thus lakes with sediments high in Fe+AI bound P are likely to be more susceptible to nutrient release that could fuel algal growth These tend to be sediments with high Fe and total P and low Ca concentrations (Table 4) Our study showed that sediments clearly have the potential to stimulate algal growth Growth was observed in almost all the sediment assays in the P-free medium (Fig 4), indicating that the algal cells were able to use some of the P from the sediments The amount of algal available P was positively correlated to the total P, total Fe, and NaOH-extractable P of the sediments, and negatively related to total Ca and pH (Table 4) These findings indicate that lakes in the southern part of the state, which have generally high Ca concentrations in the sediments, may not be susceptible to algal stimulation by motor boat sediment resuspension The marl forming sediments in these lakes tend to be easily suspended, but they also settle out more quickly (Grarrad and Hey 1988) The CaCO3 in the sediments binds the phosphorus m these lakes and apparently would not be available to algae for uptake However, northern lakes with generally low Ca concentrations may be susceptible, particularly if they also have high P concentrations 0 According to Klapwijk et al (1982), lake sediments with low organic content and high clay 38 content may also be particularly prone to algal stimulation Our data do not support this • observation The sediments that they used had a greater range of organic matter (10-65%) and had greater clay content (up to 70%), while our lakes had far greater Ca (40 mg g' was the maximum for their lakes compared to 330 mg g' for Lake Ripley) Thus, the discrepancy may be explained by these differences in sediment types included in the two experiments It should be noted that the assays were designed to assess the potential for algal stimulation and not to simulate the actual conditions in the field The sediments were agitated continuously for 5 days under optimal temperature and light conditions at a concentration of 200 mg V This would correspond to very high levels of turbidity sustained for several days, which we did not observe in our field surveys Even m the Upper Mississippi, suspended solid concentrations during peak boating periods were less than 80 mg 1' (Johnson 1994) Moreover, the lab studies used a healthy monoculture of a green algae, ambient phytoplankton communities likely would respond differently Nonetheless, the assays give some information about which lakes could potentially experience algal stimulation Wind resuspensnon of sediments has been investigated as a source of algal stimulation (Guns et al 1991, Bengtsson and Hellstrom 1992, Carrick et al 1993) as has carp or other benthnc fish (Sesmg 1993, Meijer et al 1990) In addition to the release of nutnents from the sediments, wind resuspension may stir dormant algal cells into the water column, further increasing algal growth (Carrick et al 1993) • In regards to motor boats as a mechanism of algal stimulation, very few studies have investigated changes in phytoplankton populations or chlorophyll a in response to motor boat mixing Yousef et al (1980) documented increases in chlorophyll a in their experimental boating runs, ranging from 2 2 to over 30 µg I' Moss (1977) found a relationship between phytoplankton numbers and boating activity for a series of sites in the Norfolk Broads However, the areas with high boating use tended to be areas that had more urban sources of pollutants No increases to chlorophyll a in response to boat traffic were detected m the Mississippi River study (Johnson 1994) In our weekend surveys, there was no evidence of increased algal growth in terms of chlorophyll a concentrations (Fig 9B) Many of the lakes in the survey had high Ca levels and would not be expected to experience algal growth in response to boating activity Chlorophyll a m lakes with low Ca did not respond any differently than the lakes with high Ca, however For example, Round Lake, a soft -water lake, did expenence slightly lower water clanty and increased total P on weekends, but did not have any significant trend in chlorophyll a It is possible that there was not enough sediment resuspensnon to achieve noticeable levels of algal stimulation As noted earlier, the changes in water clarity or turbidity on weekends were relatively small in most lakes Another explanation may be that algal growth did not respond immediately to resuspensnon events Time lags between inputs of P and subsequent increases in algal biomass are possible 0 such that sediment stirring by boats could increase chlorophyll biomass several days after the boating event If we had collected samples one or two days after the holiday weekends, we may 39 have seen increased chlorophyll a concentrations, at least in lakes with increased P levels • V• COri ] ISIAnc A few general conclusions can be made as a result of our study which suggest areas research gg for further 1 Boat activity clearly increases on most lakes in Wisconsin on weekends We fou boat counts doubled or tripled on most weekends on average rid that 2 On most lakes, temporary reduced water clarity due to increased turbidityis main impact of motor boats on water quality Water clarity decreased b likely the