HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence re LMCD variance application WALDRON LAW OFFICES, LTD.
JOHN B.WALDRON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1951 CONCORDIA STREET
WAYZATA,MINNESOTA SS39I-I32O
TELEPHONE�IS2�4�I-O940 email john@waldronlaw.com
rnx(952)471-8859 website www.waldronlaw.com
September 5, 2007
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
18338 Minnetonka Boulevard VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Deephaven, MN 55391
Attention: Gregory S. Nybeck, Executive Director
Re: Eric & Laurie Berg Variance Application
2965 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota
Spring Park Bay, Lake Minnetonka
Dear Mr. Nybeck:
I have been retained to represent Kathleen and Curtis Midthun relative to the above
Variance Application. The Midthuns are adjacent property owners to the North of the Berg
property, residing at 2941 Casco Point Road. We understand the public hearing on this
Application was left open froin the meeting on August 22,2007,and will resume on October
10, 2007.
Following the last hearing,and upon further consideration,the Midthuns now oppose
the granting of any variance to the Bergs which would encroach on their ten foot setback and
in addition oppose any "straightening" of the Berg's lot lines as they run froin the water's
edge out into Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Berg has stated that he desires the variance in order to
make his property more valuable for its future sale. However, if the variance were granted,
it would also inake the Midthuns' property less valuable, with no compensation to them.
Mrs. Midthun is a certified fee appraiser of residential real property and has been for a
number of years.
The Midthuns have offered, and still offer, to provide the Bergs with a revocable
license for a five foot encroachment into the ten foot setback area, an offer the Bergs have
refused. W ith such a crowded lakeshore area,and given the problems the Midthuns have had
in the past with encroaching docks from the Berg property, the Midthuns have a reasonable
need to control any encroachinents at the lakeshore and see the revocable license as a logical
means to exercise such control. Please copy this letter to the full Board of Directors. I will
be in attendance with the Midthuns at the upcoming hearing.
Very truly yours,
John B. Waldron
cc: Kathleen and Curtis Midthun
Peter Johnson, Esq.
i '� � � � �� �� '� i i� � �1�
Minnesota State Bar Association Board Certired Specialist in Real Property La`� � �f, ��r�� !� �� �i �`' � ;� �f
ii
� , ,'� I
�' i� �EF' 1 � �007 I ,; ;
� � I J
uu
L)� _—_-------
:�
� .
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
August 17, 2007
T0: Board of Directors
/
FROM: Judd J. Harper,Administrative Technician�'.r
SUBJECT: Eric& Laurie Berg Variance Application
BACKGROUND
Eric& Laurie Berg, 2965 Casco Point Rd, have submitted a dock length and side setback variance
application. Their residence has approximately 20'of continuous 929.4'shoreline and is locatetl on Spring
Park Bay in the City of Orono. Pursuant to LMCD Code, the attached public hearing notice was published
in the 8/7/07 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News.
The applicants have proposed; 1) a 55.5' long straight dock,which would be 3.5'wide, along the south
extended side site line (zero foot setback), 2) a boat lift on the north side of the dock(presumably to store a
restricted watercraft), and 3) a 3.1 foot setback from the adjusted easterly extended sitle site line. The
proposed hardships by the applicant include: 1) Separate residence has been in existence for more than
50 years and has kept a separate seasonal dock since before 1970, 2) Lot has converging lot lines with
riparian shoreline of 20', 3)A land subdivision was approved by the City of Orono in 1977 with issuance of
a separate dock permit by City of Orono, and 4)Adjoining property owners consented to waiver of
setbacks. Further details of the applicants request are outlined in the attached letter, dated 8/1l07.
DISCUSSION
To evaluate the proposed variance application, I believe that three LMCD Code Sections apply to it. These
include:
1, Code Section 2.01, subd. 9 prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an
authorized DUA for docking and storage of watercraft. An authorized DUA is defined as"that area
of the Lake which may be used for docks, moorings, boat storage, swimming floats, ski jump
storage or diving towers, or which may be enclosetl on three sides for any of these purposes".
These three sides are further defined by Code for maximum dock length and side setback
requirements, LMCD Code requires setbacks from extended side site lines as follows: 1)the first
50' of the length of the DUA requires a 10' setback, 2) the next 50' in length of the DUA requires a
15' setback, 3)canopies require a 20' setback, and 4)side opening slips require a setback of the
depth of the slip, with a minimum of 20'. For dock length, a DUA may extend the same distance
into the Lake that there is 929.4'lakeshore frontage at the site, with a maximum distance of 100'.
There are grandfathered provisions for setbacks (five feet) and dock length (four feet of water
depth or 60', whichever is less)for DUAs that are 40' in width or less and were in existence in
February of 1970.
The applicants proposed plan is not contained within the DUA for this site for both length
and side setbacks. To address this,the applicants have submitted a variance application
from LMCD Code.
. �
Eric& Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo,8117l07, Page 2
2. Code Section 1.07 states that"Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where
necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from Code or
may require a variance from what is otherwise permittetl by the Code, provided that such variance
with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the
purposes of this ordinance, the public health, safety and welfare, and reasonable access to or use
of the Lake by the public or riparian owners".
In review of the proposed application for variance from Code,the Board should ensure that
the applicant has proposed practical difficulties or particular hardships that are caused by
the application of the Code. In addition,the Board should apply the following decision
standards in the review of the proposed variance application.
• Is the proposed use reasonable?
• Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance?
• Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the
property?
• Is the problem one created by the applicant?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
The criteria used by the Board in the past to evaluate dock length variance applications is to
establish four feet of water depth at the outer edge of the DUA, adjusted to the 929.4'
contour. The applicants have documented water depths of 4 feet out approximately 58 feet
from the 929.4'shoreline. Based on these water depths,the applicants have documented
that a hardship of shallow water exists for the dock length variance.
Staff does not believe the side setback variance request to meet a 3.1' setback from the
north side of the site and a 0' setback from the south is reasonable. The applicant is
proposing a dock and boat lift width of 14.5' on a lot with 20' of shoreline and approximately
16' of width between the extended side site lines at 58'from shore(4'of water depth at
929.4') because of converging lot lines. For similar sites with 20' of shoreline and parallel
lot lines that were in existence on February 2, 1970,the maximum width of the dock use
area would be 10'.
This site was created on 1/23/1978 by a subdivision approved by the City of Orono. Current
LMCD Code that defines the authorized dock use area for a site platted in 1978 has not
essentially changed since 1978. The authorized dock use area (DUA)for this site is defined
as follows: 1)The dock use area extends out from shoreline a distance equat to the site
lake frontage(20') ,2)the first 50' of the length of the DUA requires a 10' setback from the
extended side property lines,the next 50' in length of the DUA requires a 15'setback, 3)two
or more adjoining site owners may, by mutual agreement, adjust these side setback
requirements.
Staff believes that it would be unreasonable to require conformance to the side setback
ordinance of 10' because without mutual agreement from at least one of the two adjoining
site owners,this site does not have an authorized dock use area. This dock and boat
storage at this site has existed since 1978 because the adjoining site owners agreed to
adjust the side setback requirements. The dock length may have been illegal if the dock or
boat were stored further out than 20'from the 929.4'shoreline.
' ' Eric& Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo, 8117/07, Page 3
Staff believes that the problem is partially created by the appiicant because the proposed
width of the dock and boat lift is excessive for a lot with 20' of shoreline and the applicant
had purchased the property approximately 30 years after the LMCD side setback
regulations were first adopted.A dock and boat storage can be continued from this property
if at least one of the adjoining site owners agree to adjust the side setback requirements or
even agrees to maintain a common dock between the two properties.
LMCD Code Section 2.01 Subd. 2b, allows the authorized dock use area in cases of sites 50'
in width or less in existence on February 2, 1970 may be expanded to a side setback
limitation of five feet, provided that such setback in no way impairs access to neighboring
docks.There are many sites around the lake that qualify for this side setback exception and
appear to be maintained in a safe manner that does not interfere with adjacent dock use
areas or activities.
Staff was able to find a couple similar situations where there were lots platted after the 1970
"grandfather"date that were granted side setback variances by the LMCD Board to reduce
the side setback requirements to 5'.With these approved variances,the LMCD Board
restricted the width of the dock, width and length of the boat and only allowed one boat to
be stored on the dock. The variances also stated that the dock constructed at the sites must
be a single straight dock with no "L" or"T".
� 3. Code Section 2.02 outlines the number of restrictetl watercraft that can be stored at a residential
site based on the amount of 929.4' shoreline and the ownership of the watercraft. Specifically, it
allows: 1) General Rule-one restricted watercraft for each 50'of shoreline (without reference to
ownership), 2) up to two restricted watercraft may be kept at a dock for a residential site in
existence on 8/30/78 (without reference to ownership), antl 3) three or four restricted watercraft
are allowed at a residential site if there is one and no more than one single family residential
structure at the site and all watercraft are owned and registered to the residents of the site.
