Laserfiche WebLink
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District <br /> Regular Board Meeting <br /> June 26,2002 Page 6 <br /> space for the public and the abutting property owner, noting that it is subject to reasonable regulations of the <br /> District. The 27'of shoreline documented at the 929.4' NGVD by the surveyor is the correct figure to use when <br /> evaluating the amount of shoreline at this site. The ordinances for the District extended the platted side site lines <br /> in the water the same direction from where they intersect the 929.4' NGVD shoreline at this site, noting that this <br /> sometimes creates a physical hardship and needs a variance from Code. <br /> Foster stated that he believed a physical hardship exists for this site; however,the primary question was how the <br /> side site lines should be adjusted on the abutting properties. <br /> Mr. Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore Drive, stated that the dock installation used by the applicant in the past <br /> made it difficult for him to get a boat out from his dock when the applicant parked a boat on the west side of their <br /> dock, noting that their dock was installed from the center of their property. <br /> There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. <br /> Wert stated that the concept that there was mutual consent for dock in this area in the past and it does not <br /> currently exist was not new for the District. He suggested that it would be appropriate to send the proposed <br /> variance application back to staff to see if all parties involved could agree on a revised site plan, <br /> Foster agreed that he believed the proposed application could not be resolved this evening at the Board level <br /> and that it should be sent back to staff level, <br /> McMillan stated that she believed physical hardships of converging lot lines and shallow water existed for the <br /> applicant's site. The site itself is very narrow and the applicant deseroes a dock extending from it; however,the <br /> applicant needs to compromise on the type of dock and the number of watercraft to be stored at it. She believed <br /> that a shared dock with one of the abutting property owners seems to make sense; however, a compromised <br /> individual dock needs to be considered if that is what they desire. <br /> Foster and Van Hercke concurred with McMillan. <br /> Foster stated that he would like to have a more comprehensive survey that highlights the side site lines and <br /> docking of the couple of sites in both directions from the applicants site because the adjustment of dock use <br /> areas might include multiple neighbors in the area. He believed that the applicant would need to revise their <br /> proposed site plan a much smaller dock, without an"H", if a permanent variance is granted for the site. <br /> Babcock stated that when the District grants variances from Code, it takes into consideration physical hardships <br /> created by the property and not a boat to be stored at the dock. He concurred with Foster that the survey <br /> proposed by the applicant should broader in scope and should include other affected property properties. <br /> Seuntjens stated that he would also like the North Shore Marina dock included in the survey proposed by the <br /> applicant. <br /> Wert stated that the Board should not take whether the applicant lives in the residential property at the site into <br /> consideration when reviewing the request for variance from Code. <br /> Pacovsky asked if he could put a dock out in the interim while the Board was considering the proposed variance <br /> application. <br />