Laserfiche WebLink
WATI-K S'l KUCTUKI-S COMM I •miK March 1.1. I*)') <br />merit with a density of 1:50’. fhere is 2560’ of sfioieline witli <br />5* slips. The proposal as submitted by developer Thomas Wart:iiari <br />rew-.1 f i su res the dock to place 6 slips on each side of the walk­ <br />way. set back 30* from the east property line. The i^un'ose is to <br />give greater water depth to the inner slips. In 1‘rSO there was <br />a similar’ effort for reconfiguration due to low water. At that <br />time there was concern expressed by the City of Tonka Hay that it <br />was agreed the original configuration was not to lie chanecil. <br />Thibault said she could not find any restriction of that ty|)e in <br />the I.Mr'D records, although there migtil have been such a restric­ <br />tion rei|uiretl by the city. Tlie dock was subsequently move<l out <br />under a temporary low water variance with no change in configura­ <br />tion. <br />Wartman explained that, while the dock went out I (>n ’ under <br />the temporary low water v'ariance. in moving the dock back the <br />dock still does net have the water depth it needs. The current <br />depth on the inside is 18". That means none of the inside slii>s <br />are navigable. By changing the configuration to six slips on <br />each side of walkway dredging can be avoided. The dock retains <br />its setback. There is a minor change in slip size by increasing <br />width 2’ for larger boats and 1’ for the smaller boats. <br />Vern Haug, 485 Lakeview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the <br />reconfiguration. He presented Tonka Bay City Council minutes of <br />1985 to show Wartman had selected the approved location of the <br />dock after lengthy public hearings. Haug said any reconfiguration <br />will have a negative impact on his property. Haug does ru: t <br />believe abutting property owners should have to take the imiiact <br />of the development. He states he has also suffered damage from <br />run-off from the outlet. Haug respectfully requested that the <br />committee deny the request. <br />William Kanuit. 130 Gideons Point Road, said his off shore <br />property overlooks the docks. Any change in configuration will <br />obstruct his view of the lake and have a negative affect on his <br />property value. He would like to have the reconfiguration re­ <br />viewed more thoroughly, involving the Gideons Point Homeowners. <br />Wartman responded to Haug’s comment about run off by stating <br />the major amount of it comes from the Tonka Bay streets, alone <br />the property lines. He said the reconfigured dock plan was not <br />hastily dene as it meets the setbacks, provides navigable tlefUh <br />with a minimum lake impact. This has been discussed by the HOA <br />and the majority are in agreement. Wartman said there is nothing <br />in the Tonka Bay ordinances or any city conditions which would <br />prohibit him from making this change. <br />Haug said he has discussed this with the Tonka Bay (.’i t y <br />Attorney. Haug disputes Wnrtman’s claim that he can make this <br />change. <br />Wartman submitted a letter from the neighbor immediately <br />west of the dock indicating he has no objection to the change. <br />Babcock reviewed the Dock Use Area regulations a ml flow Ihev <br />relate t r* t fi i s site. Tfie current configuration and i econ f i eu • a- <br />tion meet all 1MCD requirements. Grathwol asked for i nIoi ination <br />.L