Planning commission tables temporary‑dock request on Rum River after public concerns about size and shoreline work

The Planning Commission tabled consideration of a conditional use permit for a temporary floating dock and lift proposed at 35772 First Avenue NW after a lengthy public hearing that produced questions about dock size, shoreline restoration and the property’s Scenic River overlay.

Planner Chris Janssen (MSA) said the applicant, identified in staff materials as Bad Medicine Rum River LLC / Alec (Alex) Plasted, applied for a floating dock approximately 24 feet by 8 feet with a gangway and an inclined track lift about 5 by 25 feet. Because the property lies within the Scenic River District overlay, temporary docks require a conditional use permit under city code; staff reported the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had commented that the proposed dimensions “fit within the DNR's no permit needed criteria” for docks under some conditions, and that the watershed district had been consulted.

Multiple neighbors came to the podium to oppose the size and placement of the dock. Nicole Bufkin, who lives across the river, said replanting that had accompanied prior shoreline riprap “do not meet the spirit of the requirements because all of those trees are dead,” and asked whether a large dock would bring motorized boats and noise into a shallow, mostly non‑navigable stretch of river. Neighbor Gary Martz, who lives adjacent to the property, told the commission he was primarily concerned about the proposed dock’s proximity to his property line and maintenance access. Brad Bufkin said the dock “is out of proportion with the rest of the docks” along that stretch of the Rum River and urged the commission to consider long‑term scenic and habitat impacts.

Planner notes in the record describe that the DNR provides a “no permit required” checklist for docks where structures meet certain dimensional and siting criteria, including not impeding navigation and not requiring permanent piles; staff said a floating dock meeting no‑permit criteria would typically be preferred by the DNR over permanent bank‑attached structures. The DNR had also suggested a no‑rise certification would be required if the dock intruded into a mapped floodway.

Because the applicant was not present to answer detailed siting and design questions and because residents raised issues that staff said the applicant could best address, commissioners voted to table the CUP and to request additional information from the applicant and from the DNR/Anoka County Conservation District. Commissioners said the record would benefit from a clearer explanation of (a) why a 24‑foot dock is needed at this location, (b) how the proposal would avoid interference with navigation and adjacent property, and (c) whether the riprap and replanting work on the site meets the scenic river restoration expectations cited by the DNR and conservation district.