08-23-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE August 14, 1993 based R e V i e r said he would wont to on dock shared with Amundson. proceed with the variance far out a shared dock can no when one 50’. Can they be combined for an SO’ would be the authcrized dock length as ne'ghbors to waive the common setback an opinion from LcFevere if that Foster asked how lot is 30’ and the other dock? Thibault said 50’ the Code only allows the r ecju i remen t . Babcock would like becomes an issue. * Runkle said he believes there is adequate room for a shared dock on Amundson’s property (Lot B) without a variance. He showed an overhead projection of the area. Runkle belie v'es that any problems regarding dock rights lie within R.L.S.115 which includes the Revier. Amundson and Kauffmann properties. Runkle said it is possible to construct a dock entirely within R L.S. 115. Babcock noted the property was originally platted when the lake level was below 929.4’ and therefore some of the lots were platted to include land that is now under water. The ownership of the property platted below the 929.4’ shoreline is questionable and may only be determined by the courts. R. Kauffmann, 2696 Ethel Avenue, owner of the property south of the Amundson property, said his attorney advises the State of Minnesota owns the property under the water. He be lieves, if Runkle wants to prove anything different, it should be adjudicated in court. He is agreeable to Revier and Amundson sharing a dock if it can be constructed so as not to interfeie with anvone else. He agreed with the LMCD staff recommendation as prepared by Thibault and included in the staff packet. * Runkle does not agree with the LMCD staff recommendation. He believes the matter of dockage was settled in 1 956 when the property was platted by giving Revier dockage rights over the Amundson property. ..... r * Reese said he believes there is a possibility of compro mise. He believes the proposal is reasonable, but recommended drawing a dock location in the area defined on the staff recom- mendat ion . i ^MOTION: Cochran moved. Reese seconded, to have the applicant work with staff and the other parties invol’^ed, to draw the dock and boat locations in the dock use area defined on the stall recommei.dat ion, staying as far away from the north line as F^ossi- ble. The application is to be held over to the next committee meeting for an expanded opinion from LeFevere. DISCUSSION: Babcock asked Revier and Amundson if theie was a limitation on boat size that they would consider acceptable. Revier and Amundson said they have 25’ and 21’ boats, respective ly. Kauffmann said he would have to move his dock further soutn. He believes the angle could be modified to some extent. Cochran asked for the shoreline frontage on the Kauffriun and Runkle properties. Kauffmann .said he has approximately and Runkles’ have approximately 110’. Mrs. Runkle asked for consideration of suggested the Runkle proposal be overlayed on the staff propose to show the area of disagreement. Any new material - continued 1 s A