weekends on average y about 10% on 3 Shallow lakes and near -shore areas are likely to receive more impacts than dee both in terms of reduced water clarity and increased turbidityand per lakes, phosphorus 4 Ammonia levels may decrease in the water column in response to boatingacts although the exact mechanism and consequences are unclear sty' 5 Algal stimulation is possible in lakes with soft -water sediments, but is like} n In hard water lakes Frequent stirring of the sediments by boats in lakes with �ftt a factor may foster algal growth, but it is unclear to what extent this occurs Increases in water Phosphorus were observed, but increases m algal biomass were not Motor boat un pacts should be assessed in the context of other water quality impacts on lakes Studies in the Norfolk broads showed that increased turbidity was more related blooms than motorboat tragic Wind _ to phYtoplankton Bengtson and Hellstrom 1992�James and Barko 1994 spension C ( arper and Bachmann 1984, 1993) may be much more significant in terms of the spatial ancarp empO al e(�� 1975, Sesuig disturbance of Sediment The temporal context of boating needs to be considered as well Our stud clean that seasonal trends of water clarity and other water quality Parameters were much demonstrated weekend changes, Of that boating impacts tend to be more locahzed and larger than Unclear is what cumulative impact these weekend pulses of boat traffic have on short term water quality of many lakes, especially on turbid or eutro hic the long term quality related to weather, food web dynamics, and nutrient loading are pbabl' mo a ig water for a lake as a whole, but it would be difficult to separate out effects of boating fr e significant forces g from these other Management efforts, then, may be best directed at lakes which do not receive much (small lakes), have extensive littoral areas (shallow lakes), and have east} suspended wind impacts water sediments (high clay content, low calcium) Patterns and amount of boatingactivity soft -water ty must also be 0 40 C� considered For example, lakes with high levels of sustained boating throughout the week may be more at risk than lakes with weekend pulses of boating activity Also, the definition of high boat density is often subjective, and should be carefully monitored and quantified before making judgements on the effects of motor boats on a particular lake Finally, this report focuses primarily on the effects of sedunent resuspension Other issues, such as effects on aquatic plants and shoreline erosion, may be very important and should be evaluated in addition to the potential for sediment resuspension This study would not have been possible without the involvement of a large number of people Thanks to Wyatt Repavich at the Biomonitonng Lab of the State Laboratory of Hygiene for his assistance m the development of the algal assay protocol and carrying out the lab work Nicole Sandberg, Tom Baumberger, Gerald Wegner, and Greg Quinn of WDNR Research provided invaluable help m collecting and processing sediment and water samples Ron Kroner (Lake Ripley Management District), Charlie Shong (Pewaukee Lake Sanitary District), Jeff Pippmger and Mark Hezuga (WDNR-Western District), and Jim Leverance (WDNR-Southern District), assisted with the holiday weekend sampling as did the following citizen volunteers Bob Kessler (Long and Columbia), Gordon Dobbs (Pleasant), Les Swanson (Deer) A special thanks goes to the following citizen volunteers who faithfully collected data twice a week throughout the summer of 1994 Moody Oconto Co Round, Chippewa Co Kathan Oneida Co Webb Burnett Co Ashippun, Waukesha Co Kangaroo Door Co Blue Spring Jefferson Co Deer Lake Polk Co Ripley Jefferson Co Elizabeth, Kenosha Co Dan Conway Robert Biechler Tim Hughes Bill White Walter & Arlene Baade Dick Poplawski Jerome Pephaski Les Swanson Rose Mane Ward Bob dt Judy Jooss Axehandle, Chippewa Co Seventeen, Oneida Co Alva, Oneida Co Moms, Waushara Co Pleasant, Walworth Co Marl Waushara Co Long, Waupaca Co Big Lake Shawano Co Columbia, Waupaca Co Lynx, Vdas Co Del Halflnann John E F.rwm Allen Toussaint Nils and Lois Dahlsirand Gordon Dobbs Barry dt Beverly Wilson Bob Kessler Ann dt Dick Ciske Bob Kessler Bobbie Nash Finally, thanks to Paul Garrison and Jenny Winkelman of WDNR Research for their guidance and advice as this project was designed and implemented Thanks also to Paul for his helpful review of several versions of this manuscript This project was funded from segregated gasoline tax money that comes to the Department for a comprehensive lake management, demonstration, and research program 41 i i\ILmhLn of thL P,rk Botrd i would IiLL to %GILL uiv opposition toanv sorts of gas powered motors on Lon_ Lake Please allow me to All% mpt to Illu,tr it, noUi thL pros and the cons of zas powered motor us Ige on Long LakL employing Int torni Pro, l Thc. Inu)unt thL Lu', Lan tav people will go up It Uu. lake is zoned reLreauonal This means more mono for LduL iuun ro ids etc. PLopIL w ill hL IbIL u) h I%L tun in boats that make an awful lot of noise Their enjoyment of the lake Will u,LrL LNL Con, i First u,d IUILIiiti,t it will h ive a malevolent effeLt on the native wildlife This should be our major Lon,Lrii ,u,LL till, I IkL i, UiLse Lre itures