DEEPHAVEN BOAT COMMITTEE
Wednesday,
February 8, 2006
Minutes
Chairman David Paulson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
David Paulson, Pete Onstad, Darel Gustafson, Marc Anderson, Larry Parkhurst, Ed Towey, Steve Pavek, Oliver Arrett, Council Liaison Keith Kask and Administrator Dana Young
Pete Onstad moved to approve the January 4, 2006 minutes. Seconded by Darel Gustafson. Motion carried 8-0.
Tom Brislin, 3675 Parkway, stated that he currently has Buoy #6 in St. Louis Bay as well as a slide and has been following the Boat Committee’s discussion as to whether buoy holders should also be allowed to have a slide space. He stated that the Committee consideration of having sailors use community-owned rowing boats to access their sailboats instead of leasing their own slide space doesn’t make sense. He stated that he was asked to move his canoe off the slide last year was granted a one-year extension and has just recently bought a Boston Whaler which has worked out great for him and his son. Steve Pavek stated that he is also a sailor and has a city slide and agreed with Mr. Brislin that he didn’t particularly like the idea of requiring sailors to use community-owned boats. He added that this idea is still in the discussion phase.
Mr. Brislin stated that the logistics and liability of this idea don’t make sense. He stated that it is not practical for the city to provide a dory for each sailboat and there would be an added liability if someone got hurt using a city-owned dory. He stated that it would also be a real inconvenience to have to return the dory to its assigned space because that would leave his wife, who is not a sailor, or his elderly parents to have to steer the sailboat to the docks to pick him up. He stated that he doubted if it would ever work.
David Paulson stated that the Boat Committee has discussed all these different scenarios and agrees that the idea would be a real departure and inconvenience for sailboat owners. He stated that the Committee has been trying to resolve the equitable distribution of resources and it is difficult to justify two spaces to be held by buoy permit holders. He stated that the idea is still very much in the discussion phase but the Committee believes that we will eventually have fewer slides in order to accommodate larger boats and it may be necessary to make some other type of arrangement for sailboat owners. He added that the conversation on this idea is continuing and would still have to be presented to the Council and discussed at a Town Hall meeting. Tom Brislin stated that he appreciated the opportunity to discuss this issue with the Committee.
It was generally felt that a definition of boat length should be included in the City ordinance to help clarify any questions regarding boat length. Keith Kask stated that the LOA – length overall – is what usually determines the length of a boat and that it usually includes the length of the swim platform. Randy Boyd suggested using the LMCD’s definition of boat length. Dana Young produced the following definition of boat length from the LMCD Code:
Length overall (LOA) meant the horizontal measurement from the foremost to the aftermost points of the watercraft, including all equipment and attachments in their normal operating positions.
Discussion was held on whether the Crist’s 27’ boat should be allowed on the city dock since the definition of boat length had not been officially adopted. David Paulson stated that he would have a hard time grandfathering a newly purchased boat that had never been put in the water. Darel Gustafson stated that the Crist’s really need an answer and shouldn’t be required to wait an additional month before the Committee makes a final decision. Steve Pavek stated that the Crist’s should check into purchasing a smaller boat that meets the City’s length requirements.
Steve
Pavek noted that there were several items that were not included on the most
recent version of the St. Louis Bay and Carson’s Bay dock plans:
·
The side property lines were not shown at the north end of St. Louis
Bay
·
Two classes of slides should be shown with Class B1 (roll in) and B2
slides (regular).
·
Numbering of BSU’s
·
Identification of swim platform
Dana
Young noted that we also have to verify the west-side property line next to
Randy Boyd’s property on Carson’s Bay.
He stated that Mr. Boyd is concerned that the current setback line as
shown on the plan is not accurate.
David
Paulson stated that he would like to use Darel Gustafson’s presentation outline
to discuss the talking points with the City Council. The Committee established the following
presentation outline:
A. Council
Review February 2006
B. Public
Hearing April 2006
C. Council
Approval May 2006
D. LMCD
Meetings June-July 2006
E. Develop
Plan Specs August 2006
F. Submit for
Bid October 2006
G. Issue Bond November 2006
H. Award Bids December 2006
I.
Construction Begins January-February
2007
A.
North property
line in St. Louis bay
B.
Board Walk
Definition (To be worked through with Park Committee)
C.
Definition of
the Swimming Deck over the steel breakwater
D.
Designation
and location of two types of slides
i.
B.1 (Current slide configuration without winches
ii.
B.2 (Large boats requiring winch with ramp using one of two
winch systems recommended by the Boat Committee
E.
Five (5) or
four (4) finger configuration of boat docks in St. Louis bay.
F.
Cost estimates
based on actual costs of docks in Excelsior, Wayzata, and Mound.
G.
Actual
measurements of Excelsior docks to be used to determine final dock size in plan
H.
Final drawings
from Bolt-Mink incorporating the final issues
A.
