Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />Tuesday, May 27, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />    Page 9 of 23   <br />PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – BRUCE LEMKE, REPRESENTATIVE <br /> <br />Lemke stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions. <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> <br />None <br /> <br /> <br />PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT <br /> <br />7. LONG LAKE SLOW NO WAKE REGULATIONS (PUBLIC HEARING) – ORDINANCE <br />- TABLED <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the memo included in the City Council’s packet from Long Lake discusses how the city <br />experienced unusually high water levels in 2013. The high water levels became an issue for a number of <br />lakeshore homeowners. As a result, the Long Lake Council and Staff discussed adoption of a “slow-no <br />wake” ordinance to reduce the impact to the shoreline of wakes created by powerboats. In April of this <br />year, Long Lake adopted an ordinance that would allow law enforcement to regulate the speed of <br />watercraft on Long Lake and imposing a “slow-no wake” restriction during periods when the water level <br />is in excess of 944.15. Regulation of watercraft speeds when the lake level is high to reduce the impact of <br />watercraft wakes would help protect public and private shoreline from erosion. <br /> <br />In later correspondence from Jack Gleason, MnDNR Hydrologist, it was learned that establishing the <br /> no-wake level at 944.15 feet would potentially result in the no-wake restriction being imposed all <br />summer and he has suggested that an elevation of 945.0 feet would be more appropriate. Long Lake has <br />revised their initial ordinance by adopting the 945.0 foot elevation and eliminating a requirement that the <br />lake level be below 945.0 for three consecutive days in order to remove the no-wake restriction, finding <br />that if the water level is below 945.0 feet, there was not a reason to wait an extra three days. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the attached draft ordinance is nearly identical in text to that adopted by Long Lake. <br />The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney and notice for a public hearing has been <br />published. In addition, individual notices were mailed to all Orono lakeshore owners abutting Long Lake. <br /> <br />Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. <br /> <br />John Diavik, 1780 Martha Lane, Long Lake, stated he is in favor of a no-wake ordinance at the high water <br />levels but that in his view the set elevation is too low. Diavik stated that became apparent to him when he <br />was out on Memorial Day and the marker showed that they were still two to three inches over the <br />elevation set by Long Lake. Diavik noted back in April the levels were clearly higher and that the water <br />has decreased by approximately 12 inches, which is well below the tops of the riprap walls. <br />Diavik stated he is not aware of any surrounding lakes that had a no-wake zone on Memorial Day other <br />than Long Lake. Diavik indicated Long Lake originally set the elevation at 944.15, which was actually <br />lower than the ordinary high water line. As a result, the local residents expressed their concern about that <br />low elevation since other cities have set it above the high water level. Diavik stated the City needs to <br />look at where that high water level normally is and also see where the ordinary high water level is in order <br />to set a more appropriate elevation. Diavik stated the no wake zones should be reserved for those extreme <br />cases and that he does not want it to hit those conditions multiple times per summer.