2. Consider a "No Wake" Ordinance Amendment on Lakes within the City of ChanhassenCITY OF -
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Adiai by City
MEMORANDUM ✓rA fildffW
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
4
FROM: Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator Oat Submitted to Commission
DATE: August 4, 1997 - _hp" sen .fitted to C
SUBJ: No Wake
UPDATE
The City's Attorneys have prepared the attached proposed ordinance. If approved, a copy will be
sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for State approval. In addition, City staff
will initiate the process of establishing permanent markers and No Wake signs for effected
lakes.
I have also attached a memo from Scott Harr, Public Safety Director, discussing enforcement
issues.
Here is summary of our meeting on no wake ordinances and an update on the issue.
• The City can pass an ordinance to restrict boating activities that cause wakes
• Any Lake that the City restricts will have to be completely within the City boundary or will
require an identical ordinance from the adjoining City. (i.e. Lake Riley will require additional
approval from the City of Eden Prairie.)
• Recreational lakes entirely within Chanhassen, which this ordinance would effect are Lotus,
Minnewashta, Susan, Lucy and Ann.
• The DNR will have to review any ordinances to make sure they meet state regulations
• Public Safety has posted No Wake signs on all Lakes which have public access in
Chanhassen, however are technically not legal.
• Carver County and DNR water patrol will enforce No Wake ordinances once they
in place.
• At this time I would recommend that any ordinance be proposed for Lotus Lake, Lake Riley
and Lake Minnewashta. Lake Ann already has a restriction on motors, and Lake Lucy has no
public access therefore there is nowhere for signs or no way of enforcing the rules.
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has had such an ordinance in place since July 1993.
That ordinance requires the water levels to exceed the ordinary high water mark (OHW 929.4) by
h.
08/19/97
0.4 feet (929.8) for five consecutive days or reach a level of 930.0. All elevations are measured
above sea level. In the past few years water has risen above the mark and gone down the next
day, thus the five day requirement.
Here is my proposal on how the City should proceed with issue for the remainder of the boating
season:
Enact a temporary No Wake ordinance on the following Lakes at the respective elevations:
Recreational
NWL
OHW
100yr. WL
Proposed
Distance from
Lakes
No Wake El.
Shore
Lotus
895.4
896.3
896.8
896.6
Lake Wide
Minnewashta
942.2
944.5
945.3
944.9
600 ft
Christmas
N/A
932.77
N/A
N/A
Susan
881.4
881.8
884
882.2
Lake Wide
Riley
864
865.3
865.5
865.5
600 ft
Ann
955.2
955.5
956.3
N/A
Lucy
955.3
956.1
956.6
956.4
Lake Wide
*NWL - Normal water Level
*OHW - Ordinary high water level
*I 00yr. WL - 100 year floodplain level
Once a ordinance is drafted send a copy to Eden Prairie for their ratification.
If this action is agreed upon, I will contact Roger K. and have the elevations written into an
ordinance.
If the ordinance process is to be pursued I recommend the following actions:
• Meet with watershed districts, DNR and determine an elevation for enactment of the
ordinance. Determination should be made at specific water level that triggers a ban and a
proposed ordinance drafted.
• Determine which lakes need no wake protection and eliminate any lakes that can withstand
temporary rising water.
• A public hearing should be held with all Lakeshore residents notified as well as notification
in the local newspaper
• Benchmark elevations put at public access points of each of the lakes to identify the
restrictive water elevations
• No wake signs should be made that can be posted and removed
• No wake signs would have a diagram of the lake, and restricted areas highlighted.
N
08:07:97 THU 16:04 FAX 612 452 5550 CA)IPBELL --,- C'HANHASSE\
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE III OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING WATERCRAFT OPERATING REGULATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 6 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended
by adding a Section 6 -56 to read:
Sec. 6 -56 Emergency SZOw -No Wake Watercraft Operationa
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 86B.201 -.205,
459.20, and Minn. Rules Parts 6110.0300 - 6110.3700, and in order
to protect public and private property threatened by high water
levels, a local state of emergency is hereby declared and the
operation and speed of watercraft is hereby temporarily
regulated.
