My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-14-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
10-14-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:18:24 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:50:00 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
345
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District <br />Regular Board Meeting <br />August 28,2002 PageO <br />guests or invitees of the property owner, 2) to limit the number of docks to four which would be one for each of his <br />clients, 3) to release their property rights for multiple docks to four to resolve the dispute, and 4) to limit to the <br />current ver^ of Code Smtion 2.02 of the LMCD Ordinance which limits the number of watercraft that may be <br />stored at a dock structure. <br />LeFevere asked Oietzen whom he was negotiating with. <br />Dietzen stated that he was responding to comments from individual Board members, noting that his clients had a <br />separate meeting with Babcock relating to potential easements. His clients would agree to execute a Settlement <br />Agreement and a Restrictive Covenant under either of the ordinance amendments. If a conservation easement is <br />more acceptable to the Board, his clients are acceptaule to consider it. He did not recommend that any portion of <br />the ordinance adopted be changed, with the exception that subd. 4 should be added that would provide language <br />for pre-existing rights for his clients. His dients would like the same rights that other property owners enjoy; <br />however, his clients were willing to discuss this. He stated that he was unaware of any scientific study presented <br />to the Board that substantiates the difference of external loading of phosphorous for an electric motor versus a <br />gas motor. If the Board decides not to take action on an amendment that would address his clients concerns, he <br />requested that they have an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Board to further address this issue. <br />Mr. Adrian Herbst, The Bailer Herbst Law Group, stated that he represented Robert and Janice Halverson who <br />are longstanding property owners on Six Mile Creek. His clients have 111 acres of property with 1,400' of <br />shoreline. He stated that he was no; present to oppose any action the Board might take to address the four <br />r/operty owners on Six Mile Creek. However, his clients would object to an ordinance that would entirely prohibit <br />the uce of a motorized watercraft, noting that the current ordinance would allow for watercraft with electric motors. <br />He commented on the concept of conservation easements and their applicability to his clients property. <br />Amborse asked Herbst if his clients had historical use of Six Mile Creek in the past. <br />Herbst stated that his clients have accessed Six Mile Creek in the past with both motorized and non-motorized <br />watercraft, although they do not have a dock currently installed. <br />Minnetrista Mayor Cheryl Fischer stated that she was at the previous Board meeting and that she \would like to <br />see the District ordinances mirror the ordinances that may be adopted by the Minnetrista City Council. She <br />stated that she understood the Board had spend a ‘Significant amount of time studying these issues; however, <br />there are a number of conflicting parties interested in Six Mile Creek. <br />Foster asked Mayor Fischer to have the City of Minnetrista staff forward agenda's, minutes, and packet <br />information to keep the District infonned on city council discussions. <br />Mr. Dan Kelly, legal counsel for Upland Farms, commented on the draft ordinance ameridment being discussed <br />by the Board. The ordinance adopted was discussed for a number of months with a lot of thoughts discussed, <br />adding it was a compromise. It takes into consideration environmental and property rights concerns, noting that <br />he believed moving the point of demarcation was not consistent previous policy discussions. He believed <br />that the balance of environmental and property rights would be a problem with the proposed ordinance <br />amendment because non-motorized watercraft would be prohibit^ upstream from the new point of demarcation. <br />He recommended that the Board not consider the proposed ordinance amendment. <br />Mr. Greg Smith, 4000 Gamefann Road, stated that he had recently met with Babcock to discuss the concept of <br />conservation easements. He believed that the proposal to limit the number of docks to four was a valuable
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.