Staff is unsure how many watercraft the applicant is proposing to store at the proposed
dock.The site plan shows an 11'X 14' lift located on the north side of the dock. Staff has
requested dimensions of a proposed boat to be stored on the lift but the attorney for the
applicant has communicated that the applicant had sold his 23 ft. boat when the LMCD
ordered his dock removed. Staff still does not know what size of boat the applicant is
applying for.
In the past, the Board has typically restricted the number of restricted watercraft that may
be stored at a site that requires a variance from LMCD Code. I believe that this should be
the case in this proposal and the Board should decide how many and the size of the
restricted watercraft that are appropriate at this site.
RECOMMENDATION
There are three fundamental issues that the Board should adtlress when considering the Berg variance
application. These include:
1. The applicants have provided adequate documentation that shallow water exists at this site to grant a
dock length variance. However, staff questions why a 55.5 foot long dock is needed if the
furthermost portion of the lift is proposed to be located approximately 34' from the 929.4'shoreline.
Eric & Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo, 8/17/07, Page 4
2. What is the appropriate width of the DUA for this site, which docking and boat storage must be
contained within. Staff believes the width of the lift and dock should not exceed 10'. Is it appropriate to
grant a side setback variance for a site that was created after the February 2, 1970"grandfathered" 5'
setback date?The Board should determine what the hardships are.
3. What is the appropriate number and size of the restrictetl watercraft to be stored at this site?
It seems that one restricted watercraft is reasonable for a site of this size with the Board to determine
the size.
S#aff believes that the witlth of the proposed dock and lift is excessive for a lot that was created in 1978
with 20'of shoreline. If the Board is inclined to act upon this variance application immediately, Staff
recommends that the Board direct LMCD legal counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order to deny the
side setback request and to approve the dock length variance. In this case, the only way that this site would
have a dock use area would be if one or both adjoining property owners, by mutual agreement, would
adjust the side setback requirements.
Staff recommends that the Board table or continue this agenda item to a subsequent meeting and direct
staff to work with the applicant to amend their application and site plan to meet the direction of the Board
based off of the information collected during the public hearing addressing the funtlamental issues outlined
above.
� •.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
�� � Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
�'�., 18338 Minnetonka Bivd.
�'��__ Deephaven, MN 55391
- �- f.
�µ��=���:f Phone: (952)745-0789
• • � Fax: (952)745-9085
LMCD Receipt# 'ad G7//�f
Because this#orm is to be copied, please use black ink or type.
In accordance with LMCD Code Section 1.07, where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where
necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from the requirements of the
Code, or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted the Code provided that such variance with
whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board,does not adverseiy affect the purposes of this
ordinances,the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by public or
riparian owners. The following application,when completed, shall be filed with the Executive Director of the
District along with surveys, photos, and such other information as required.
The person completing this form is the authorized agent or property owner (circle one).
Applicant: �ric and Laurie Berg
Address: 2965 Casco Point Road
Clty, StBte, Zlp: Orono, Minnesota 55391
PhOnG': 9�2-471-9000 FaX: None
Properiy owner (if different from applicant): N/A
Address: N/A
City, State, Zip: N/A
PI1011@: 952-47i-9000 FaX: None , I�: �i I� �,,. , ..��,
jj� [�; C��., ��: �_� � �� ;
PROPERTY LOCATION: j - ,��
The property is located in the city of: orono I�l AUC � 2001 /,�
The property is riparian to�LMCD bay/area(s): f
LMCD Area Identification Number(s): [3��._._ __..__._.:- -.- ._t
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Dock length and setbacks from extended side lot lines
State practical difficulties and hardships causing variance to be required:
Separate residence has been in existence for more than 50 years and
has kept a separate seasonal dock since before 1970. Lot has converging
lot lines at OHW 929.4 with riparian shoreline of 20.00 feet. A Land
Subdivision was approved by City of Orono in 1977 with issuance of a separate
dock permit by City of Orono. Adjoining property owners consented to
waiver of setbacks. (See Factual Summary)
Page 1 of 3
� �
Variance Application
ABUTTING LAKESHORE PROPERTY OWNERS:
North or West: curtis and Kathleen Midthun, 2941 Casco Pt.Rd. Orono, MN 55391
(Name and mailing address)
SOUth OfEaSt: Theodore and Deborah Roseboom,2967 Casco Pt. Rd. Orono, MN 55391
(Name and mailing address)
Other affected parties (attach sheet i#necessary):
None
(Name and mailing address)
Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of#he
property. Such owners must be verified by checking with the Hennepin County Auditors Office,
(612) 348-5910 (or a private abstract company) which can provide actual mailing labels at a
cost of$1.25 per tax parcel (minimum of$25.00). This setvice usually takes two days, and
you must have your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this
aSSISt8f1Ce. �Ordered 4/20/07)
Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached:
� Locator Map (U.S.G.S area map with scale, North direction, Site clearly marked,
Name or Title, LMCD Area Name, LMCD number)
❑ County Plat Map (Site clearly marked, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number)
� Certified Land Survey (Legal description, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD
number, 929.4 N.G.V.D. shorefine)
� Proposed facility site plan (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name,
LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area,
locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers,
indicate type of slip if applicable)
❑ Existing facility site plan, if applicable (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD
area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate
setback area, locate dock use area, location ofi dock structure with dimensions and
slip numbers, indicate type of sfip if applicable)
� Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties, and other affected dockage
Absence of significant dafa requested above could result in a processing de/ay.
FEE CALCULATION � '
APPLICATION FEE..............(non-refundabfe).........................................$250.00
DEPOSIT............................. (refundable, upon full compliance
with the Code and extent of
administrative, inspection and
legal service required).................................+$250.00
' �
(� �-:; i�� r�: I '�
I)� � �' I._: �� �!� '�-
; �� � �_
Page2of3 I�� �1U� j ZOQ7 I ��
L�LI
�
�„
Variance Application
TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED...... (this fee is for processing of the
application and does not
entitle the appiicant to a variance).................. 500.00
I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; I understand that
any variance granted may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD code. I agree to reimburse the
District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District
in excess of the amount of the application fee. I consent to permitting o�cers and agents of the District to enter
the premises at reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being
complied with.
I agre ' a certified, as-b ilt survey up completion of the docks.
� � o
Authori ignature Date
Peter W. Johnson, Attorney for Applicant
Title
Attorney
Return this application,attachments and fee to:
Relationship to Owner
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
18338 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391-3232
Fax:(952)745-9085
Application for variance is submitted without prejudice to existing
rights as a legal nonconforming use.
I, .�I.�.I,I.i',.� ,.....I-'�C
I� ��� (l�� , L� I�, �' I I� !i
! � � ; , ,
I1) ��1)[; rt. 1��i?! 1 I'�i
�� ;,
F�'-- ..._�._.......�._Y..��
Page 3 of 3
Eric Berg Variance Request
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Eric Berg bought his home at 2965 Casco Point Road in 2000. At the time, he was toid
by the realtor that he had the right to keep a dock on the riparian shoreline of Lake
Minnetonka, as his predecessors in title had all done. His lot is configured in an
unusual way and it has only 20.00 feet of riparian shoreline on Lake Minnetonka (at
OHW 929.4). Mr. Berg has since confirmed that the prior owners used a dock
configured with a single straight stringer running from the concrete steps centered on
his 1ot and leading down to the shore. Mr. Berg kept a dock and a boat at the shoreline
wi#hout objection until 2004 when the LMCD staff notified him that his dock & boat must
be removed.
Eric Berg makes this variance request without prejudice to his right to keep a dock on
Lake Minnetonka as a iegal non-conforming use.
Relevant Facts:
Prior to July of 1977 the City o#Orono was aware that a portion of the traveled public
street adjacent to 2965 and 2969 Casco Point Road was not constructed within the
platted right-of way. While the City maintained the public road, it had no recorded
easements for the traveled route. Furthermore, the right of way that had been originally
laid out and dedicated in the area was too close to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka to
be of practical use for road purposes.
In July of 1977, the Orono Planning Commission suggested #hat property owners
adjacent to the improperly located right-of-way consider combining a formal request for
vacation of the unimproved platted right-of-way and an offer to convey a portion of their
land to the City for roadway purposes (some of which had been improved as a road
many years earlier and was then in use as a public road). As a result of these
discussions, Hamilton and Charlotte Moran appeared before the Orono Planning
Commission to discuss their existing rights as the property owner of homes at 2965 and
2969 Casco Point Road. (Note: both homes were located on a single parcel of land.)
The City Planning Commission encouraged the Morans to assist the City in resolving
the poorly defined right-of-way in the area. While appearing before the Planning
Commission, the Morans were encouraged by the Planning Commission to subdivide
their property into #wo separate legal parcels. The Planning Commission members
were aware that the Moran's had #wo separately occupied single family homes on #heir
property, that said homes had been in existence for more than 50 years, and that each
home had a separate mailing address. The Planning Commission members were also
specifically aware that each home used a separate seasonai dock on Lake Minnetonka.