home As I recall people boo the aliens i-i the movie lndepLndLiILL D n n thLv plot to Lonyuer E Irth acid reduce it to raw materials Yet we re willing to do LK ILtI� Lilt, , um thin IILrL to another species At least the aliens were doing it to survive Putting the uiim Hl, it n,L for I ILA\ cudividu il5 enjoyment is unaLLeptable from a basic ethILal moral and spintual Point of \ IL%\ not to nlLtitn)Ii hypoLnuLal In short it one calls oneSLlf human they should act in a hurl insist uI I nhu)n -\1r, id, OIL DNR , H,s thev may not be able to open the floodgates because of pollution I have seen diL oil iliA, ,oniL of tIILsL boats leave on OIL eater not to mention all of the runoff muLk that sits at the bottom of OIL I ILL that diL% stir up (The pesticides and lawn treatments from Croixwood hive to go ,omL hLrL) 11 OIL D\R L uuiut open the flood gates and we have more development (And more runoff) %, III- IL \ II ill hL N HoLI _I) WLII pLop1L In Croix%%ood may want to usL their motor boats but I doubt d],% n,L tilt It) u,L thLnl II thLir own back y Irds l don t imagine that flooding would have a good effect tin LIUILi hou,c , UL, rI I.ICLs This IaLL t, onL of SttllwatLr s treasures It should be open to use by everybody There is public ILLLss Ind pLoplL should bL able to take their Lhildri.n and their canoes down to die lake without having u) worr. Ihtiut ,omLon� IIi i jet ski or a motor boat hogging the lake The same should go for local rLsidLnt, -\, i ni join_ to point out later the lake is very small A large lake may be able to handle a lot of tr IttiL but I ,ill I►I I IkL L Innot People shouldn t have to sign up on an appointment sheet to use a n Itur Il to i,urL 4 It , good hu,IIIL,s -\nsone in power who backs an ecologiLal issue of this magnitude is sure to get a bLULr puhi,L till I L RLRILmbLr OIL outLry from the bridge or from Ole dLstruLtion of KIULger s tree farm tiurLI\ thL dL,truLtion )f our 1 Ist O-Ik Savv ui Ili will sur up emotions L,,in_ d,L,L ho It I uttLrk pointless Ivl ivhe on i larger lake I LOUld sLL UiL point It would be a i1LLL,1I1 on l ir_Lr 1 ik- to sour fishing spot I inter to island jump in a plaLe where the islands are more d, IIi I hundiLd oI ,o \ Lid-, IL\ ,s But IILrL you Lail get from one end of Ole IakL to OIL oUILr in a rowboat III nI n hL H h dl in hour Wh\ doLs ailyone need a motor boat' h l hL I ILL t, ,1111l1 too sm ill TIIL sand b it is alrLadv pimpled wtill boat propellers LVLry month of the \L a Ill it Lou_ L ILL I,n t Iro/Ln (WIIILII I idmit nil t that many but still ) I also bLIIL%L that thLre is a III IVln,unl dt,t HILL pLuI)IL III heat, L in bL from odILr doLks and from Lertaiii wLtland arLas at wLh speed hLL Iu,L of LonLLtn, shout w IkL In a 1 irgL I IkL or rivLr this would not be I problLm but in suLh of a ,ni ill I HF L ind i\ Ith -it)IllUP,LhlldrLn drIVLrs w ho don t know thL I Iws it this ordinaLILL was to be prL„Ld IhL I %%tiuld LrL it, I \- v tit tn,.ndl JLI 1 atmosphLrL about OIL LakL I \\ tiu►d H►,o ►ILL to \ oILL my opposition to thL dL1UULhon of OIL I ist O Lk Savannah in StillwatLr to hudd H Ltt\ ,L\\Lr %ptCull\ suiLL wL h ivL othLr ,ltLrnluvLs and I would IIkL to enLoura1L you to make thL O Hb ti I Inn ill I it itur i► UL i,urL t p A lot Ill pLoplL to Lnjo, 111 Huf till Itit %oui in IL 0 b, ui - lid BuiL ill 0 February 12, 1997 Stillwater Planning and Parks Commission City Hall Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Commission Members It is with regret that I am unable to be present at your meeting to be held Monday February 17 1997 due to a critical business trip that is impossible to be rescheduled due to international visitors We have heard, indirectly, that this meeting may include discussion of, or possibly decisions made, related to surface use of Long Lake Hence the purpose of this letter and enclosure We homestead ten acres on the North end of Long Lake which includes over five hundred feet of shoreline and also encompasses the north outlet We have made our current concerns related to lake use known to the City as early as July 8 1996 with a letter to, as well as discussion with, City Attorney, Mr David Magnuson We are making a copy available in the enclosure to re-emphasize our concerns and those of others • we have discussed this with In addition, we have written on this topic and other related issues to Mr Clayton Eckles in a letter dated September 16, 1996 Although we have had no response from the City relating to our offer to survey the lake shore residents and provide resultant data to the City, we did begin the effort and would be happy to complete this if desired Regardless, we did request a survey of lake shore residents be taken to determine the other owner's inputs to lake use issues Besides taking into consideration the concerns expressed in the enclosed letter, it is also requested that any and all meetings related to Lake issues be diligently brought to the attention of lake shore property owners well in advance to allow time for their inputs or to schedule their attendance Thank you for taking our enclosed concerns into serious consideration Respectfully, Don McKenzie 12620 72°d Street orth Stillwater, MN 55082-9322 encl 0 0 July 8, 1996 Mr David Magnuson Stillwater City Attorney City Hall Stillwater, MN 55082 Re Long