No person shall operate any watercraft in excess of a Slow -No
wake speed on the following lakes, in the areas indicated,
whenever the lake levels reach the elevations specified below:
Lake No Wake Elevation
Lotus 896.6
Minnewashta 944.9
Susan
882.2
Riley
865.5
Lucy
956.4
Areas Recnilated
Lake Wide
Within 600 ft. of shore
Lake wide
Within 600 ft. of shore
Lake wide
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1997, by
the City Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
rfj
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
19 ) ,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator
FROM: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
DATE: August 20, 1997
SUBJ: Water Use Enforcement
This memo is to respond to your inquiry regarding enforcement options for Chanhassen lakes.
Recognizing that very little is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the first
option is the Carver County Water Patrol.
While we have been very happy with the quality of service from the Sheriffs Department Water Patrol
Division, practically speaking the amount of time available from them is limited. The county assigns the
duties of coordinating the water patrol to one full time deputy during the summer, and he then works
with their part time officers. They do get out on the lakes at various times throughout the summer, but
they have the entire county to patrol. If no one happens to be on duty when a call comes in, they are not
called out to respond to routine complaints. Nonetheless, water patrol is considered "base level service ",
and so it costs us nothing. We can request extra patrol on certain lakes, specific violations to be looked
for and certain times /days for patrol to occur, however, none of this can be guaranteed, and it would be
on a limited basis.
The other possibility we discussed was having Chanhassen Public Safety staff involved with water
patrol. I think this is exciting, given sufficient staff & equipment. First, staff is a possibility. In order
for an officer to take enforcement action, they must be licensed as a peace officer. We cannot have non -
sworn (unarmed) officers doing any sort of enforcement activity, because of the potential for having to
take enforcement action which requires them to be properly equipped and have police powers.
Community Service Officers, and even staff from other departments, could assist a sworn officer. We
have such an excellent relationship with the Hennepin County Water Patrol and the Carver County Water
Patrol that training would be no problem. Kerri Nolden has expressed a strong interest in this area, as
well as other areas that relate to those of a "recreation officer" (including bicycle patrol, park patrol,
etc.). I think she would be ideally suited to this activity. She has the positive, proactive approach to
doing things, but could take an enforcement position should it become necessary. She also has the
necessary first aid training and familiarity with our emergency system to be of help. She's also the type
that others could easily work with. Particularly if we able to discontinue animal control contract
services, with some personnel modifications, we can make time for this. ^
S. t
Phillip Elkin
August 20, 1997
Page 2
Regarding equipment, there are some exciting options here. While both have "pluses" and "minuses ",
they are viable options. The first is exciting because it could be free! Because of the increase in sales,
use and problems of personal watercraft ( "jet skis "), the major manufacturers have programs that provide
law enforcement with personal watercraft to use on a loan basis. Carver County presently has two
personal watercrafts and have had positive experiences with them for reasons that include ease of
deployment, etc. There have been programs like this involving snowmobiles as well. The other option
would be for the city to purchase a boat for water patrol use. Initial estimates indicate that a suitable
boat /motor /trailer could be purchased for between $12,000.00 - $15,000.00. For practical and liability
reasons, I do not think that merely "borrowing" someone's pleasure craft from time to time would be
appropriate. Not only could we use a boat for routine patrol and enforcement activity, but it could be
available for ready deployment as part of our overall emergency management plan. Once purchased, this
equipment would have a long life and could be depended on rather than going year to year seeing if
equipment could be made available on loan from manufacturers. I would like for the city to consider a
summer and winter safety /enforcement program.
Finally, regarding the "enforcement attitude ", I feel comfortable suggesting it be just like the way we
enforce other matters. Depending on the situation, of course, we would begin with an educational
approach, opting for a verbal or written warning if at all possible. More extreme situations or repeat
matters could result in stronger action, possibly including citations being issued. It think the approach
we generally use now would work well overall.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you more. Thank you for requesting input.
SH:cd
gAsafety \sh \pelkin
s.