At the Planning Commission meeting on August 1, 1977, the proposed plan for
subdivision was reviewed and a Public Hearing was held.
Upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council of Orono passed
Resolutions in September 1977 and in January 1978 granting variances tor���� rl� ��� lj �',' i�^ , i
I�I)) - �' I� �;��,
�
���_� �,UC; � 2our , �I I
IJ
;��.,
accommodate the formal subdivision of the Moran property creating separate individual
homesites at 2965 and 2969 Casco Point Road, including "variances for structures and
dock". The variances were granted and park dedication fees were waived in recognition
of the fact that the homes had existed for many years and that the homeowner had
cooperated with City efforts to resolve longstanding right-of-way issues.
The Applicant has submitted Orono City Council and Planning Commission Minutes as
well as the Neighborhood Homeowners' Petition showing the consent and approval of
all homeowners in the immediate area, including specifically homeowners on either side
of the riparian shoreline then owned by Hamilton and Charlotte Moran. All neighboring
homeowners received Notice of the Pubiic Hearing at which Hamilton Moran explained
that he had the consent of his adjoining riparian neighbors to waive dock setbacks so he
coufd maintain the riparian dock on 2965 Casco Point Road.
1\WORKROOMDESKTOP�SharedDocslaaPWJactive�Berg,Eric-LMCDWIEMO 7-30.07.docx
,.._-----
j r" � ` � �l f� �i. �-
I�)1 �, (�� l�; �� � i� ;���
'i�
i I�� aU� � Coo.% i I;;
�
2 ���-
�:� �` �.,� ��' -=��` �' �
t:_ � ���� ,� °� 6.�" � � � ---� �� —
� � ��.�e ,°� ��� � � ;.a
_ �
, �.. �
�� a
_,.� � � '��� �� ;-.
�„� � ,a,�,
� � � � .a �
r,z ,�4
.. �° �•�.� �`� .. � ti �� �
l ,a _
�.
. , 4
.e �P . ,*'.° '. � �
. , . � . � � .,._ � ��� —.�.
L "A
;: ... ,! .'�s .� zm�,� e, �
a� ' �� � �
��: �`� +. B''1 ���`-
�..� �� �4��
g � �e
�. ��„ �
's�.t" 9,; "s�f � yy� tl �
.��t,� '�be. . �« �.. ` i 1 ��;�., �� ��� �
� '� � �, � �.,��,, _ �
r,�` �'� '�
ti� - �. `�;;: �� � "���,�,� _ -
a �
�" a*' ' ; .�.. �� �� : � .
� . .
_ � ��.. � � � � � `�.-�'` �.�£, i�f
� �•� i
.��-
°"A � ��,� � �� � � >� •ti'����'"�` . -=' � �
� � r �
�i • � � , ���� '�: rr } a'ti.
_,� °'f � S �
�� � � � . � �
�'z, '�� �:� �m'- �-�, ,� i �`-, �� � `��,�'�
��
� �,.� `�'�" '° � � ��.a�� ,�,. � F'+y ��' 'r'� � .r'�, � u�
' ��t' �.� ;,� � , `',� � �` �`., ;�� � , 1r ti s�'F
� .,i� � �,� �. � ,a� � � � 1� � �` _ �'��� _ '�z'y
� , f � ,
� � "` � � f °�f' �. �;
r,� "���. � �
ti} � � _ `
���v� � � � ��., f1 .
.. � � � r � ° � �
�.•� ���f���.� 4'.
r �t
� �� �. _ � ,r•�'`� ��'+, '�
� � �,' � � � ��� �� �,
�
.,��� "�-,;� „�a I ��}.��''—�a`�-_..1 �
r�,.� �� �� , �T�� . � �� �°� �
` � ��. t`a�,�+�.� � 1r ��
e �,� --� -,,. �
�s� ���� "^--��,;��" �, �, �—'�',�`�,�''�,'�—^�k--� � 'ti ��
�" f� '
� , ".�- r°� �ti• , �'� _ � '�
° , � r .�,� ���: �� �'�,�' �� `� ��` � � �'k ' °��� "� �� �
�, ��� � `�` � r � .�, � �, � � � � � � t � i� �
�
vn ,
� es� � � �,..R"� �'3��" �� ` ,: �� �a,�.=��.-, � t����� +� .,'}ti x �,:s � °� �� . �I
�
�� v � � ' •y � r
� � � � � � ���4 �� :� '�*. � . �� _ag^�. � � x aF::
��t � ��.� � r� :�ti �^ �'A� �"�`, �.
- � a '� �� p ��� _� �� � �� �.,.
�
y R%.
� T "�` � �� � 5 �"� "c �1 �� ��'' _ �,
� a. � 3 �"°� �' ti.,< < -.� �
.� �., �s� 'a � �� � `�a y �� �
�"'`S "�:'s"��, "�5'�h ;� . �1r a�'�f� �5 �
r l ; '
''i' ,t�� �(!, '� r �t ' ';� e'^t t �1
ti �
T llr � ,'" F � ' �'„v �,.,� i� .�s �:� � M'{ �+. �` ^' . "
r "i't� ao., t�'��„� .''.� M� � 6a �`,� � .�... � ti4 �' l .
��'�,� � �� � � 'A. ��7� �°� � ,, �� �� �,��
a �� ��,� } �'�t � �'�
�'•. .
a� � � €, a�i �� ���„�'�`, 'x,r�. ¢�d-
���� ��� � � �����t , ' � � �.
b
yi,t ���i ,l �,�'�-• y� �� '''.4�4. `� .. .
��,. ��� �;, � ; � ,� , � �.
Y
:.�'<: '�, +{ � �, `-� , q � �. '
��, " � �., �$��� �'� a, .
,� �, � _E � , ti �r
�. ;� M�♦ ��� ,-� �. ���� � � r��°
'�y��.' €�3�' ��� y � �"� `5ti ��,. +,�,�,r .
l4 t x � � "� .„,j.1"4°� l
. �..yn'.�r
��§� ti,�5 ��''g 4ti ;r. .�-°"' ' �,� �,� , � �� ,
�,h��.3�� '"" ,,. ti. �� ,
�,� a �. , � �ti ��� �a�.;�� y�y �
ti `� ° � ��'-ti� � � � �
� � � ��9 �� ��$ '. t
� x'� $�"�� �'�� < i.1 ,s� �^p t �p�;�, � �ti `
�
�v Y ,;i3 ��..� � �`��`�L �.
�� �� � �� �� �����
�
�� ° �` �•a ;. . � '� ��
+ r
.,,L }��� ., y} .l`, �.�� .�. ' � .
t., ��r �„
� �� ° �,,�'+�' � A ��,. Yt �
�� �+'�- � ��M �
���;� � ��<.� �� �` �,, �,� ,J �
� =3 A��~� ��; �� ` .� +�� ��S
°� � ti m �� ►�
.. �¢" .. � ��+s
�- .`� �` � �
,.�� �`ti �
��� :
1�'� . '�. s
. v�� MINNETo��s
��cEr���
� M �
� -- ,. AUG 1
O'i' 'SIYET_ M yELINF' �` 3 2007
S�AV�ITION��y4�
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRIC�TY o� n�r����
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS
DATE OF REQLTEST: August 8, 2007
RESPON5ES DUE BY: August 20, 2007
(Note: Comments on this application are due 10 days from receipt of this notice. Return to: L.M.C.D.
18338 Minnetonka Blvd.; Deephaven, MN 55391)
FROM: Judd J. Harper PHONE: (952) 745-0789
Administrative Technician E-Mail: jharper�a lmcd.org
TO:
X Municipality: Mr. Mike Gaffron, City of Orono, P.O. Box 66 �
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
X MCWD: Mr. Eric Evenson, MCWD, 18202 Minnetonka Blvd.,
Deephaven, MN 55391
X DNR Area Hydrologist: Ms. Kate Drewry, MN DNR, 1200 Warner Road,
St. Paul, MN 55106
PROPOSAL INFORMATION
Name of Applicant: Eric & Laurie Ber�
Address of Project: 2965 Casco Point Rd., Orono, MN 55391
Project Description: The applicant has submitted an application for variance from LMCD
Code for dock len�th and side setbacks at a site with ap�roximate1�20
of 929.4 shoreline. The proposed hardships include shallow water and
conver�g lot lines.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL
Comments on Project by Reviewer (attach separate sheet if needed):
_— l ��'�`l� 1 � a C �
�t� TF�'� ��-[ 0/�-� P�i�2S' C0 �e�'
Recommendation of Reviewer: �P�✓�(.,_
, pss�.2 rr'1/49N�u�u.
