LMCD/application/variance/meeting minutes. etc

Home Browse Search

Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26,2002 Page 5 years until around 1998. This dock was abandoned at that time and the situation changed from a common dock to two separate docks. He stated that his primary interest is to ensure that the variance request being considered by the Board for the Pacovsky's does not greatly impact his rights to docking in the future in case his common dock goes away. Ms. Shirley Hendrickson, 3200 North Shore Drive,stated that she and Rick Windenburg owned the abutting property to the west. She made the following comments: • A letter was circulated that summarized their comments on the proposed application, suggested factors when considering a variance, and two altemative proposed site plans. She clarified that their site had 57' of shoreline and she reviewed their current dock configuration, noting that it extends approximately 90' into the lake. • The applicant's property is currently for sale and she expressed concern about the correlation between large dock site plans and how they would increase the resale value of the property. She believed that a revised site plan that would be scaled back might more appropriate than the two proposed site plans. • The installation of the North Shore Marina multiple dock squeezes the abutting property owners to the east. She reviewed the two altematives they proposed for the Pacovsky site, noting that they would involve a shorter straight dock rather than an "H"dock. The applicant does not currently live in the residence and she believed that the primary purpose for the proposed variance application is to increase value to the property that is currently for sale. • She concurred with the recommendation of staff to get the applicant together with the neighbors to see if an amended site plan could be agreed to by the applicant and the abutting property owners. Babcock asked the applicant whether they currently resided at 3186 North Shore Drive. Pacovsky stated that they moved from this residence last fall and that they were in the process of selling it. The purpose of the proposed variance application was to define the dock and boat storage allowed at this site, noting that the size of the lot was 3/4 of an acre. Nybeck stated that staff advised the applicant last summer that the variance application process was the only way to get long-term clarification of the riparian rights for this site rather than utilizing the mutual consent option. Pacovsky stated that they had always had an "H"dock extending from site in the past to store a 26'long boat. The intent of the proposed applications is to illustrate that they have lakeshore rights and not to increase the value of the property through the variance process. The dock currently installed at 3200 North Shore Drive does not comply with Code requirements and they might also need a variance from Code. Babcock stated that the District generally does not get involved with the docking at the neighborhood level when there is mutual consent because the issues generally work themselves out. In this situation,whether a dock with a certain configuration has been done in the past is not a relevant issue because it appeared as though it did not conform to Code and was illegal. Ms. Michelle Pacosky expressed concern about the Code and how side site line extensions extend into the Lake the same direction that they are platted on land. She suggested that Minnesota law would extend these side site lines into the Lake from the shoreline at right angles. She believed that the shoreline at the site was 34' rather than the 27'that has been documented by the surveyor, because they pay taxes on 34'. Babcock clarified that the jurisdiction for the District is at the 929.4' NGVD,the ordinary high water mark established for Lake Minnetonka. Above the ordinary high water mark is private property and below it is joint