My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
re dock
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
C
>
Crystal Bay Road
>
3205 Crystal Bay Road - 17-117-23-41-0011
>
Correspondence
>
re dock
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:39:34 PM
Creation date
5/24/2016 1:34:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
3205
Street Name
Crystal Bay
Street Type
Road
Address
3205 Crystal Bay Road
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
1711723410011
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
i <br /> � <br /> Lake Minnetonka Conservation District <br /> Regular Board Meeting <br /> October 25, 2006 Page 4 <br /> refund variance application deposits as outlined in 10/19/06 staff memo; 2A, Minutes from the 10/13/06 <br /> EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting; and 3B, September financial summary and balance sheet. <br /> 1. WATER STRUCTURES <br /> A. Mark Prueter& Rich Anderson, consideration of permanent dock license (residential) application <br /> and 2006-2007 deicing application for the residences at 3205 and 3215 Crystal Bay Road in the <br /> City of Orono. <br /> Skramstad asked Harper to provide background on the agenda item. <br /> Harper reviewed the staff memo, dated 10/20/06, which summarized these applications. If the <br /> Board believed the applicants could continue to qualify for a deicing license, he recommended <br /> approval of both applications with a number of conditions. These conditions included: 1) all <br /> deicing activity must comply with LMCD deicing requirements (including all deicing activity and <br /> fencing must be contained within the authorized deicing area), 2) the west portion of the existing <br /> dock must be removed to meet the 15' setback prior to any deicing activity, 3) all watercraft stored <br /> at the combined site must comply with current and future LMCD ordinances, 4) if agreement to <br /> maintain a common dock is taken away by either property owner, portions of the permanent dock <br /> must be removetl and each property owner must meet their specific dock use area requirements <br /> for each individual lot, 5) boat storage at the combined site can only be for private, non-commercial <br /> use of the site owners, and 6) only one dock structure may be combined on the combined tlock <br /> use area. He entertained questions and comments from the Board. <br /> MOTION: Van Hercke moved, McDermott seconded to approve the Prueter/Anderson <br /> permanent dock license (residential) and 2006-2007 deicing applications for the <br /> residences at 3205 and 3215 Crystal Bay Road as submitted, with the <br /> recommendations made by Harper. <br /> Seuntjens stated that he believed there were two decisions for the Board to make. First, part of <br /> the dock was already installed and he preferred that applications should be made and approved by <br /> the LMCD in advance, not after the fact. Second, part of the dock was for a future expansion and <br /> he questioned whether approving it at this time was appropriate. <br /> Babcock stated he was not troubled with the applicants requesting Board approval of a future <br /> expansion of the proposed permanent dock. He proposed a friendly amendment that the <br /> applicants maintain a one-time letter on file in the LMCD office that: 1) the two property owners <br /> agree to a combined dock, and 2) both property owners agree to provitle the LMCD access to the <br /> combined dock. Van Hercke and McDermott agreed to this frientlly amendment. <br /> LeFevere stated that there were a couple reasons why the applications were brought forward to <br /> the Board. First, the proposed dock would comply with LMCD Code because of mutual consent <br /> arrangements between the two property owners and staff wanted to confirm the Board's comfort <br /> level on this. Second, this deicing facility was considered an eligible facility because it had <br /> previously deiced. However, the permanent dock would expand and LMCD staff wanted Boartl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.