� � �l b�
Name of Reviewer: �-' � Title: �ouv�-r��st►2n�G ate: � 1
v�� NIINlyfTO��
9
` M • LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
��' -SAYETNELpKE- �V 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. • DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 •TELEPHONE 952/7A5-0789 • FAX 952/745-9085
� Gregory S.Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
@
�9VATION ���
BOARD MEMBERS AUgUSt Z, ZOO7
Tom Skramstad,Chair
Shorewood
Katy Van Hercke,Vice Chair
Minnetonka T0: Lakeshore Weekly News
Tom Scanlon,Secretary
Spring Park Attn: Sue Korus, Legal Department
Tom Seuntjens,Treasurer Fax# 952 473-0895
Minnetonka Beach � � � �
Gene Altstatt �
Greenwood FROM: Judd Har er, Administrative Technician<�
Doug Babcock p
Tonka Bay
M WaBza ar SUBJECT: Public Hearing Notice (8/7/07 Edition)
David Gross
Deephaven
Leigh Harrod
Exceisior LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Steve Johnson
rv�ound PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Andrew McDermott I11 7:00 PM, August 22, 2007
Orono
Pete tve�son Wayzata City Hall
Victoria 600 Rice Street
Herb Suerth
Woodland Wayzata, MN
Lisa Whalen
Minnetrista
Eric 8� Laurie Berg
Variance Application
2965 Casco Point Rd., Orono, MN
Spring Park Bay, Lake Minnetonka
The Lake Minnetonka Conse►vation District(LMCD)will hold a public hearing to
consider a variance application from Eric& Laurie Berg. The proposed application is for
variance from LMCD Code for dock length antl side setback requirements. AH
interested persons will be given an opportunity to comment.
Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391;
Phone (952) 745-0789.
i�
�•�
50%RecycledContent Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org
20�PostConsumerwaste E-mail Address: ImcdC�lmcd.org
, VARIANCE APPLICATION
� Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
i 18338 Minnetonka Blvd.
• _ - Deephaven, MN 55391
.- -- �:t Phone: (952)745-0789
� . ` Fax: (952)745-9085
LMCD Receipt#
Because this form is to be copied, please use black ink or type.
In accordance with LMCD Code Section 1.07,where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where
necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from the requirements of the
Code, or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted the Code provided that such variance with
whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes of this
ordinances, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by public or
riparian owners. The following application, when completed, shall be filed with the Executive Director of the
District along with surveys, photos, and such other information as required.
The person completing this form is the authorized agent or property owner (circle one).
Applicant: Eric and Laurie Berg
Address: 2965 Casco Point Road
Clty, StBte, Zlp: Orono, Minnesota 55391
Phone: 952-471-9000 FaX: None
Property owner (if different from applicant): N/A
Address: N/A
City, State, Zip: N/A
Phone: 952-4�1-900o Fax: None '�;1 ( r[;..' � ;; ���� i �
, ;;I � �, 1.1 �� �'� '� � ��
PROPERTY LOCATION: �
orono �";� AUG ? 2007 j�� ��
The property is located in the city of: j ��,_, � ,�
The property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s): �
LMCD Area Identification Number(s): ��� - -
�__.�_..____---------�
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Dock length and setbacks from extended side lot lines
State practical difficulties and hardships causing variance to be required:
Separate residence has been in existence for more than 50 years and
has kept a separate seasonal dock since before 1970. Lot has converging
lot lines at OHW 929.4 with riparian shoreline of 20.00 feet. A Land
Subdivision was approved by City of Orono in 1977 with issuance of a separate
dock permit by City of Orono. Adjoining property owners consented to
waiver of setbacks. (See Factual Summary)
Page 1 of 3
Variance Application
ABUTTING LAKESHORE PROPERTY OWNERS:
Northor West: curtis and Kathleen Midthun, 2941 Casco Pt.Rd. Orono, MN 55391
(Name and mailing address)
South or East: Theodore and Deborah Roseboom,2967 Casco Pt. Rd. Orono, MN 55391
(Name and mailing address)
Other affected parties (attach sheet if necessary):
None
(Name and mailing address)
Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of the
property. Such owners must be verified by checking with the Hennepin County Auditors Office,
(612) 348-5910 (or a private abstract company) which can provide actual mailing labels at a
cost of$1.25 per tax parcel (minimum of$25.00). This service usually takes finro days, and
you must have your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this
assistanCe. (Ordered 4/2 0/0 7)
Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached:
� Locator Map (U.S.G.S area map with scale, North direction, Site clearly marked,
Name or Title, LMCD Area Name, LMCD number)
❑ County Plat Map (Site clearly marked, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number)
� Certified Land Survey (Legal description, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD
number, 929.4 N.G.V.D. shoreline)
� Proposed facility site plan (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name,
LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area,
locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers,
indicate type of slip if applicable)
❑ Existing facility site plan, if applicable (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD
area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate
setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and
slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable)
❑ Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties, and other affected dockage
Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay.
FEE CALCULATION
APPLICATION FEE..............(non-refundable).........................................$250.00
DEPOSIT............ ................. (refundable, upon full compliance
with the Code and extent of
administrative, inspection and
legal service required).................................+$250.00
�i -- , ��; , i,-��---:
!�' j i �i:� i� �'�1
I� !II �_ �_.,, l._: � tJ i�- �il ��
Page 2 of 3 (�;I 1; � - !���
f; ! �� �. lOQ% i�;�
f'�-��-I�' _�'I
f
E-�v
� -- --
Variance Application
TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED...... (this fee is for processing of the
application and does not
entitle the applicant to a variance).................. $500.0
I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; I understand that
any variance granted may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD code. I agree to reimburse the
District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District
in excess of the amount of the application fee. I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter
the premises at reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being
complied with.
I agre ' a certified, as-b ilt survey up completion of the docks.
� �7 � o
Authori ignature Date
Peter W. Johnson, Attorney for Applicant
Title
Attorney
Return this application,attachments and fee to:
Refationship to Owner
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
18338 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391-3232
Fax: (952)745-9085
Application for variance is submitted without prejudice to existing
rights as a legal nonconforming use.
r_�_,..___,..._.__ __ _._._.
' � ;��, iI 'i � �
I I, ) ;,�_ �l' �I.� �i �'1 i I !f
i I�
I � � �I �{
`! ili /�1 � '�
Fi ��� !'�IJ�i � �1���(� �, �i ,
;��_� , �1
�
(, �f-,
.J �._..__._
Y.�__._..�.._"... . ......................�
Page 3 of 3
Eric Berg Variance Request
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Eric Berg bought his home at 2965 Casco Point Road in 2000. At the time, he was told
by the realtor that he had the right to keep a dock on the riparian shoreline of Lake
Minnetonka, as his predecessors in title had all done. His lot is configured in an
unusual way and it has only 20.00 feet of riparian shoreline on Lake Minnetonka (at
OHW 929.4). Mr. Berg has since confirmed that the prior owners used a dock
configured with a single straight stringer running from the concrete steps centered on
his lot and leading down to the shore. Mr. Berg kept a dock and a boat at the shoreline
without objection until 2004 when the LMCD staff notified him that his dock & boat must
be removed.
Eric Berg makes this variance request without prejudice to his right to keep a dock on
Lake Minnetonka as a legal non-conforming use.
Relevant Facts:
Prior to July of 1977 the City of Orono was aware that a portion of the traveled public
street adjacent to 2965 and 2969 Casco Point Road was not constructed within the
platted right-of-way. While the City maintained the public road, it had no recorded
easements for the traveled route. Furthermore, the right of way that had been originally
laid out and dedicated in the area was too close to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka to
be of practical use for road purposes.
In July of 1977, the Orono Planning Commission suggested that property owners
adjacent to the improperly located right-of-way consider combining a formal request for
vacation of the unimproved platted right-of-way and an offer to convey a portion of their
land to the City for roadway purposes (some of which had been improved as a road
many years earlier and was then in use as a public road). As a result of these
discussions, Hamilton and Charlotte Moran appeared before the Orono Planning
Commission to discuss their existing rights as the property owner of homes at 2965 and
2969 Casco Point Road. (Note: both homes were located on a single parcel of land.)
The City Planning Commission encouraged the Morans to assist the City in resolving
the poorly defined right-of-way in the area. While appearing before the Planning
Commission, the Morans were encouraged by the Planning Commission to subdivide
their property into two separate legal parcels. The Planning Commission members
were aware that the Moran's had two separately occupied single family homes on their
property, that said homes had been in existence for more than 50 years, and that each
home had a separate mailing address. The Planning Commission members were also
specifically aware that each home used a separate seasonal dock on Lake Minnetonka.
At the Planning Commission meeting on August 1, 1977, the proposed plan for
subdivision was reviewed and a Public Hearing was held.
Upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council of Orono passed
Resolutions in September 1977 and in January 1978 granting variances to , ; �, � ,� � , ,;
�, ��I ,`_ � � �� " �,� � I .
