07/10/1991 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JULY 10, 1991 and distributed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the ordinance classifies the different lakes within the city by the types of activity they can support. Bases on the physical condition of the lake the SMO provides for appropriate land use adjacent to the water. That body of water is classified by the ordinance as a "natural environment" lake. Section III (2) (A) of that ordinance establishes the setback for multiple family hosing as 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of any natural environment lake. In this case it would pertain to lots 6 -19. John Miller could not give the exact distance between the shoreline and the structure. The lots are 50 x 70 and there is no way of knowing at this point, where on the parcel the structure will be located. The buyer may ask for exterior configurations, so this is an open -ended ordinance. John Bergeson asked just what is the closest they could build to the lake. John Miller said about 50 feet, to the south of the pond. The remaining area is a common area and all of the owners will be responsible through the association for maintenance. Fred Chase asked how it got to be a pond, did it evolve after the gravel pit. The DNR worked to recognize it as a part of Lake Amelia, yet if it was a storm water pond, we would allow homes to build closer that 100 feet. John Miller said yes. John Bergeson asked, at the council meeting parties said land does not exist when you can paddle a canoe across it. John Miller said there is high -water and low -water and maybe you could walk across it. Monica Slatten asked, what DRB Application # is this. There were different numbers, in different places in reference to this matter. It was decided this was DRB Application #91 -28. Al Robinson stated, if it (referring to the pond) is man created it does not need a variance. And, if we look at it this way are we opening up trouble for the future. John Miller said if that is your determination, that it is a pond and not a lake there is no need for a variance. He could not speak to how the DNR would react. MOTION: By Al Robinson, we do not need a variance. It is not part of the lake. It is a gravel pit. Monica Slatten seconded the motion. AYE, Carried. Page 3 1 1 1