Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Attachment D <br />information from the DNR and Washington County and the hydrologist <br />regarding the status of the lake that might have an impact on the CityÓs ability to <br />protect this area. <br /> <br />Ms. Gundlach indicated she looked up the DNRÓs model Ordinance, which was <br />updated in October 2019. She wanted to be clear that the City is not obligated to <br />adopt the newly updated model Ordinance. As this relates to controlled accesses, it <br />states they are permissible as a part of a subdivision and the only requirement in the <br />new model Ordinance that is not currently in City Code for a conditional use <br />requirement related to model controlled accesses is ÐIf docking, mooring or other <br />over water storage of more than six watercraft is to be allowed at a controlled access <br />lot than the width of the lot must be increased by a percentage of the requirements for <br />riparian and residential lots for each watercraft beyond six.Ñ There is also a table <br />where it shows what the required increase in lot width is needed in order to go higher <br />than six watercraft. Based on the lot width of this extra lot the developer would for <br />sure be allowed six if the City decided to go ahead and adopt the updated DNR model <br />Shoreland Ordinance as it is related to controlled access. She wanted to make sure if <br />the decision is to table action because the Commission is interested in what the new <br />model Ordinance from the DNR says, the new model Ordinance would allow six <br />mooring spaces on that controlled access lot. <br /> <br />Chair Kimble asked if the DNR Ordinance was not adopted, what is allowed by the <br />City. <br /> <br />Ms. Gundlach explained the City Ordinance does not specify. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd explained in recent conversation with the hydrologist he gathered that <br />number is not actually different. The thing that may be changing or has changed in <br />the new model Ordinance is that the cities would be responsible or be able to <br />administer that calculation rather than the State being solely responsible for it. He did <br />not think the numbers were really changing, it would be allowing the City to regulate <br />it. <br /> <br />Member McGehee thanked staff for the clarification and indicated she would change <br />her motion from a motion to table to a motion to deny. <br /> <br />Member McGehee moved, seconded by Member Schaffhausen, to deny based on <br />the fragility of the lake, the impairment of the water already, the narrowness of <br />the straight into the lake from this estuary, lined with the lily pads. The ability <br />of all of these lots together to be able to eradicate fifteen feet of weeds around <br />each dock in order to get the boats out seems beyond anything acceptable. We <br />must protect not only the quality of the lake but the health, safety, and welfare of <br />the investment of the people who already have homes on the lake and for the <br />people of Minnesota who use and value this lake. This proposed development is <br />an excessive burden on this particularly fragile end of the lake with a particular <br />depth of wetland as well as shallow, vegetative area as fish breading ground. <br /> <br />Member Pribyl thought it seemed like a lot of the concern in this motion is around the <br />number of individual lake access. She thought Mr. Lloyd stated if each lot is <br />Page 14 of 65 <br /> <br />