� � ��
,, „
� ;
� ., lOL! ' '� ;(
�; �;� �i.�C± �� ' " ; �� .
�_I'i_! ' '�
�__�
r)'__-----------__-----
accommodate the formal subdivision of the Moran property creating separate individual
homesites at 2965 and 2969 Casco Point Road, including "variances for structures and
dock". The variances were granted and park dedication fees were waived in recognition
of the fact that the homes had existed for many years and that the homeowner had
cooperated with City efforts to resolve longstanding right-of-way issues.
The Applicant has submitted Orono City Council and Planning Commission Minutes as
well as the Neighborhood Homeowners' Petition showing the consent and approval of
all homeowners in the immediate area, including specifically homeowners on either side
of the riparian shoreline then owned by Hamilton and Charlotte Moran. All neighboring
homeowners received Notice of the Public Hearing at which Hamilton Moran explained
that he had the consent of his adjoining riparian neighbors to waive dock setbacks so he
could maintain the riparian dock on 2965 Casco Point Road.
\\WORKROOMDESKTOP\SharedDocs�aaPWJadive�Berg, Eric-LMCDUVIEMO 7-30-07.docx
�:--
_ ._ �_._ --- ,
�I)J << ``;� L� �l ILIf ! _• � i I�
i � i
ijj�l i
,� , �U� I. lULr I;j ;
�,� � � �,
�. /!
2 ,I�,
�
- --- - -
LOCATOR MAP �.n.�� �3.�� �
� AKE M NNETONKA CONSERUAT ON DISTR CT �
N ��3�
(24) 7) � �29)
1a) (22) . (28) -
.
(16) . _ -''� ( 30)
(26) , , _ - ,.
(17) � �21� - r ! �
�20� � - ,'�32) �3i
(15) A ,( � �42) .
,
14
1 �25� , , ,, 33)
13) 40� _ r-
�3) � �11� �, ,� 4
, , �9) , 3
(2 ��--- � - - - - - --__ �' (lo) 3�
' ' � (4�)
(7) ' (e)
� ��.� ' �.
. (4) �37) � -
� �36 (35)
,
d -- _ _ _ __
.- ---- --� _ _ _--�,
,Q -
, _
(5) ; _ ,__. _ _ ,.
i
� (�U� �. �007 � �
F
(6) �_ ,
.
.
, ---------
Hennepin County Variance Map �/`^-�' � Page 1 of 1
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services: Variance Labels
7his is no!u[egully recorded map. 11 represenls a comp�lation of rnfornaation and duta fi•nm Ciry,Coui�ry and S7ule uuthorities.
;'
�) �
Ii i
,''� c�s� .
i
!, ., � " (26) �_ , •
p� I
�� n2�
J �' I
0
. � (28) �` (33) � E
i N .
� �
�.��. . (55) . � ,
� (sz� �3`� (
� -
I � � ,,.� ��' � 16�
,,=„ '. �` 20-117-23-31 �35� .
�,.. � (51) (Sp) . � �
(49) � !
(36) � •
��) ny !
N
f� `
(65) �y
(47) � O �
-1
(63) � �
!p 1eo1 �
�
��� �6,� 1
t
�. , .�, � , �. �. � . �. �. � (3BJ � •
�. � ' � ' � � ' � • � '(45�• �..� . _ . _ . � . � • � ' � ' � ' _ • �1�• � • �
�
(Z�) i
f
�23� 1
I
20-117-23-34 �24) �
20-117-23-43
�
(
�
�
�
Pa reel Info rm ation� Date Printed:4/23/2007]0:13:20 AM
ParceIID:20-]17-23-31-0063
Owner Name:K ERIC A BERG
Parcel Address:29GSCASCO POINT RD ORONO MN,55391
Buffer Size:350 ft.
r--._,_...___ --___ __. _. __...
' i
� „ , ' ,I t
� � � � � � . � �.� I i
J
�� i r,'
I' , f�l,�f:t � �l�l!t � ;! ���
�..,_ �__ %:i
� �t
,-, ,
'��' _ ;
, _ .
http://bugle/MailingLabels/popMap.aspx?LayerID=94&ObjectID=189738&Buffer=350... 04/23/2007
LOCATOR MAP �.��� u3-�
�-
� AKE M NNETONKA CONSERUQTION DISTRICT
N
(23)
(24) 7) � �29)
�8� �22� (28) _
�16� � - - � "� � (30)
� (26) _ - - "
(17) � �2�) _ - " - ' " ' :
(-5� A �20) � ,'�32� ��l
i � �
(42) � .
l� ;,` , 33)
, �� ��5� ' � - r-
� S�t� , - 40�
�3) , �9) ;� 3 �' 4
(2 ��--- '� - - - - - --__ ,' (lo) 38
' 4 (4i)
' (7) `� �8� ,
� �l� � .�
. (4) �37) � -
' �36 �35) �
, .
d .
� .___ -- ----.___-,
,-- ---�� f
,
,� :--- -__ - - - -
c5) , _ ,.� _ _ — _. �
�
� � � ���r � Cooi
(6) `- -
:
�'�'-'-=---�_.__ ----�
! _.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IINIFORM IDENTIFICATIOft OF LAKE MINNETONBA AREdS
(1) Halsteda Bay (22) North Arm
(2) Priests Bay (23� Stubbs Bay
(3) Cooks Bay (24) I�taxwell Bey
(4� �dest Upper Lake (25� Lafe`yette Bey
(5) South IIpper Lake (26) Smiths Bay
(6� S�ithtown B�y (27) Tanager Lake
(7� Phelps Beyy (28� �owns Ba�y
(8� East IIpper Lake (29) W�yzata Bqy
.� (g) Carmans Bay (30) Grays Ba`y
(10� Old Channel B�}r (31� Libbs Lal:e .
(11� Spring Park B�y (32� Robinsons ��y
(12) B1acY Lal:e (33) Bay St. Louis
(13) L�erald Lalce (34) Carsons B�y
(14� Seton Lake (35) St. Albans Bay
(15� Harrisons B�y (j6� Eacelsior Bay
(16} Jennings Bay (37� Gideons B�y
(17) West Arm (38� Echo Bay
(18� Forest Lake (39) Big I�land Passage
(19� Coffee Cove (40� Veterans B�y
(20� Wesi. Crystul Ba,y (41� Lower Ls.ke South
(21� East Crystal Bay (42� io�:er Lake Idorth
� , _ ���„� a �. . $ . � �„,�,, �,� �
..�
=� < ��., . �c'�"�, �•'��_��' ., ,..:._ ., � � � ;+a � �
, � ,. a . -
� � �a � � � '_ �. �� � � ,
-%� �"� � "' ` � ''� � '
. . � ��� . : �� � �
� . y ''� �,�`1+� �� . , . "'�� .k .
. � � ,, t1f . . � -� �^� � � �'r3
• "s �� ;.,� � . . � , ' � '��r� ,
� r%..
� � �� �,� .�� . . < �. . .. . . �� r -.z � t1 . '.
. , � � �.. :� �
ou �:. `4
R �
,.,.
� �n'� � _ �� �;. .. � , .
' a t � '"m�' �'` ,�
� o
}t� j$��� �Fyjf/ ✓ "�
. S � /�%i'/_ �^/ �� �4��1M'�, ff' �' �'(� � N a
�// ���sa.� ��
v:.� F� y' ���r �� � �9r �g ��.a � � �'a �-:r��:
��' �"i ����� ��� �„��� ,� ��a�; � �"'� � �, "' �.
�, ;�'i � '•.,� -�. �� �� `'q�
� � � � �`"�
�,° a � ;� � � ¢
�� �r � `:�" �+,,� '� � ,�:�� ,;.
� , �. , i.
R.� �a. .. '�� 8�
'
.� �.�. - . 5 . ., '� =
� �,
,s~'ti, �-
, ' � : � �.,-„ ' , •,, 'i�
i . - � � �� ���_ �
-�f� �� _ �,' � � ,ti
' a i.�� � � �� ��� `'�`+.��
r >:�� „ ' # , �'ii�w � � ���i 5' � fr� i�� �r'
� �. . � •�� ..�g� . . � ` �... . ,. , �, .
..� ��� � i�� � '. , .. � . f .