Lake ---- Surface Use Dear Mr Magnuson, As Stillwater Township residents living on Long Lake in the phase 1 annexation area, we have a great concern regarding assurance that no further restrictions be placed on water craft surface use of Long Lake We are in very strong support of the current County and DNR position, as well as the past - stated City position Minnesota beappliedtonly o Long the dLake�In othsting er words shed noladditional restrictions should lating to use of water craft in Muni be imposed for surface use of Long Lake Several months ago we purchased the property at 12620 72nd Street N because it included considerable lake shore(approx 500 feet) suitable for establishing a part of that area for a dock and boat landing so that we could continue to enjoy the lake That property was promoted and presented for sale as suitable for swimming, boating and fishing on the lake The property also carved quite a premium price for those very benefits Prior to that time we had property near the east side of Long Lake and have been enjoying use of the lake with a variety of different types of boats since 1974 We made that extra investment basically for the lake use benefits We are aware of many of the other Township residents in the annexation phase 1 area, as well as City residents, who also support maintaining the current surface use of Long Lake Many, if not most of those Township properties, are of quite high property value This is due to the nature of the attractive lake shore benefits, which, coupled with increased land size, tends to promote increased investment Any change to those lake benefits in the form of rse affect on those propertv here any additionalneed o be extreme justification, ation othave an toemention compensation, t allow uthat es rto occur would J Our concern, and that of many other Township residents on Long Lake, is that not only are our properties being annexed, and our taxes being raised with no real resultant benefits, but also that our current rights to enjoy the benefits of the lake may also be taken from us, and our property values, as a result, would be adversely affected Loss of these rights would also negate the main reason that many of us chose to make the considerable investments to own property on a recreational lake in Minnesota Loss of these rights, besides resulting in a decrease in our property values and decreased salability, would more importantly, result in loss of personal enjoyment of our own property In our particular case we are currently in the midst of making an additional sizable investment in security, boats, dock and land preparation for dock and landing facilities in addition to the sizable • premium that we already paid for the property r� U RICHARD L HUELSMANN 12610 62ND STREET NORTH SULLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 February 14, 1997 City of Stillwater Planning Commission City of Stillwater Parks Board City of Stillwater Community Development Director 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen On Wednesday, February 12 1997 I received in the mail an undated and unsigned "Notice of Public Hearing On Surface Water Use of Long Lake" concerning a meeting on February 17, 1997 I do not recall seeing anv publication of this meeting notice in either of the City's official newspapers Due to a previous commitment, and the untimely short notice of the subject • hearing, I may not be able to attend the meeting Therefore, I am submitting my comments in writing By way of background I am a major property owner, with significant shoreline, on the south end of Long Lake (see attached map) Had I known in 1990 (when I acquired the land) what I know today, it is highly unlikely that I would have purchased the land and built the house that we moved into on April 1 1993 Since 1995, I along with other former Stillwater Township home owners, have had to devote countless hours to governmental meetings and hearings in order to try to preserve the character and property values of an area that was substantially developed along large lot (2 1/2 acres plus) guidelines, and is now threatened by high density development, primarily on the western shores of Long Lake In addition, the developments of Market Place and the Highway 36 corridors of Oak Park Heights and Baytown have caused significant water runoff and related problems for the Lake in question The "surface water use" of Long Lake is just one of many problems associated with development in the area — development that is different from the long -tune "rural" character of the area The proposed high density development on the western shores of Long Lake creates all kinds of issues that must be carefully identified, evaluated and then dealt with in a manner that does not unduly benefit nor penalize those Long Lake residents who acquired their properties in tunes when conditions and development standards were significantly different than those contemplated by the proposed "annexation" area Phase I developments • I would expect that the comments at the subject hearing will range from the extremes of (1) absolutely no motor powered craft of any kind to (2) unlimited, uncontrolled use The "no motors" extreme unduly penalizes those who acquired their Lakeshore property under conditions and