Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Marohn stated that there is no proposal for swimming docks. We have been pretty <br /> `.. specific about number of docks. Mr. Reichenback stated the Internet states there will be <br /> swimming docks. Mr. Marohn stated we are not permitting any swimming docks. <br /> Mr. Reichenback has 2005 pictures of proposed second swimming area, indicating the <br /> shoreline and berm. The pictures may be of some value for restoration. Mr. Williams <br /> stated that there is no second beach on site plan. Mr. Marohn stated the second beach is <br /> not part of plan now. CUP application received in February and there was a desire to add <br /> second beach. The second beach is on notice because it was on the application. <br /> Applicant has removed request for a second beach. Mr. Miller stated it is their hope that <br /> they can deal with the second beach or the expansion of the existing beach. When DNR <br /> is available to go out and look at the docks, we want to address the beach. The docks <br /> could dictate beach area. He did not want to say it is completely taken off the <br /> application, but off of tonight's application. Mr. Marohn stated a second beach would <br /> have to be a new CUP. A second beach would table this application tonight. Mr. Miller <br /> stated that they took the beach out for now, final approval in June. It might be best that <br /> we handle everything at one time. We could table tonight. The beach and docks may be <br /> the only items left to discuss. Chairman Woog disagreed. Discussion of a second beach <br /> would be an interesting discussion. Mr. Marohn's suggestion might be of some heed. <br /> The Notice indicated a second beach. It's also in CUP application. Let's make that <br /> determination after public comment. Condition 16 says the second beach will be <br /> restored. Could add that second beach is not approved with this application. We need to <br /> clarify the condition. Mr. Miller stated he is not prepared to deal with the second beach <br /> tonight and may be easier that it is not part of this application. Mr. Marohn was directed <br /> to add as a condition. <br /> Beverly Miller, 6285 Wilderness Road: She owns property adjacent to Wilderness Road. <br /> There is no mention of tree loss with changes requested. If anyone has been out to this <br /> area, rename it because it is no longer a wilderness. All of the beautiful red pine trees <br /> have been cut down. Restore the trees with appropriate trees. She also wondered with <br /> the intensification of land use, does the City patrol these areas. Does the City patrol if <br /> there are problems at beach? How are these this addressed? How are visiting boaters <br /> addressed? She is strongly against approval. Misrepresentations have been made by <br /> applicant. <br /> Lowell B., Box 24,Nisswa,property owner at Wilderness, supports second beach. He <br /> has trouble understanding 45 cabin owners share one small beach. 45 private owners <br /> have own beach. The new beach will be 50—60 feet wide. There has been swimming <br /> beaches in this area in the past. There is no intention of hurting the lake. He didn't want <br /> his grandkids swimming in a small beach area, with all this traffic. <br /> Charlie Boudrye, 6258 Inland Trails Road, before the resort became villas, the existing <br /> operation had 47 trailers and the beach was never seriously crowded at all. There were <br /> never any cabins on the eastern shore. They were trailers and had access to the water. <br /> Pool—in today's world people coming up to the lake really don't like to swim in the lake. <br /> With pool there will be less traffic on the lake. Disposal of chlorinated pool water— <br /> Minutes 3 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> April 17, 2008 <br />