10-14-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lake Minnatonka Conaarvation Diatrfct Ragular iBoard Maating August 28,2002 Paga7 Babcock stated that when the Board took the straw poR vole in May, there were a number of possible amendments to the matrix prepared by LeFevere aid Wert. He recalled that there was significant discussion on possible anendments, with only a couple of amendments proposed by Board members that were voted on that evening. If a Board member believed tha amendment they wanted was not cotisidered in the adopted ordinance, they could propose it at a lata date. He stated tha he did not support the proposed ordinance amendment because he believed eliminating powa boat traffic in the proposed creeks is good for the lake ori a long-term basis. His long-term goa for the Board is to take incremental steps to protect the upstream areas of the lake by reducing externa loading of phosphorous from these tributaries. The characteristic of the wetland area of Panter*s Creek has changed significantly over the years with development and he questioned whether it makes sense to restore it to its pristine state. He believed K makes sense for Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks and he supported the ordinance adopted by the Board, noting that he believed there is other work for the Task Force to dea with pertaining to other wetland areas on Lake Minnetonka. In the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, it cans for public bodies such as the District to acquire easements over wetland areas to provide protection beyond wha can be provided through legislation. He suggested that the Board might want to consider this as an option to limit boat storage in these wetland areas, noting that he already had preliminary discussions with the frxir property owners on Six Mile Creek that have clamed historical use. Skramstad stated that he would support protecting the historical riparian rights of property owners that abut the tributaries referenced in the adopted ordinance, whether it be through grandfathering or ^justing the points of demarcation. Ambrose stated that the easement idea suggested by Babcock was intriguing and merited further exploration. He supported protecting the environmental aspect of the lake and protecting the intereste of the property owners that have historical use of these tributaries, preferably in the form of the ordinance amendment as propokd. McMillan stated that she understood that boat traffic on Six Mile and Long Lake Creeks was currently pretty limited and that the ordinance adopted would make them more accessible for boat storage. She believed teat this provide.* a false sense of accessibility. Babcock stated that he had concerns about removing restrictions of aH types from certain areas of both Long Lake and Painter ’s Creeks, including the removal of language that would allow for electric motors. McMillan stated that there are bays of Lake Minnetonka that are shallow that have not currently been addressed. Foster asked McMillan if there was a distinction between bays that do not have flowing water versus tributaries that have flowing water. McMillan stated that flowing water makes a difference; however, she did not have a scientific answer to it. Wert stated that the Board directed the Task Force to bifurcate the study of the tributaries from the wetland Breas of the overall lake. He believed that consideration of other wetland areas on the lake will be forthcoming and that the ordinance adopted was only the first step. Babcock questioned whether there is an absolute right to store and dock a motorized watercraft on a body of water based on the State of Minnesota's definition of access, citing the electric motor restrictions on Lake Harriet and Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis as an example. He stated that he believed the crux of the problem is the economic issues for a few property owners that need to be addressed. He questioned whether this supports the