07-08-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

page -- Entry #62. These provisions may permit an exten- sion to deep water (three feet) and vary set back requirements, if the facts require it. Because the actual shoreline of this Parcel B roughly parallels the North- easterly line of Parcel B, and is uneven while Parcel B is measured along a straight line, such shoreline as measured would exceed 25 feet ;n length, and the dock would qualify for the storage of one watercraft under LMCD Ordinance 3.02, Subd. 9. a). See Exhibit 3 -- Survey Sketch. ARGUMENT: 1. The Issue of Access. Both Parcels A and B have legal access via the platted and dedicated Ferndale Road. The City is entitled to use that dedicated roadway to its full width, if needed, for public travel, utilities, etc., but the City cannot, without going through condem- nation proceedings, eliminate access to a platted, sub- divided, legally taxed parcel of land. The waters of Lake M, )etonka at their present level (and presumably at the .,vel of 929.4 NGVD) flow over a portion of the Ferndale Road right of way?. Although the City has not abandoned or vacated the submerged portion of its right of way, the City is not using it (nor can it reasonably use it) for any purpose for which it was dedicated. The owner of the underlying fee title has the right to utilize that portion of the dedicated public right of way not used by the City in the same minimal way it could use it if the City exercised its rights to its full width, and that is, for access to its fee uwned Parcel B. This right is best and most reasonably implemented by permitting a dock or other access device to be constrL^_ted entirely within the 25 foot width of Parcel B from the actual shoreline out and onto Parcel B within the guidelines of the LMCD Ordinances. The right would, of course, be subject to the City's right by filling or, otherwise to expand the City's actual and permitted right of way use, but as a practical matter, the owner can easily accommodate any such expansion by varying the length of its dock at the shoreline. Neighbors' concerns with respect to public use can be met by requiring a gate with lock devices and signage at the shoreline end of the dock. The existence of a dwelling house on Parcel A and the ability of Parcel B to fit within the LMCD Ordinance provisions based on shoreline location and the dimensions of Parcel B, permit the regulatory require- ments of the State exercised through the LMCD with respect