Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Habein stated that this plan looks like what had been asked for. It is divided up so <br /> they minimize removal of native vegetation that we were concerned about. The docks <br /> are placed so the aquatic vegetation is not disturbed. The building on the end of the point <br /> has been removed, as well as the storage buildings. <br /> Mr. Adams commented on the winter storage on the east shore. This winter storage area <br /> should be removed based on our discussion last month. Mr. Miller stated that the resort <br /> needs a location to place the dock sections. There would be no boat storage or items of <br /> that nature. Mr. Adams suggested labeling it as winter dock storage. <br /> Mr. Hallan commented on the 5, 10 and 15-foot dimenson's indicated along the shoreline. <br /> He asked if they were existing vegetation. Mr. Miller stated that the 5-foot area indicated <br /> is the immediate area next to the shoreline, it has a bank there and it somewhat erodes <br /> and has vegetation growing along the edge. That area was not to have anything done. If <br /> we leave the SIZ in that area,then it is a moot point. The SIZ is the area that remains <br /> untouched except for items shown to be impacted in select areas. They couidcertainly be <br /> removed. Mr. Hallan suggested removing them. It may be difficult to make sense of <br /> them in the future as they are labeled. Mr. Miller stated that they still plan to use this <br /> area, but it is not the intent to have any:�orma,lized activities there. <br /> Mr. Hallan stated that the bluff areas match on both plans. <br /> Mr. Pederson stated that the vegetation along`the waters edge indicates it will be <br /> maintained in the SIZ. They may need to be changed to remain,not maintain. <br /> Councilman Nagel stated he preferred retain instead of maintain. Mr. Miller stated that <br /> all existing vegetation within the SIZ will remain. Mr. Pederson stated that this statement <br /> should be included on the maintenance plan. <br /> Mr. Williams pointed iiut that the white area on the green sheet is the structure setback or <br /> 112`feet,not the SIZ. He then questioned whether or not there were no restrictions <br /> between the SIZ and the 112-foot setback. Mr. Hallan stated that sheet 2 should be <br /> revised to show the SIZ line and the structure setback. Mr. Miller stated the two sheets <br /> could be combined into one. <br /> Mr. Adams questioned the area in front of Units 12—22. This area is above the 37.5 line, <br /> sloped and a lot of trees. What is the intent for this area? Remain natural? Mr. Miller <br /> stated there are no plans to do anything in that area. There was a typical section that <br /> indicated the SIZ left natural, a grassy mowed area at the top,with the trees in between to <br /> remain with select trimming to maintain sight to lake, but to limb using DNR BMP's. <br /> Discussion followed regarding the white area on the green map; it could be interpreted as <br /> no activities are taking place in the 112-foot setback. Mr. Miller stated that was not the <br /> intent. It was the consensus to maintain the non-lakeside area and to leave the lakeside of <br /> the trail natural. <br /> MINUTES 17 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> February 19, 2009 <br />