10-11-1977 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� . � Page 20 � Letter to Mr. N,ulzich Page Two * October 5, 1977 � At a meeting on Augustl8 , 1977 , attended by you, Robert M. Cargill , � Donald Sjostrum (on behalf of neighboring landowners) , Ronald Iiarnack and staff of the DNR, aiid me, we attempted to resolve � this conflict and discussed both proposed developments in detail . '�he DNR said that it planned to deny our application for the l_ong dock (proposal nu;nber 3) , but would r�consider the same if water depth dai�a and soundings were submitted for the area � at the mouth of the existing channel and the area where the � proposed dock would enter the lake. � The DNR also stated that it preferred the short dock to the cxisting channel (proposal number 2) describ�d above. � Cm SepLemb�r 6, 1977 , we presented our fourth proposed dev�lopment � (that advocat�d by the DNR and almost identical to our proposal � number 2) to the Planning Commission. At that hearing, Mr. Harnack und his staff made a presentation regarding w�t-land management � in g�neral and the DNR' s position on our third and fourth proposals in particular. The sounding data had not yet been prepared and presented to the DNR and the City of Orono by the Developers . At that meeting, I moved that the Planning Commission recommend � the iourth proposal for preliminary approval by ihe City Council . • At that time the Planning Cor�unission voted to table our fourth s proposal pending its review of the sounding data. � That sounding data was provided to you on September 19 , 1977 , � and our fourth proposal was again presented to the Planning Commission on October 3 , 1977 . After consideration by the � Planning Commission, I moved that the Commission act on that ` iourth proposal, but the matter was again tabled by vote of the Commission. I asked the chairPerson of the Planning Commission ' �,hat additional information the Planning Commission needed to �ake action on our fourth proposal and none was requested. • iize Developers were asked to su'��nit a new develop;�ent proposal f containing a dock from Lots 5 or 6 to the body of Lake riinnetonka even though no action had been taken on our fourth proposal . � • I also moved that the Planning Conunission recorrunend preliminary �_pproval of the proposed plat with respect to lot delineation, eLc. , � so that the Developers could move forv,ard in the formal platt�ng y�rocedure wnile tne ciock permit applications were being considered � by the City of Orono, the Minnel�aha Creek Svatersned District, tne T.a'.Ke Ifinnetonka Cor�ser_vation Disi_rict and the Depart�nent of � �;7tural Resources. 'i�he Planni_ng Co.��rnissi_on �ook no action on c��i s � last request. Accordingly, our fourth proposal remains pending u�fore the Planning Co�::missi_on and �tie are unable to proc�ed to �he . CiLy Council.