� � � p F' d�
, „ r a
� � '"'� �.. .. b�t '14.. _ � �k35„ �I . .. �• �•.y,y ;�Y�z'i^.`Il�
� 4 :� .. F�i ��� F ��� 9e�. "� �S �
��
i ny
� , N �y r+^ .. . ,9 � *�1 g,• .�,:� T.� �,...-� �
�t , �' d'a � � g t31 �� �k
�� ,r � @v� ry� � , t"�,I ` �,�,•� �� C'"i
' ''�•� � "� a�� �"` � ��
� �.; ,..P�;����} , � ���,� .��.� ���, � - ��,
"` ,�
1 •` �F�� � , R „ ' . ���� . , � �
'�, � � '�
[�a � � ."� � .. k
�
1 �` M�t y
�1 _ ��{1� .. �r .. N *�' ,y x�. � � � .: 'g .� 1
� �' '--.._� � � � � ��' �.�`.�"`�'�"'` �=�' � � �'�
4'�'� - ga � �'` �°
.�� �.m �� ,�a.&c..i^�y�����_13r� . ' ���: r'�5, �k ?�
J S
r � � 1
�` ,�. � r�� �<_��_ .�—". _-�-' �'
��.'� �,°q��,T �� -_.�`��'__�=1. .� �.�, �: - —� .�_ ��y. �
�d � y ���s .y
Y Y ° -'.� 1� g 1 1• . � �� �y, . � 5 a'R �`�' _ .�.'.<R' q;�
1 �*
e� � tr •3., "f �z� �.. ,�'.,� �r '`�� ; �"� �; �t ..��ar ��,�� �sw �i,� ��� � a:� , � i�
' ' a
�y . .r ;� ' . ;; � .. �.
`��� � ,. �" ?�
� � �" .1., � E'` -
.,... ° �' � ,r.+„ .�� �- � � �1�-
z . �. , 1 , . � � "� � ;'*�l
"� --•" p` � < � �, _ v � �," a^� �^' �� .� � " � � fi��'
q �� ,� '° � .� ,� ',��� 't � �-��'
'fi' i� rf� � r� �k ��' ,� �;y� '�... < ,� .�F �
��i� ��.'�,� � f . � �r .�� ' y.��.�" ,��. � � � .�'' . �.. �t �.,y ��� .. � . .
� ��. . , +� �,�. ." �.. a „ '�. . ., � � � _ �
,:. S.a<�,k . . ;'r ��`�'° , �.� "$�. , x ,��� .m �s ` �9 � �.f
,��a ek' i � � .S�ti.� . �� , �s� �. , � � "' a'�� �..
� . _ .� .�r �� ��"",.�i�ti�. ,.g '�a ,�1ire'��. � .�: .»� ,��,e��.:. �
�,� _�ri, � '�,� '� a �� w, �,: >�� S
�.� T � � 'r �.'+� .. .- � ,.�,. � , i «�. �" s # y �, .,�.
�� � �j '�"'r,'�'�. ,ti�+�r �,�,Y. ��sy ' " .a� �_.� � �. '�� �..i� ,� -'�`.. + ii�,m' �5� � . :
_t � .�� rr .. ''� ,A°�. .y �� `� �'� _g �'1��� 9"=) �'���` ; � . � .
• <
yl f ri� �• y �, ,� _ p�G.'�, S� �} � ��� r ..���. , .
�d ' � � � � �� � � t �� �'� ;, ���#� '� ���
�°����� � ���� � � �
F ':= .�"�' r «,k �� F y.,, � . .. ,� .
.,�...t '�� `�.°'. � '�a ''•�,L e .
� . : � i � ''•� � �
�{�}�� »<.�sy�.�� .s't . 't � .. ���ce �',' �'�g` � y� ,:.� y�... ... .,g <� �
` � � ''[y `"�$ t � a'� . �?�„ '� � '�t m'
���ry r � ,..� ���L . �S k . w 5 � �k 1"1� y � 4 ���
�� ,.
�y�,,� .ry, , 1
� w .-RT�`°5 �y . �} �, �y�4� . � ti+ �e`.
� � � �v, � ar=�. �, ' � .a �y St� .
a�� ��'�,� � � �'` '�' ��'' � ���� �`' ���`�� � �� ��`` -e�� ��
�� ,� �. Ty<�
'��'��w.�k. ,...''��„.,,:kk� +� �� ^�'�'�.� .. 's� .. �� �d �.,� �;��° �
���. �� � •''k �
� �� �� a�. ."� �;�a� ti.
� �',, �.� '+.
:�� ~�
:
ti, � ' ,'�� _ a"Y 'ti; '''� � .�," �
��� �� = y e # '`k ;�`�'t� '''ti ����
� �. .. , �. � � �
;, ��
���h � � � •t � �➢� �� � � . . ,
t' � •• ��� 'y
� ,1a. '.e�. ,ti. _ '��:t'� ,� rte'� . .
� v ~� .. ��; ���". .
��� � ��� y�.
� � � � �
, ,�„vga '�. �. ' , '
q .;,,��y„ �y.s: � ,s � '�.`�'
�� � �� � �3� ti ����m
��-,m 'ti. � , E�.
� ° � � � , �,
�'; »��. �,� ��� � �� .
�,�„� ' �,�.� �ti � � ��' �,,,oe
�
�� .�. , � , "� �
��;tF � � ���,, � �'
� ;.���t�a � �'' �„�
t' ' .
�'� �e� - � �
�p'SF��OST'F"
1 :�Y 5
���.�r��r� • � / �r��
� N11Nlyf ,�I�'�l����"�+i!`ttf�°�l���4�����!(�������j!!���{�!�l��� �
v� +�� � �PITNE�
� OZ 1P � ���
• � .+-��r
M • � .� 0002192783 NOV 0�
n - __ � f.• ~ � hd�AILE'� FP,�M ZlFrnri-
�1' -S1VE TNE LANE" �V �
S ,��
��VAt10N ��y
18338 MINNETONKA BLVD.
DEEPHAVEN. MN 55391
�
� �� O
�� O
� ��
�
�
� y c�
Mr. Mike Gaffron
City of Orono
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay,MN 55323
. �.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RECEIVED
It�: APPLICATION OP ERIC AND LAURIE BERG
,Jp�� 3 � 2008
FINDINGS CITY OF ORONO
On August 22, 2007, at 7:00 p.m., pursuant to due notice, a public l�earing was held by the
Lalce Minnetorilca Conservation District ("LMCD") Board of Directors ai the Wayzata City Hall in
the City of Wayzata, Mirulesota. The hearing was continued to October 10, 2007, and then to
November 14, 2007. The hearing was held to consider the application by Eric and Laurie Berg
("Applicants") for dock length and side setback variances for properiy located at 2965 Casco Pouit
Road on Spring Park Bay in the City of Orono.
The property has approximately 20 feei of continuous shoreline at elevation 929.4 NGVD
a�ld has slightly converging lot lines.
The site was created by subdivision on January 23, 1978,at the request of the Ciiy of Orono.
Therefore, the site does not qualify for the five-foot setback lin-utations for dock use areas in
existence on February 2, 1970.
The site has four feet of water depth at a point approximately 56 feet from the shoreline
when the Lake is at elevation 929.4 NGVD.
Because of shallow water, converging lot lines, and the sma11 size of the dock use area, the
Board finds that a hardship exists in this case witlun flie meaning of LMCD Code, Section 1.07.
Compliaiice with the requirements of the Code applicable to this site would not allow storage of any
watercraft on the Lake.
The Applicants have requested an amended plan that would require a variance for length of
dock to 56 feet, setbacks from fl1e nortli extended lot line of 6.7 feet at the shore and five feet at the
end of the dock, 56 feet from shore, and a 0-foot setback from the extended southern lot line.
Applicants proposed to maintain a 10 x 14 foot boat lift on the south side of the dock, wifli flie boat
lift installed 27.5 feet from the shorelule.
The Board finds that the requested 0-foot setback froin the south lot line is not reasonable.
Under LMCD Code, Section 2.01, Subdivision 2b, if this site had been in existence on February 2,
1970, it would be entitled to side setbacks of five feet. Other sites around the Lake t�lat have
qualified for this side setback appear to be able to maintain a dock and watercraft in a safe maiuier
that does not interfere with adjacent dock use areas and complies with the requirements of the Code.
The dock that has been maintained at this properly for some time has been maintained with
the consent of neighbors,and if such consent is secured in tlie future,the Applica�its may,of course,
occupy a greater area of the Lake in accordance with the requirements of the LMCD Code.
325478v1 CLL LK]]0-4 1
Although the requesi for variance is excessivc, due primarily to ihe size of the boai lifi
proposed, and placing that boat lift on the side of the proposed dock,thc Board finds that granting a
lesser variar�ce is reasonable as an accommodation to ihe hardship existing at ihis site.
ORDER
ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Tlie requested lengih varia�ice to allow construction of a dock out to 56 feet from ihe
shoreline ai elevation 929.4 NGVD is granted.
2. The application for a side setback variance is denied in pa�-1 and gra�Ited in part as
follows:
a. To the extent that the requested dock use area exceeds that gra.nted in this
Order,the side sefiback application is denied.
b. Side setback variances are granted sufficient to provide a 10-foot wide dock
use area extended from the shoreline 56 feet into the Lake from elevation
929.4 NGVD, with the northerly line of such 10-foot dock use area being
parallel to and f ve feet south of the northerly extended lot line of the site.