Original date
of dock origin
B.
List of
additions and deletions of BSUs over time
C.
The rate of
increase in demand for docks
D.
Current
statistics on waiting time
E.
Transition
from smaller boats to current boat size requests
F.
Self-sustaining
fees to cover all maintenance and upgrade costs
G.
Current
average annual maintenance charges
H.
Amount in
replacement reserve
A.
Extensive
waiting list
B.
Current condition
of docks
C.
Growing demand
for dock slips as compared with other marina resources
D.
Inadequate mix
of current resources available
E.
Public desire
for little or no change in marina facilities
F.
Resistance to
a significant increase in BSUs
G.
Shore space
docks in St. Louis bay are unsightly and not uniform
H.
Lack of
sufficient parking for Carson Bay
I.
Parking challenges in St. Louis Bay
J.
Space constraints in both St. Louis and Carson bays are an
obstacle to expansion
K.
Conflicting
issues in St. Louis Bay with the main Deephaven beach
L.
LMCD
requirements
M.
Multiple
marina resources with a single family
N.
Request for a
comprehensive plan by the Deephaven City Council
O.
Security and
lighting
P.
Consistent
electrical power to all docks
Q.
New riprap
erosion barrier is already collapsing and needs to be repaired before covering
with new walk way.
A.
Why is the
boat committee recommending these changes
i.
Docks are in need of replacement
ii.
Council directive
iii.
More demand for dock slips than other resources
iv.
Increase access to lake for residents
v.
Accommodate demand for larger boats on slides
vi.
Adjust the current mix of marina resources
vii.
Improve the aesthetics
viii.
Expand the swimming beach
ix.
Move the unsightly shore stations to create greater view of
the lake
x.
Allows for the development of a board walk and a fishing
platform
xi.
Allows for larger boats on slides
xii.
Eliminates costly annual maintenance
xiii.
Enhances safety
xiv.
Standardizes on slide requirements
xv.
Easier access to slips
xvi.
Safer access to slips
xvii.
Creates handicap accessibility
xviii.
Expands amenities
B.
Ideas that
support this plan
i.
Utilizes current slides for larger boats by requiring
uniform winch systems
ii.
The angle of slips provides for more boat spaces
iii.
There will be eighteen (18) fewer boats around the main
beach
iv.
The fingers in St. Louis Bay will be shortened
v.
Expands the sight lines
vi.
Significantly increases the size of Deephaven Beach
vii.
Utilizes the current steel breakwater as a swimming platform
viii.
Adds for a fishing platform and board walk in the area of
the current shore stations
ix.
Merges the waiting list of the slips and the shore stations
x.
Continues the marina resources as a financially
self-sustaining community project
xi.
The plan will not cost the taxpayer anything
xii.
The plan will decrease the BSUs in St. Louis Bay
xiii.
It will grandfather three current boats that are out of size
compliance with a sunset date.
xiv.
Boat ramp in St. Louis Bay will be covered with a slide or
winches in the summer but will be available for ice fishing in winter
xv.
Boats on slides in excess of 500 pounds will be on rollers
that will not break the backs of the slides
xvi.
There will be a uniform appearance of the boats on the
slides with the new rollers
xvii.
Individuals will own their own rollers and will be
responsible for maintenance and their own liability.
C.
Ideas that do
not support this plan
i.
With the angled spars it may be more difficult to back out
of the slip
ii.
Width of new walk ways to slips are narrower
iii.
Parking issues
iv.
Eight additional BSUs
v.
Boats in both bays will be bigger
vi.
Bigger boats create larger wakes, may be noisier, and may be
more polluting
vii.
Some blocked sight lines in St. Louis Bay
viii.
There will still be waiting for docks and slides
ix.
The cost for the project will be significant and will
require several years to pay for the project
x.
The new resources may require a significant increase in boat
resource rental fees
xi.
Docks are permanent
xii.
There will be an increase of BSUs in Carson Bay
xiii.
Rollers are too expensive and some people with large boats
may not be able to afford them
xiv.
City will have to pass a bond to do this
xv.
Some slide users will be forced to move to a different
location due to shifting of boat sizes
xvi.
Slides will be designated (B.1) for large boats on slides
and (B.2) for current small boats on slides that do not require winches
xvii.
Sailors will not have two resources and alternative access
to sail boats will have to be resolved. (This is not a part of the immediate
plan.)
xviii.
The overall solution is difficult and it does not resolve
all issues for all time.
D.
Cost of the
project
i.
Comparative costs will be provided by obtaining actual costs
from Excelsior, Mound, and Wayzata
ii.
The new Deephaven model most closely resembles the Excelsior
model of the three listed.
iii.
Actual costs will not be available until a bid is let
E.
Funding
approaches
i.
Rate increases
ii.
Revenue bond
iii.
Other
F.
Implementation
issues
i.
Construction will occur in the winter
ii.
