Laserfiche WebLink
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District <br /> Regul�r Board Meeting <br /> August 28,2002 Page 4 <br /> Knudsen asked Blomberg if moving the hypothetical four-slip dock in front of his site to the east would cause him a <br /> hardship. <br /> Blomberg stated that the 27'of shoreline at the Pacovsky clearly does not have an authorized dock use area if the <br /> side site lines are extended into the lake the same direction they are platted on land. At the neighbofiood meeting, <br /> he proposed a compromise for the Pacovsky site that would allow for a 17'wide adjusted dock use area with five <br /> foot side setbacks from the adjusted side site lines. This compromise would involve bisecting both of the Pacovsky <br /> side site lines; however, it was not well received by the neighbors in the immediate area. He stated he supported <br /> the Board granting a variance for access purposes for the Pacovsky site; however, he had concem about the <br /> HendricksonNVindenburg site being granted a 100' long dock length variance at the expense of his authorized dock <br /> use area. <br /> Wert stated that in concave shoreline situations, which appears to the case in this area, the District has in the past <br /> adjusted dock use areas of abutting property owners. He believed that it could be possible for Blomberg to move his <br /> proposed hypothetical dock to the east within his authorized dock use area to the east, yet protect his riparian rights. <br /> Foster stated that if the authorized dock use area is adjusted for the Pacovsky site and it impacts the Blomberg <br /> authorized dock use area, it would be the responsibility of both the owners and the interested party purchasing the <br /> Pacovsky residence to communicate this in the future. One option for the Board to consider would be to include any <br /> variance order approved by the District as part of the deed for the property. The area in question is public water and <br /> is not owned by the sites that abut the lake, and are subject to reasonable regulations. <br /> Babcock stated that Mr. Blomberg's comments regarding his authorized dock use area were based on strict <br /> application of Code. He questioned whether it is the responsibility of a property owner that has recently purchased a <br /> property with parallel side site lines to look down the shoreline and determine whether it could be impacted in the <br /> future by a variance request by a nearby property. He believed that the primary issue is whether the proposed <br /> adjusted dock use area request for the Pacovsky site should be adjusted more with the abutting property owner to <br /> the west, the Hendrickson/Windenburg site, noting that there would be a need for some give and take. <br /> Foster stated that if the Board required the Pacovsky's to store the 26'long boat on the west side of the dock rather <br /> than the east, it probably would include the moving of the Hendrickson/Windenburg dock also to the west. <br /> LeFevere stated that the proposed adjusted dock use area for the Pacovsky site would include adjusting the eastem <br /> extended side site line slightly over 17 degrees to the east towards the Blomberg site and the westem extended side <br /> site line slightly over six degrees to the west towards the Hendrickson/Windenburg site. Side setbacks are not <br /> proposed from either adjusted side site line extension and finro watercraft have been proposed on the Blomberg side <br /> of the dock. A six foot side setback has been proposed from the east edge of the Hendrickson/Windenburg dock to <br /> the adjusted eastern Pacovsky side site line extension. It might make sense for the Board to consider some form of <br /> a side setback variance for the Blomberg site on the east side of his dock use area. He believed that there would <br /> need to be probably a full side setback from the eastem adjusted extended side site line to provide maneuvering <br /> space for the front watercraft stored on the east side of the Pacovsky dock. <br /> Foster stated that he believed there were a number of issues regarding the proposed variance applications that <br /> would not be resolved at this meeting. He suggested moving the discussion along with the public to get their input <br /> before the public hearing was closed. <br /> Mr. Fred Pacovsky, 3186 North Shore Drive, stated that he and his wife submitted the original variance application <br /> being considered by the Board. There have been discussions with the affected neighbors and staff to amend the <br />