3. The variances granted by tlus Order are subject to fl1e following conditions:
a. All docks, boat lifts and related structure and watercraft storage must be
maintained within the dock use area.
b. Only one restricted watercraft, as that teim is defined in LMCD Code of
Ordinances,may be stored or moored at the site.
c. The dock must be a straight dock,with no "L"or"T",unless such"L"or"T"
is located east of the boat lift or ofl�er watercraft storage at the dock facility.
d. The landowner shall construct a�id maintain witness monuments, installed by
a licensed surveyor, delineating lines parallel to and 5 feet south of the
northerly extended lot line of the site and parallel to a�7d 15 feet south of the
northerly extended lot 1'uie of the site, which will show the side lines of the
dock use area approved by this Order.
e. The Applicants shall provide proof to the LMCD that a copy of this Order
has been reeorded against the title to the subject parcel with Hemlepin
Coiuity.
325478v1 CLLLK110-4 2
4. The Applicants may adjust side setback lines or dock use area with the consent of
the affecied properiy owner on either the norih or souih side of ihe subject property,or both,withoui
losing the benefit of the 56-fooi dock length auihorization provided in ihis Order, providcd;
]lowever, that no more tha.i� one resiricied watei-crafi may be stored at the dock facility.
The variance herein provided shall grani no vested ri�hts to ihe use of Lake Minnetonka.
Such use shall, ai all iimes, remain subject to regulations by ihe Districi to assure the public of
reasonable and equitable access to the Lake.
BY ORD�R OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the Lake Minnetorilca Conservation
Disirict this 12°i day of Deceinber, 2007.
���4x.C,'J
Tom Skramstad, Chair
ATTEST:
��-�.��
Tom Scaz�loi�, Secretary
325478v1 CLLLKIIO� 3
WALDRON LAW OFFICES, LTD.
IOHN B.WALDRON
A7TORNEY A7'LAW
�9S] CONCOIiD1A $THLB7'
WAY2ATA,MINN[SOTA SS39I-I3ZO
rEi.r:riioN�(952)471-0940 email johnGwaldronlaw.com
rnx(952)471-8859 websitc www.waldronlaw.com
Septenlber 5, 2007
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
18338 Minnetonka Boulevard VIA FACSIMIL�AND U.S. MAIL
Deephaven, MN 55391
Attention: Gregory S. Nybeck, Executive Director
Re: Eric & Laurie Berg Variance Application
2965 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota
Spring Park Bay, Lake Minnetonka
Dear Mr. Nybeck:
I have been retained to represent Kathleen and Curtis Midthun relative to the above
Variance Application. The Midthuns are adjacent property owners to the North of the Berg
property, residing at 2941 Casco Point Road. We understand the public hearing on this
Application was left open from the meeting on August 22,2007,and will resume on October
10, 2007.
Following the last hearing,and upoii further consideration,the Midthuns now oppose
the granting of any variance to the Bergs which would encroach on their ten foot setback and
in addition oppose any "straightening" of the Berg's lot lines as they run from the water's
edge out into Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Berg has stated that he desires the variance in order to
make his property more valuable for its future sale. However, if the variance were granted,
it would also inalce the Midthuns' property less valuable, with no compensation to them.
Mrs. Midthun is a certified fee appraiser of residential real property and has been for a
nun7ber of years.
The Midthuns have offered, and still offer, to provide the Bergs with a revocable
license for a five foot encroachment into the ten foot setback area, an offer the Bergs have
refused. With such a crowded lakeshore area,and given the problems the Midthuns have had
in the past with encroaching docks from the Berg property,the Midthuns have a reasonable
need to control any encroachments at the lakeshore and see the revocable license as a logical
ineans to exercise sucli control. Please copy this letter to the full Board of Directors. I will
be in attendance with the Midthuns at the upcoming hearing.
Very truly yours,
John B. Waldron
cc: Kathleen and Curtis Midthun
Peter Johnson, Esq.
�'�._.._�_ ��, r� � nr � -
Minnesota State Bar Association Board Certitied Specialist in Real Property La�l ��� �� �r`.' �� �I �I � �j�;
��`lL ��� ij
j I I 5`�' � � 1��� � i� !�
L V,
n.. I
,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
November 9, 2007
T0: Board of Directors
.
FROM: Judd J. Harper,Administrative Technician '� --
�
SUBJECT: Eric& Laurie Berg Variance Application
BACKGROUND
Eric & Laurie Berg, 2965 Casco Point Rd, have submitted a dock length and sitle setback variance
application. Their residence has approximately 20'of continuous 929.4'shoreline and is located on Spring
Park Bay in the City of Orono. Pursuant to LMCD Code, the attachetl public hearing notice was published
in the 8/7/07 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News and a public hearing was held on 8122/07. This public
hearing was continued to 10/10/07, then 11/14/07 to allow the applicants adequate time to consider
amending their variance application, working closely with the abutting neighbors and LMCD staff. Some
members of the LMCD Board provided the applicants with direction on what they felt wouid be reasonable
under LMCD Code which is summarized in the enclosed August 22, 2007 LMCD Board meeting minutes.
The applicants have submitted a revised proposed site plan that depicts: 1) a 56' long straight dock, which
narrows from 3.5' wide to 1.5' wide 27.5'out from the ordinary high water shoreline, 2) this dock is
proposed to maintain a setback from the north extended lot line of 6,7' at shore and 5' at the end of the
dock out 56' from shore, and 3)a 10'X14' boat lift on the south side of the 1.5'dock(presumably to store a
restrictetl watercraft), and 3) a 0' setback from the southern extended lot line when the lift is installed 27.5'
from the shoreline. Further details of the applicants request are outlinetl in the attached letter, dated
11/7107.
DISCUSSION
To evaluate the proposed variance application, I believe that three LMCD Code Sections apply to it. These
include:
1. Code Section 2.01, subd. 1 prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an
authorizetl DUA for docking and storage of watercraft. An authorized DUA is defined as"that area
of the Lake which may be used for tlocks, moorings, boat storage, swimming floats, ski jump
storage or diving towers, or which may be enclosed on three sitles for any of these purposes".
These three sides are further defined by Code for maximum dock length and side setback
requirements. LMCD Code requires setbacks from extendetl side site lines as follows: 1) the first
50' of the length of the DUA requires a 10' setback, 2) the next 50' in length of the DUA requires a
15' setback, 3) canopies require a 20' setback, and 4) side opening slips require a setback of the
depth of the slip, with a minimum of 20'. For dock length, a DUA may extend the same distance
into the Lake that there is 929.4' lakeshore frontage at the site, with a maximum distance of 100'.
There are grandfathered provisions for setbacks (five feet) and dock length (four feet of water
depth or 60', whichever is less)for DUAs that are 40' in witlth or less and were in existence in
February of 1970.
The applicants proposed plan is not contained within the DUA for this site for both length
and side setbacks. To address this, the applicants have submitted a variance application
from LMCD Code.
Eric & Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo, 1119107, Page 2
2. Code Section 1.07 states that"Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where
necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from Code or
may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted by the Code, provitletl that such variance
with whatever contlitions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the
purposes of this ordinance,the public health, safety and welfare, and reasonable access to or use
of the Lake by the public or riparian owners".
In review of the proposed application for variance from Code,the Board should ensure that
the applicant has proposed practical difficulties or particular hardships that are caused by
the application of the Code. In addition, the Board should apply the following decision
standards in the review of the proposed variance application.
• Is the proposed use reasonable?
• Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance?
• Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to cir;cumstances unique to the
property?
• Is the problem one created by the applicant?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
The criteria used by the Board in the past to evaluate dock length variance applications is to
establish four feet of water depth at the outer edge of the DUA, adjusted to the 929.4'
contour. The applicants have documented water depths of 4 feet out approximately 56 feet
from the 929.4' shoreline. Based on these water depths,the applicants have documented
that a hardship of shallow water exists for the dock length variance.
Staff does not believe the side setback variance request to meet a 0'setback from the south
lot line is reasonable. The applicant is proposing a dock and boat lift width of 12' on a lot
with 20' of shoreline and approximately 16' of width between the extended side site lines at
56'from shore (4' of water depth at 929.4') because of converging lot lines. For similar sites
with 20' of shoreline and parallel lot lines that were in existence on February 2, 1970,the
maximum width of the dock use area would be 10'.
This site was created on 1/2311978 by a subdivision approved by the City of Orono. Current
LMCD Code that defines the authorized dock use area for a site platted in 1978 has not
essentially changed since 1978. The authorized dock use area (DUA)for this site is defined
as follows: 1)The dock use area extends out from shoreline a distance equal to the site
lake frontage (20') , 2)the first 50' of the length of the DUA requires a 10' setback from the
extended side property lines, the next 50' in length of the DUA requires a 15' setback, 3)two
or more adjoining site owners may, by mutual agreement, adjust these side setback
requirements.
