Correspondence re LMCD variance application

Home Browse Search

Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 22, 2007 Page 5 • Eric and Laurie Berg, dock length and side setback variance application from LMCD Code at 2965 Casco Point Road on Spring Park Bay. Seuntjens asked Harper for background on this agenda item: Harper reviewed the staff memo, dated 8/17/07, which summarized a request from Eric and Laurie Berg for a dock length and side setback variance from LMCD Code. He made the following comments: • The site is located on Spring Park Bay in the City of Orono, with approximately 20'of 929.4' shoreline established in 1978. The applicants have proposed: 1) a 55.5' long straight dock that would be 3.5' wide along the southerly extended side site line, with a zero foot side setback, 2) an 11' X 14' boat lift on the north sitle of the dock (presumably to store a restricted watercraft), antl 3) a 3.1' setback from the northerly extended side site line. • He highlighted three relevant LMCD Code Section in evaluating the proposed variance application. These included: 1) Code Section 2.01, subd. 1- authorized tlock use area requirements, 2) Code Section 1.07-outlines the variance from LMCD Code process, and 3) Code Section 2.02-outlines the number of restricted watercraft that may be stored at a residential site based on the amount of 929.4' shoreline and the ownership of the restricted watercraft. • He believetl that there were three fundamental issues for the Board to address when considering the Berg variance application. First, the applicants have provided adequate documentation that shallow water exists at this site to grant a dock length variance. However, he questioned why a 55.5' long dock was needed if the furthermost portion of the lift was located approximately 34'from the 929.4' shoreline. Second, he questioned what the appropriate width of the dock use area was for this site, which docking and boat storage must be contained within. He believetl that the width of the lift antl the dock should not exceed 10'. He questioned whether it was appropriate to grant a sitle setback variance for a site that was created after the 2/5170 grandfather date for five foot side setback requirements. If a side setback variance was appropriate, the Board shoultl determine what the hardships were, Third, what was the appropriate number and size of the restrictetl watercraft to be stored at this site. He believetl that it seemed reasonable to limit restricted watercraft at this site to one, with the appropriate size to be determined by the Board. • He believed that the width of the proposed dock and lift was excessive for a lot that was created in 1978 with 20' of shoreline. If the Board was inclined to act upon the variance application immediately, he recommentled that the Boartl direct LMCD legal counsel to