with expectations different from those associated with high density development With the planned high density development of the western lake shore, the E City of Stillwater Planning Commission Page 2 February 14, 1997 current "unrestricted" usage cannot be continued as the lake is two small to accommodate unlimited usage As the city develops its policy position for the surface water use of Long Lake, there are two major factors that must be considered as foundations for any policies (1) Long Lake is a "meandering lake" without a legally defined shoreline The legal property descriptions of all owners of lakeshore property include specific lands underlying the lake accordingly, the lake is totally privately owned and is not in the public domain and has never had public access to it (2) Approximatek 60% of the lakeshore has been developed under rural/township large lot guidelines Only a small portion, off Marine Circle has been developed to date by "City" densit% standards (see attached map) is Any use policy must consider and respect the above factors My recommendations for a surface use policy for Long Lake are as follows (1) No public access for the launching of water craft of any kind (2) No public beaches or other areas that alter the existing natural landscape within 50 feet of the shoreline (3) The western shore city style developments be prohibited from forming associations or other forms of organizations that would grant all property owners within the developments access to and usage of the lake -- only those residential property owners with lots abutting the shoreline would have access (as is the current situation) This prohibition is necessary to preserve the rights and values of current residential property owners (which constitute over 60% of the shoreline) and to protect this small lake from over crowding and consequent environmental damage Alternatively it would be acceptable to have no more than two associations that collectively are limited to the number of "boats" (see below) that does not exceed in total the number of boats that could have been on the lake had the western shore been developed along rural/township standards (assuming one "boat" per 21/2 acre lot) • (4) Watercraft use should be limited to "boats" -- as that term is generally understood (excludes jet -skis, ski-doos, etc ) -- that are either not motorized or are motorized by not more than ten (10) horsepower This effectively eliminates excessive noise nuisance, excessive speed and water "skiing" i City of Stillwater Planning Comrrussion Page 3 February 14, 1997 (5) Docks should be prohibited -- water craft would be restricted to that which is "pulled onto the shore" A proliferation of docks significantly detracts from the aesthetics of the natural shoreline The present practice of unrestricted dockage has resulted in some large docks protruding into the lake that include benches and other additions creating the appearance of a "deck" in the lake (6) Snowmobile and other similar usage should be prohibited, because of the noise nuisance The above policy reconnnit ndations reflect significant compromise for all involved However, in my opinion, they rt prE st nt a reasonable solution to some very difficult issues No one wins, no one totally looses th, rt i% give and take", the traditional serenity and character of the pristine area for the nio%t part is preserved, while at the same time, allowing new homeowners on the western short %. ith Ial.t, front property (or via the alternatively described limited "associations") access substanttally equivalent to that of existing lakeshore propertv owners who purchased their lands urder different conditions and with different expectations I have a small 14 foot fishing boat with a 25 HP motor, the boat has generally been used 5 or 6 times a year I do not have a dock If my recommendations are adopted, I will have to dispose of the 25 HP motor (at a loss) and purchase a motor with 10 or less HP I am willing to do this There are trade offs for all Loncemed Again, the extremes of (1) "no motorized craft" of any sort to (2) unrestricted use are not the answers My recommendations provide a reasonable solution Finally, I want to specifically state that I am not a member of The Friends of Long Lake Homeowners Association Inc and I do not consider that organization to be a representative of my interests Thank you for considering these matters Very truly yours, Richard L Huelsmann CAK • Copies to Gene "Taco" Bealka Councilman David T Magnuson Citv Attorney INS WAM �`, �r�rr r�Alp YA ..�ddd� wrMIMMM WOOD.