Laserfiche WebLink
Ct-X. <br />cl'T <br />i S'-:-‘' <br />!v'= <br />r <br />u:. <br />yIf.' <br />■ <br />P'5-^.■-1’* . <br />%if <br />X’" <br />It" <br />V <br />tr <br />■X <br />U'''V' <br />tv <br />h:- <br />[v. <br />Water Structure and Environment Coounittee January 12, 1991 <br />Foster moved, Reese seconded, to recommend acceptance of the <br />new dock configuration in concept and to proceed with the Public <br />Hearing for a variance from the Code. Motion carried. Babcock <br />voting nay. <br />Boswinkei asked for drawings made to a more readable scale. <br />3. Management Plan <br />Cochran reported on the presentation of the Mwanagement Flan <br />to the System Committee of the Metropolitan Council. Four cities <br />joining in a resolution opposing the Plan were also heard, <br />namely Greenwood, Orono, Spring Park and Waynata. According to <br />Cochran the Committee seemed interested in having the Flan go <br />forward, and in disposing of the cities’ concerns. Subsequently. <br />Cochran, Grathwol, Steve Prestin, David Arndorfer and the <br />executive director met January ID with tlie Spring Park Mayor, <br />planner. Clerk and attorney. Cochran read a Memorandum of <br />Understanding presented to the city officials. The Spring Park <br />attorney indicated that if the Memorandum is appr-^vcd bv the <br />Spring Park City Council, the Spring Park Resolution ob.ie«:ting to <br />the Management Plan would be withdrawn. Cochran said meetings <br />have been requested with the City of Waysata, and urono before <br />the next System Committee meeting scheduled for Tues.. January <br />22. Additional information has been sent to the Sy.stems <br />Committee. <br />4. David Thomas, Bayshore Second Addition. Recommendation fi*oin <br />counsel assessed the applicant's license Order and cc'enant <br />governing the development. <br />Babcock moved, Pillsbury seconded. to agree to the <br />applicant's request for deferring the di.scus.sion to interim <br />meetings for clarification, and then consider at the l*<^bruary <br />meeting. Motion carried unanimously. <br />5. LMCD Code Proposed Amendment Regarding Conversion of use of <br />Multiple Docks. <br />The Committee received a proposed amendment to LMCD Code <br />Section 2.11 which would provide for an administrative <br />determination by the LMCD Board of the status of a facility <br />affected by, or potentially affected by the conversion of use <br />ordinance. <br />LeFevere reviewed the Excelsior Bay Associates and Chapman <br />Place situations. In the Excel.sior Bay Associates r*ase. the <br />docks are classified as commercial (allowing density) <br />whereas actually they are operating as homeowner docks (aJlowing <br />1?50' density). Chapman Place is licensed as commercial but is <br />operating under a dock management arrangement whicli is moving <br />closer to a Homeowners’ Association arrangement. <br />LeFevere stated it is important not to simply interpret <br />Code to allow Excelsior Bay Associates and Chapman Place <br />continue as commercial docks as it creates a precedent, <br />suggested 1) tell either or both that they cannot continue <br />- continued <br />Lite <br />to <br />lie <br />to