Laserfiche WebLink
• 7 5.r.S tv <br />.-i ‘•»4.v'^ * <br />1.*'.'.r -.\'»t*. <br />1'.' <br />'fe^% <br />p«?.! <br />,rj -vrvv <br />m-' <br />,<^•2- - <br />fei'-'- <br />i<?;:' .«'i)'- ■•■ <br />‘¥_ <br />p-'te*- <br />»'»• ’: .Vi »■«*m0^''^0- <br />ppteipVi <br />K?-P''-' '■ '■*,^P5--v, <br />' ■■■- <br />i5.:&'.K.,/ <br />IIP: :■: <br />BM <br />?■ <br />wm-^ <br />.vtt <br />iPr ■ <br />IlfV^:.: <br />.-^V'' *-■ <br />pi-sP-: <br />LMCD Boai'1 of Dircctoi • s March 2*^. 1992 <br />there i .s no iiien- <br />. the .i)M‘ 1 i ca I I on <br />t; .1 '■• CO!' t e s po lui - <br />s e t ha V. k \'. i I h I h e <br />Carlson said he is uttcoinl o r t ah 1 e l)eeau^.e <br />tioned of a side setback variance. Me l)elte'.e <br />should go through the normal variance procedure, <br />ed that the Board has allowed s I i p.s within a <br />permission of the neigiibor. i>iatliwol added this i ■. consistent <br />with Board action when there are converging picrpeitv lines. <br />LeFevere .said there is a (!ode piovision which al lous ail jacent <br />property owners to adjust their side setbacks by muin i I agree- <br />me n t . T n e e .x e c u 1 i v e dir e c t o r a il d e d that this p a i t 1 c u 1 a r d o c k <br />structure is below a bluff. The adiacent property owners are not <br />bothered by the dock visuall>. <br />VOTE: Motion carried una.n i mous I >■. <br />II. New Multiple Dock License Applications .Sul)ject to board <br />Waiving Public Hearing <br />Item 1) Schmitt’s Marina, 1.\celsior Ba;.' <br />Tf Committee has recommended appro\.il of a new dock 1'cense <br />with a I nor change to relocate two slips within the Di»ck Use <br />Area for Schmitt’s Marina, subject to appioval ol the City ol <br />Exce1sior. <br />The executive director reported Schmitt is concernetl about <br />having to go through a further [public review process with the <br />City for a minor change. (irathwo! and the executive iliieclor <br />have contacted the Mayor and Avlm i n i .s l 1 a t o r of the city ol L.xcel- <br />sicr a.nd they have agreed the vity has no need lor luriher re­ <br />view. <br />MOTION: Grnthwol moved. Foster seconded, to approve the <br />application of Schmitt’s Marina li>r‘ a new .Multiple I^ock bicen.se <br />with a minor change in con f i v u r a t i oii that does not increase slip <br />size, or number of BSU or WSU. waiving a Public lleaiing. <br />VOTE: Mo t i on carried u na n i mou .s 1 y . <br />Item 4. Minnetonka Yacht Club. Site 1. Carson.s Bay <br />Grathw'ol reported a question has been raised about allowing <br />slidestobeconvertedtorlocks. <br />MOTION: Grathwol moved. Reese seconded, to refer the Minne­ <br />tonka Yacht Club application back to the committee. <br />VOTE: Motion carried un.ui imous1y. <br />K. Additional Business <br />Reese a.skeil if I heir is .1 provi* iv>n leijuiring .1 new Multiple <br />Dock License holder to build the dock within a i.crtain period ol <br />time. Specifically he mentioned the Ri>l^ I’.ir triers license li^r a <br />dock in Spring I’nrk. Grathwol respi^nded that (’hair R.abcock is <br />working on that matter and wi I I t>i ine it to the coiiiin i t t ee. <br />Lel’evere said the I.MCD (‘txle iliies not have anx l i me I imi'.i"' <br />The reason it has not lieen inc’Miledt ion. <br />is on an annual basis. l.elevere s.'iid there may <br />thered status that the applic.-mt may preserve as <br />changes since the license w.-is granted in 19.S9. <br />“ con t inued <br />i s t !iat the 1 i cens i ng <br />be some granclfa- <br />a ( i‘ s u I I o I Code <br />'v''I'j-' i‘ y <br />i <br />i