Correspondence re LMCD variance application

Home Browse Search

Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 22, 2007 Page 8 Babcock questionetl whether the City of Orono would have granted a variance for docking purposes because of jurisdictional concerns. Johnson stated that he had hoped this information woultl have been available for this Board meeting. LMCD staff had asked for multiple copies of this information and he was unable to provitle this. This information would be made available for the next Board meeting when this application was up for discussion. Harper clarified that the City of Orono does issue dock permits, on a one-time basis, for newly platted lots. Seuntjens stated that it appeared that there was a lot of work to be done on the extended side site lines. He believed that the Board might consider five foot side setbacks and that anything else would require consent from the abutting neighbor(s). If the variance application were to change, he asked what the Board options woultl be for the current public hearing. Nybeck recommended that testimony be received from the public in attendance, with the possibility of continuing the public hearing to a specific Board meeting date. Curtis and Kathleen Midthun, 2941 Casco Point Road, stated that they were the abutting site to the north of the applicant's site and they did not want to do anything that would prevent the Berg's from having a dock or boat. As the owners of 2941 Casco Point Road, we purchased the property in 2001, which included 90' of southwes#facing lakeshore frontage. We assumed at that time that there would be 10' setback requirements from the adjoining properties on Lake Minnetonka. Approximately two years ago, the Berg's asked him and his wife for a side setback variance because the Berg dock at that time exceeded what was allowed by LMCD Code. The Mitlthun's stated that they disagreed with the Berg's request at that time and offered the Berg's a license to allow them to install a dock to the length and side setbacks that they needetl for$1 per year for personal use. The primary purpose to offer the Berg's an annual license was to protect their own investment for the future. This proposal was not agreetl to by the Berg's and he stated that he understood that they were also trying to protect their own investment. Recently, they had discussed the proposed variance application with the Berg's antl the annual license was offered to them again. The Berg's rejected this proposal again because of concerns that they had with the resale of their property. He and his wife also have concerns about the resale of their property; however, they would most likely agree to a five foot sitle setback from the common extended sitle site line. He expressed concern about the atljusting of the extended side site lines as discussed at this meeting, including the idea of changing the proposed site plan. He entertained questions and comments from the Board. Scanlon asked how far out the docks in the immediate area extended out from shore. Curtis Midthun stated their tlock extendetl out approximately eight sections, with the Roseboom extending out a similar tlistance. Babcock asked the Midthun's how much lakeshore frontage that they had.