- � �� �� • _pa'� per f`1��''©:"©©`.:'� ��©®© 1313 I'A • Jon H Engelking 1220 Nightingale Blvd Stillwater MN 55082 February 20 1997 Stillwater Planning Commission Stillwater Parks Board Dear Commissioners and Board Members This letter is in follow-up of the public meeting held February 17 regarding the surface use issue currently before your Joint committee I appreciated the opportunity to speak and to hear the variety of opinions and concerns expressed regarding the formulation of surface use guidelines for Long Lake After considering the whole of the information and opinions it is obvious that there is considerable diversity as to the desires of the public and private property owners around Long Lake However there did seem to be a consensus that the resource that Long Lake affords to everyone should be preserved for the common good It is with that frame of reference that I am writing this letter to express my opunon, and to make what I feel could be a reasonable and acceptable compromise for all concerned parties The strict conservationist desire for no motorized use and the ultra conservative view of no governmental rules or restrictions both have valid arguments We all value the wildlife and scenic qualities of the lake Water recreational opportunities are also a valued resource Therefore I would ask that you consider the following compromise for the surface use of Long Lake when making your recommendations to the Stillwater city council 1 25 mile per hour speed hmit This would allow boating and water skiing, as well as meet legal guidelines governing restrictions on water surface use Water skiing restricted to 11AM to Sunset This would insure an undisturbed time for canoes and other non motorized boats as well as preserving quiet time for area wildlife 3 No Wake restnctions at times of high water This restriction could coincide with the publicized no wake restrictions the DNR places on the St Croix River 4 No restrictions on snowmobile use other than those already established by the DNR and the State of Minnesota (This did not seem to be an area of concern ) 5 No restriction on motorized horsepower This would allow the use of personalized watercraft which are ideal for water skiing in this particular lake Also the potential abuse by these craft would be minimized by the above speed limit i In considering the above it is important to keep in perspective that Long Lake will self -restrict use by its very nature and design As a shallow irregularly shorelined lake it is not conducive to large boats Basic economucs dictate that boat owners will not repeatedly expose expensive craft to the potential perils of this lake mindlessly Finally the question of water quality in Long Lake must be addressed I believe that the above proposal for boating use produces significant benefit to the quality of the lake water by reducing stagnation and thus reducing algae and weed build up I don t think anyone wants Long Lake to become the next Minnesota mosquito mecca However it must be further recognized the true water quality problems of Long Lake come not so much from the surface use but rather from the run off waters coming into the lake from the surrounding properties Chemical and fertilizer use as well as the larger problem of effluent coming from the entire watershed area around and finally into Long Lake impact water quality much more severely Obviously of special concern is the run off coming from the new Market Center development and the areas of impending development around Market Center and in Oak Park Heights as this is the source of the majority of new pollutants and water volume coming into Long Lake Not until these problems are faced will the issue of water quality in Long Lake and subsequently Brown s Creek, be resolved I appreciate the consideration and time you are giving to the above problems and would be happy to discuss and help with any questions or other concerns you may have The above recommendations I think represent a middle of the road compronuse that all parties could find • acceptable for the future surface use of Long Lake Res::g2etking A Jon v cc all Board and Committee members u yV i • Helen & Lee Miller 2962 Marine Circle Stillwater, MN 55082 Stillwater City Council February 21 1997 Stillwater Planning and Parks Commissions Dear City Council and Commission Members Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions regarding water surface use at the February 17 1997 pubic hearing We are writing to reiterate our position and to provide data that further explain our rationale Process for Determining Water Surface Use As I mentioned at the meeting, the DNR Commissioner has final approval on lake use classification Minnesota Rules parts 6110 3000-3800, Water Surface Use Management, require a process of data analysis and submission before approval The data include transcripts of public hearings data on lake characteristics, and safety and environmental impact information To my knowledge the process is not being followed Strongly suggest you coordinate with the DNR Boating Staff before needlessly spinning your wheels • Boatin Although we enjoy power boating, we are opposed to the use of powerboats on Long Lake, due to safety, aesthetic and environmental reasons After the meeting I developed the attached chart that helps explain our rationale Any decision is a trade-off between several factors Decisions on one factor will have positive or negative impacts on other factors After considering all the factors, we feel that use of non motorized boats only, will provide the most people with a safe and environmentally attractive lake for recreation. The following discussion explains the attached chart Broad Public Use is a primary decision factor Clearly, non -powered boating such as canoeing will provide the broadest use and enjoyment to the entire public As Dick Peterson explained the water surface belongs to everyone in Stillwater, not just those of us with riparian rights If