Some plans, such as winches on slides can be implemented
immediately or over time
iii.
Introduction of new roller based winch systems
iv.
Transition period to accommodate reduction in slides
v.
Ultimate transition to rowing dories or some means of access
to sail boats
A.
PowerPoint
presentation showing current pictures of marina resources including slips,
slides, shore stations, buoys, and canoe racks.
B.
All locations
of marina resources are to be found in St. Louis Bay, Carson Bay and on street
ends throughout Cottagewood.
Discussion
was held on the presentation of the Comprehensive Plan to the City
Council. It was decided that Steve Pavek
would provide the final plan revisions to Bolton & Menk, Dana Young would
request cost estimates and the names of the contractors from Mound, Wayzata and
Excelsior regarding their recently constructed docks, and the presentation
would be made in PowerPoint. David
Paulson requested any pictures that the Committee members might have of the
Excelsior Docks so that they could be added to the presentation.
The
Committee reviewed the plans of the St. Louis Bay and Carson’s Bay docks. Discussion was held on whether to install
four or five finger configuration in St. Louis Bay. Steve Pavek stated that he would prefer a
four finger configuration of docks with a longer length than the proposed 100’
length as shown with the five finger configuration. He stated that he felt the five finger plan
is too dense and the docks are too close to the beach. He added that he would even favor relocating
the fifth finger south of the beach where the Minnetonka Yacht Club dock is
currently located.
Further
discussion was held on where to locate the longer shore space boats. David Paulson stated that he felt that these
longer boats should be stored in St. Louis Bay rather than moved to Carson’s
Bay. Discussion was held on lengthening
the southernmost docks in St. Louis Bay to 26’ in order to accommodate these
longer shore space boats.
Larry
Parkhurst stated that Excelsior’s docks were the same length but provided more
dock slips and that our dock plans should also maximize the number of
slips. David Paulson agreed that this
was an important issue to consider and that the City Council should be asked
what they would tolerate in terms of number of slips.
Discussion
was held on the St. Louis Bay ramp and the fact that it would no longer operate
with the proposed location of the new dock fingers. Ed Towey suggested placing slides over the
ramp. Steve Pavek stated that a number
of residents use the ramp for fishing or to drive their snowmobiles or ice
houses out into the lake. He stated that
closing the ramp would not be well-received by these residents. It was suggested that the ramp could be
closed in the summer, as it current is, and used to store slides and in the
winter, the slides could be removed and the ramp opened up for people to use
for snowmobiles or to drive their ice houses out to the lake.
There
were no comments regarding the Carson’s Bay dock plans with the exception of
some discussion on whether to add an additional spar onto the easternmost
dock.
The
Committee decided to hold a special meeting on February 15th to
finalize their review of the comprehensive plan and the proposed presentation
talking points in preparation for their meeting with the City Council on
February 23rd.
Request to Exceed Slide
Width Requirement (Sharon Morgan)
Dana Young stated that he had received a request from Sharon Morgan, who leases Street End Slide #3 on Bay Street and Buoy #68 on Carson’s Bay, to moor a Boston Whaler on the slide that has a width of 5’11” instead of the required 5’4”. He stated that she intends to purchase a winch and would center it to the far end of the slide in order to allow additional room for the other two boats on the slide.
Pete
Onstad moved to recommend that Sharon Morgan be granted permission to moor a
5’11” wide Boston Whaler on Street End Slide #3 subject to the condition that
permission is limited to Slide #3 on Bay Street, that the Morgan’s are required
to purchase one of the two slides approved by the Boat Committee, and that at
least 2/3 of the slide is left open for the other two boats. Seconded by Marc Anderson. Motion carried 8-0.
Dana Young stated that there are six slides that remain to be leased in St. Louis Bay and asked the Committee whether these slides should be leased or if the Committee had any plans to use these slides for the roll-in winches. The Committee recommended that these six slides remain open until the Committee can make a final decision on roll-in winches in April.
Dana
Young stated that a vacancy currently exists on the Committee due to the
resignation of John Gresens last year.
The Committee reviewed the list of volunteer applicants who have
expressed an interest in serving on the Boat Committee. David Paulson noted that he would recommend
filling the vacant position with a female member. The Committee agreed that they are severely
short of female members and requested that David Paulson contact the three
woman volunteers on the list – Carrie Synder, Lavonne Kipp and Michelle Rogers.
Dana Young stated that the first official terms of office for David Paulson, Steve Pavek and Larry Parkhurst have expired and all three need to be reappointed for their second three year term of office.
Ed
Towey moved to reappoint David Paulson, Steve Pavek and Larry Parkhurst to
their second three year term of office that expires on February, 2009. Seconded by Marc Anderson. Motion carried 8-0.
Motion to adjourn by Pete Onstad, seconded by Marc Anderson. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. The next special meeting of the Boat Committee will be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 and the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Boat Committee will be held on Wednesday, March 8, 2006.