Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1515 <br />May 25, 1990 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />The‘issue for the City is that although we agree that the <br />liabilities of the '*lty are released with a vacation, the <br />applicant's only legal access to his property is through an <br />existing dedicated right-of-way. The neighbor with the existing <br />dock has refused to share the catwalk structure providing access <br />to the main lake because of the increased liabilities on their <br />part. As to Mrs. Johnson's willingness to either sell portions of <br />a vacated right-of-way to the applicant or to grant an easement <br />for access over the vacated right-of-way was not at all <br />expressed. <br />You should also be aware that the neighbor's dock is in a <br />deteriorated condition and will require structural repair. Such <br />repair will require variance approvals by the City similar to <br />this current application. The City will confirm this writing so <br />that the P. Johnsons are fully aware of their rights in this <br />matter. <br />It may be appropriate to review exactly what the current <br />variance application involves; <br />1. Although legally combined, the division of the lakeshore <br />portion of the property by the platted right-of-way from the <br />interior land port^ requires approval per Section 10.03, <br />Subdivision 9 and Ion 10.03, Subdivision 6 (B)(3). <br />2. As already confirmed, the catwalk stru*' .jre is <br />predominately located below the 929.4' elevation. It <br />functions as a dock at that point. The City's jurisdiction <br />involves the portions of the catwalk that are located above <br />the 929.4' elevation within the 0-75' lakeshore protected <br />area and requires approval per Section 10.22, Subdivision 1. <br />The City's review does not cover questions raised by the <br />catwalk's encroachment of the dedicated right-of-way which would <br />be covered under the issuance of a permit by the Public Works <br />Department. <br />Options of Action - <br />A) Denial finding the proposal in complete conflict with the <br />intent of the lakeshore residential district and the <br />Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />B) Approval based on the findings set forth in the approval <br />resolution, enclosed in your packets (Exhibit L), and to <br />recommend to applicant that he continue to work with <br />adjacent land owner to east in order to effect the vacation <br />of the unimproved portions of Cherry Avenue where structures <br />are located and to resolve access to applicant's dock <br />through the appropriate granting of access easements.