motors are allowed larger boats will reduce the number of people willing to enjoy the lake from canoes and other small boats If high-speed operation is allowed very few non - powered boats will be willing to risk their lives to take a wobbly ride on the lake A few will have usurped the rights of many 4) • • Water Oualitv is important to the health of the lake the ability to release water to Browns Creek and the safety of our homes Boats without motors, or no boats at all, will have a beneficial effect on the lake water quality Because the lake is shallow, any type of powered operation will have some negative effect by disturbing the bottom sediments and aquatic plants This will range from minimal negative effects for electric motor operation to very negative effects for high-speed operation Allowing motor operation that decreases water quality, is an insulting message that the recreational desires of a few are more important than the safety of our home • Wildlife and Waterbtrds are also residents of the lake and waters edge They provide a scen.c and calming effect after the rush of a workday Eliminating all boats would best preserve the wildlife However, few people would be willing to take so drastic a measure Therefore, boats without motors will allow the greatest number of people and wildlife to share the lake resource The introduction of larger boats, made possible with motors, will reduce the number of wildlife/waterfowl that can populate the lake High-speed operation will be a disaster • Enforcement Limiting the types of boats, rather than implementing complicated rules on speeds, hours of operation, etc, provides the easiest enforcement of boating • regulations Allowing only boats with no motors, or with electric motors only, will automatically eliminate the need for enforcement People will not be able to speed, or create a damaging wake The Washington County deputy, who will enforce the regulations on Long Lake, said that complicated rules and hours of operation result in continuing call backs and disputes between neighbors • Safety Long Lake is a dangerous boating lake due the many shallow areas, bays, and blind spots Lily and McKusick are far safer because an operator can see virtually all of the surface area of those lakes from any spot on the lake Long Lake can safety accommodatc boats without motors, or boats w■th electric motors only, because neither can reach sufficient speed to cause serious injury Some will argue that gas powered boats can be operated just as slowly But somehow putting the throttle of a gas engine in the hands of the male species eventually leads to high-speed operation I have attached a lake drawing that shows where the dangerous areas of operation occur These include the blind spots, and the narrow middle of the lake 4) • • Docks are appropriate around large lakes But on our long, skinny lake they will be an eyesore, and will further damage the wildlife habitat due to clearing of the adjoining property We are opposed to the proliferation of large docks around the lake and any motorized boating alternatives that require their installation We favor the use of non motorized boats such as canoes or rowboats, that require small docks or none at all Mr Putman wants docks as an amenity for his development Ironically, he will damage the very thing he is selling for a premium Yet, he has demonstrated that he can sell premium homes without docks in Woodbury Seems like it should work in Stillwater tool • Noise Pollution Imagine coming home to a quiet, peaceful North Woods lake after a day of job stress, only to find it invaded by jet skis, ski boats, and boat races This occurred during many weekdays and weekends over the last few years, as a few users absconded with the silence Allowing any gas -powered boats will assure far greater levels of noise as the number of powerboatsjumps from several to more than 50 We favor only non -powered boats, or boats with electric motors, in order to preserve an asset of the lake • Visual Aesthetics Bigger boats, faster boats, and numerous large • docks equals a yucky image that fills your eyes with motion and clutter Non powered boats will provide a pleasing view with small, slow moving objects that blend with a natural shoreline Visually, a single pontoon boat fills a space about 10-15 times that of a single canoe, while a fast moving power boat will multiply this effect by several times Let s keep the North Woods setting) SnowmobilinQ Although we enjoy snowmobiling, we feel the current snowmobile operation on the lake is hazardojs and should be strzictly prohibited Further development will only worsen the situation The purpose of snowmobile trails is to segregate operation from other possible recreational users (e g walking or skiing), and to contain it in a bounded 12-14 foot wide trail Operation of snowmobiles or four wheelers on the lake violates these safety objectives A sled going 100 mph will cover the length of a football field in 2 seconds The closure rate of two sleds driving toward each other at 70 and 100 mph respectively will cover the distance of a football field in slightly over 1 second Lack of judgement and reaction time at these tremendous closure speeds are killing people 9 • The lake has multiple bays adjacent to narrow (200-foot) passages in the lake These create blind spots where drivers may exit a bay and cross at right angles in front of high-speed sleds coming down the lake We will likely see the first accident occur at one of these three narrows in the lake, or when a local kid falls from a sled and is run over by a fellow tailgater I have attached a lake drawing that shows where the dangerous areas of operation occur Please make a wise choice on this topic, and avoid a tragedy -in -waiting Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander I was puzzled by the negative reactions of some when asked if Long Lake use regulations would apply equally to Lily and McKusick Because of their shapes and greater width, Lily and McKusick lakes are far safer for motorized operation than Long Lake Further, most of Long Lake is equally shallow and environmentally sensitive as McKusick. In spite of the City ordinance that prohibits motors on Lily Lake, for 15 years a sign has been posted that allows electric motors A Lily Lake resident would be completely in their rights to park an electric powered pontoon boat at a big dock by their house If motorized operation is offensive to Lily Lake residents, should it not be equally offensive to us9 I hope that your reactions don't reflect either a double standard toward Croixwood, or an indication that promises have been made to developers Water use regulations should be applied equally on all three lakes Hopefully, consideration of all the data will lead you to the same conclusion In closing, we feel that snowmobiling and motorized boat operation should be prohibited on Long, Lily and McKusick Lakes. Non -powered boating should be encouraged to maximize public use of these valuable resources in a safe and environmentally sound way Thank you for considering our inputs Sincerely, Lee and Helen Miller • 0 s Comparison of Boating Alternatives on Use, Environmental, Safety and Aesthetic Issues No Boats Boats, No Boats, Electric Boats, Gas Boats, Gas Motors, Motors. .. Motors Only Motors, "No High Speed The Right Wake" Rules Operation Choice • Broad Public None Most Users Some Reduction in Additional Reduction Very Few Users Water Use Canoe users due to in Canoe users due to Surface Monopolized by Presence of Large Presence of Large a Few Power Boat Boats Boats and Noise Operators • Water Quality Positive Positive Minimal Negative Moderate Negative Very Negative Impact Impact Impact Impact • Benefit to Beneficial Minimal Moderate Negative Moderate Negative Very Negative Impact Wildlife and Negative Impact Impact Impact Water birds • Enforcement None None Minimal Many if Operators Do Very Many Enforcement Concerns Not Adhere to Rules Concerns • Safety Concerns None None Minimal Many If Operators Do Very Many Safety Not Adhere to Rules Concerns • Docks None None or Small Large Docks Required Large Docks Required Large Docks Required • Noise Pollution None. None Minimal Moderate High Noise Levels • VIS1191 Very Good North Very Good, Poor due to Large. Poor due to Large Very Poor due to Large Aesthetics Woods Image North Woods Boats Docks and Boats Docks and Bolts High Speed Image Clearing at W1tLr s Cle-inng at Water s Oper-ition Docks -ind Edge. Edge, Cie-iring at Water s Edge Analysis of High Risk Areas for Power Boat Operation Assume 1 Low to moderate speed operation dorm center of Like (mirked with straight arrows) 2 High speed ski operation in 3 largest pools of the I-ike (marked with circular arrows) Dotted areas are too shallow to operate because props will physically strike bottom Further the biys around the two northern islands contvn emergent and floating vegetation Only 3 areas are wide enough to allow a circular pattern for skiing Skiing down the middle of the like would require dangerous weaving around slower moving boils The 10 asterisks in -irk ireis of particular nsk l At the narrow southern channel (*1) the navigable width is only 30 feet too narrow for 2 boats passing at high speeds 2 Tlie narrow northern chinnel (*2) his about 100 feet of navigable width and an obstructed view of boats crossing from the western bay 3 The remaining istensks mark the points at which boats traveling the length of the lake must cross the path of boas in high speed circid it patterns Thus to tn%el the length of the lake one could pass through 10 areas of high risk rLquir►ng significant %igilance W C/rr Of STILLWATER ow z Y • Analysis of High Risk Areas for Snowmobile Operation Assume I High speed operation down center of lake 2 plus other sno%�mobiles or recre-it►onal users oper-icing ►round shoreline or m bays Dotted are -is represent portions of lake where high speed operator cinnot sec other vehicles about to cross p-iths Tl►c three -istensks mirk areas of gre-itest nsk When one snowmobile is exiting a bay and crossing the path of another r L snowmobile dnv►ng lite center of the lake neUher operator can see tl►e other until they are 100 200 feet apart The dnvers have approa 1-2 seconds to take evasive actions before colliding f , Lily Lake does not 1►ave such risks because an operator ran see the entire surface of Lily from any point on the lake McKusick has one area of nsk versus three ' and no bays or islands ` CITY OF ST/L UYAT£R 00, F-A I T VIA A.5E ,c EuTA4MCEEA1 T = v1Pr N �P�iery