Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF A PLANNING CONWISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1977 - PAGE 5 <br />m <br />* I <br />)1TI(KAL USE <br />HASE) <br />Thft Zoning Administrator stated that they are requesting <br />approval of the plat as submitted without any docking being <br />^xonsidered and no provisions for a conservation easement <br />Cy#ver the wetlands (Outlet B) vdiich we have always requested. <br />Mr. Muhich also stated that he had indicated to the engineer, <br />Mr. Wilensky, exactly \diat engineering data was required. <br />Apparently, there was a comnunication problem. The Zoning <br />A^inistrator had suggested a floating dock could be put <br />somevhere on Lot 6 and that scxne engineering would be <br />necessary to change the location. Mr. Wilensky misunder­ <br />stood and thought this m&ant dredging a trench which the <br />Zoning Administrator stated he certainly wouldn’t suggest. <br />He merely wanted to know the area that would have the <br />least impact on dredging. <br />Mr. Hacking, Attomey, and Mr. Cargill (owner) were <br />present. They presented a model indicating two possible <br />dock locations across the mar^; one dock directed to <br />the channel, the other from Lot 6 directly into the <br />lake. Mr. Hacking stated that the travel distance from <br />Lot 1 to the second dock location was 1/3 of a mile and <br />objectionable. Mr. Hacking also stated that because <br />they could not obtain the right to dredge, they are not <br />proposing the ccmmon dock. <br />The Planning Commission informed the applicant that the <br />City requires an open space conservation easement over <br />wetlands and marshlands on all subdivisions and felt <br />(v^at waiving this policy would only result in problems <br />nwith this and other future subdivision proposals. The <br />Conmission felt some provision should be made for one <br />comncn dock rather than an individual dock for each <br />lot. The INR had recoiiinended that a floating dock be <br />used. <br />After some discussion, Pesek moved, Hassel seconded, <br />to recoinnend approval, of the preliminary plat subject <br />to the following: <br />(1) Conservation easement over the wetlands with <br />provisions for providing access to the lake for <br />the riparian owners. <br />(2) This access would be limited to one common <br />dock for all property owners with a 6* wide <br />dock to navigable waters. <br />The location to be determined through agreement <br />between City and property owners. <br />Park Dedication Fee ($250/lot). <br />This access would be limited to only one, single, 6* <br />wide dock to navigable waters to be used for lake <br />access by all property owners of the subdivision. <br />The Planning Commission also requested some assurance <br />/T*^t all prospective purchasers by informed of the <br />V^^e access and dock status. Subsequent owners be <br />made aware of the fact that only one ccHimon access would <br />be permitted. <br />Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). <br />VICTORIA GRAIN COMPANY <br />500 NORTH APM DRIVE <br />DOCK LOCATION ^ DREDGING <br />(#200) <br />:■ . ;•••. f-- •" : -.s <br />. ... <br />t--'- ^ h. <br />.v= . .\ <br />%. ■?> <br />■4 plei::: <br />.'V