Staff believes that it would be unreasonable to require conformance to the side setback
Code requirement of 10'and 15' because without mutual agreement from at least one of the
two adjoining site owners,this site does not have an authorized dock use area. A dock and
boat storage at this site has existed since 1978 because the adjoining site owners agreed to
adjust the side setback requirements. The dock length may have been illegal if the dock or
boat were stored further out than 20'from the 929.4' shoreline.
, /
Eric 8� Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo, 11/9107, Page 3
Staff believes that the problem is partially created by the applicant because the proposed
width of the dock and boat lift is excessive for a lot with 20' of shoreline and the applicant
had purchased the property approximately 30 years after the LMCD side setback
regulations were first adopted.A dock and boat storage can be continued from this property
if at least one of the adjoining site owners agrees to adjust the side setback requirements or
even agrees to maintain a common dock between the two properties.
LMCD Code Section 2.01 Subd. 2b, allows the authorized dock use area in cases of sites 50'
in width or less in existence on February 2, 1970 may be expanded to a side setback
limitation of five feet, provided that such setback in no way impairs access to neighboring
docks. There are many sites around the lake that qualify for this side setback exception and
appear to be maintained in a safe manner that does not interfere with adjacent dock use
areas or activities.
Staff was able to find a couple similar situations where there were lots platted after the 1970
"grandfather" date that were granted side setback variances by the LMCD Board to reduce
the side setback requirements from 10'-15' to 5'. With these approved variances,the LMCD
Board restricted the width of the dock, width and length of the boat and only allowed one
boat to be stored on the dock. The variances also stated that the dock constructed at the
sites must be a single straight dock with no "L" or"T".
3. Code Section 2.02 outlines the number of restricted watercraft that can be stored at a residential
site based on the amount of 929.4' shoreline and the ownership of the watercraft. Specifically, it
allows: 1) General Rule-one restricted watercraft for each 50'of shoreline(without reference to
ownership), 2) up to two restricted watercraft may be kept at a dock for a residential site in
existence on 8/30/78 (without reference to ownership), antl 3)three or four restricted watercraft
are allowed at a residential site if#here is one and no more than one single family residential
structure at the site and all watercraft are owned and registered to the resitlents of the site.
Prior to the replat,the original 100' lot would have only been allowed two restricted
watercraft for both houses on the lot because it would not have qualified for the four boat
rule. The replatting of this site 1978 benefited these two new lots from a boat density
standpoint.
Staff is unsure how many watercraft the applicant is proposing to store at the proposed
dock. The site plan shows a 10'X 14' lift located on the south side of the dock. Staff has
requested dimensions of the proposed boat to be stored on the tift but the applicants have
not provided these details.
In the past,the Board has typically restricted the number of restricted watercraft that may
be stored at a site that requires a variance from LMCD Code. I believe that this should be
the case in this proposal and the Board should decide how many and the size of the
restricted watercraft that is appropriate at this site.
Staff believes that the width of the proposed dock and lift is excessive for a lot that was created in 1978
with 20'of shoreline, Staff maintains that this is not a legal, non-conforming use. However staff is
supporting the most generous side setback requirement of 5'. Anything greater should to be done through
mutual consent from the adjacent neighbors.
r
Eric 8 Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo, 11/9107, Page 4
A dock and boat storage at this site has existed since 1978 because the adjoining property owners had
annually agreed to adjust the side setback requirement which is allowed by LMCD code. If a sitle setback
variance is grantetl which allows a dock use area of wider than 10', it grants the applicants more rights than
if the lot had parallei lot lines and was platted prior to February 2, 1970 and it takes away the neighbors
ability to consent or not consent to the extra width that could be granted for the dock use area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board direct LMCD legal counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order to
approve the dock length variance to 56' long and to deny the side setback request for a 12' tlock use area
and approve a 10' dock use area as an alternative with the following conditions:
• The dock must be constructed on the north side of the dock use area with a watercraft stored on
the south side of the dock
• the 10' witle dock use area must maintain a 5' setback to the north extentletl lot line tlocumented
by monument markers installed by a surveyor and maintain an estimated 1' setback from the south
extended lot line 56'from shore
• the dock must be a straight with no"L" or"T"
• ail dock structure, watercraft and lift must be maintained within the 10'dock use area
• This variance shouid not prohibit expansion outside the 10' wide dock use area with consent from
the adjacent property owners to the south.
Eric Berg Variance Request
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
(Originally considered August 22, 2007)
Eric Berg bought his home at 2965 Casco Point Road in 2000. At the time, he was told
by the realtor that he had the right to keep a dock on the riparian shoreline of Lake
Minnetonka, as his predecessors in title had all done. His lot is configured in an
unusual way and it has only 20.00 feet of riparian shoreline on Lake Minnetonka (at
OHW 929.4). Mr. Berg has since confirmed that the prior owners used a dock
configured with a single straight stringer running from the wood frame steps centered on
his lot and leading down to the shore. Mr. Berg kept a dock and a boat at the shoreline
without objection until 2005 when the LMCD staff notified him that his dock & boat must
be removed. He has not been permitted to keep a dock for the 2006 and 2007 boating
seasons.
Eric Berg makes this variance request without prejudice to his right to keep a dock on
Lake Minnetonka as a legal non-conforming use.
Relevant Facts:
Prior to July of 1977 the City of Orono was aware that a portion of the traveled public
street adjacent to 2965 and 2967 Casco Point Road was not constructed within the
platted right-of-way. While the City maintained the public road, it had no recorded
easements for the traveled route. Furthermore, the right of way that had been originally
laid out and dedicated in the area was too close to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka to
be of practical use for road purposes.
In July of 1977, the Orono Planning Commission suggested that property owners
adjacent to the improperly located right-of-way consider combining a formal request for
vacation of the unimproved platted right-of-way and an offer to convey a portion of their
land to the City for roadway purposes (some of which had been improved as a road
many years earlier and was then in use as a public road). As a result of these
discussions, Hamilton and Charlotte Moran appeared before the Orono Planning
Commission to discuss their existing rights as the property owner of homes at 2965 and
2969 Casco Point Road. (Note: both homes were located on a single parcel of land.)
The City Planning Commission encouraged the Morans to assist the City in resolving
the poorly defined right-of-way in the area. While appearing before the Planning
Commission, the Morans were encouraged by the Planning Commission to subdivide
their property into finro separate legal parcels. The Planning Commission members
were aware that the Moran's had two separately occupied single family homes on their
property, that said homes had been in existence for more than 50 years, and that each
home had a separate mailing address. The Planning Commission members were also
specifically aware that each home used a separate seasonal dock on Lake Minnetonka.
At the Planning Commission meeting on August 1, 1977, the proposed plan for
subdivision was reviewed and a Public Hearing was held.
;
� � � i �� �
� � � ,�
� � ' U
�. ,�j �'��i��, E rtLi � Is
i�
f� .
!
, ,\
Upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council of Orono passed
Resolutions in September 1977 and in January 1978 granting variances to
accommodate the formal subdivision of the Moran property creating separate individual
homesites at 2965 and 2967 Casco Point Road, including "variances for structures and
dock". The variances were granted and park dedication fees were waived in recognition
of the fact that the homes had existed for many years and that the homeowner had
cooperated with City efforts to resolve longstanding right-of-way issues.
The Applicant has submitted Orono City Council and Planning Commission Minutes as
well as the Neighborhood Homeowners' Petition showing the consent and approval of
all homeowners in the immediate area, including specifically homeowners on either side
of the riparian shoreline then owned by Hamilton and Charlotte Moran. All neighboring
homeowners received Notice of the Public Hearing at which Hamilton Moran explained
that he had the consent of his adjoining riparian neighbors to waive dock setbacks so he
could maintain the riparian dock on 2965 Casco Point Road.
Application Request:
1. Dock Length variance to four feet of water at OHW 929.4;
2. Side Setback variance from north extended property line of five feet
(minimum);
3. Right to keep a boat lift to be entered from the west without a canopy;
4. Dock Use Area of up to twelve feet of width w/o encroachment of extended
south property line, except with consent of adjacent property owner to the
south. Variance to allow boat lift to encroach over extended south property
line using up to a twelve foot width of Dock Use Area with the consent of
adjoining neighbor to the south;
5. Subject to Condition: the boat lift will be located south of or parallel to the
dock;
1\WORKROOMDESKTOP�SharedDocs�aaPWJadivel6erg,Eric-LMCDWIEMO 11-7-07.doc
2
VARIANCE APPLICATION
�� � Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
`, 18338 Minnetonka Bivd.
_ ��:-,,..��=,--
_ _ Deephaven, MN 55391
;w���-��f � Phone: (952)745-0789
• . ' Fax: (952)745-9085
LMCD Receipt#����7-/77
Because this form is to be copied, please use black ink or type.
In accordance with LMCD Code Sect+on 'l.07, where practical diffculties or particular hardships occuror where
necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from the requirements of the
Code, or may require a variance trom what is otherwise permitted#he Code provided that such variance with
whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board,d�es not adversely affect the purposes of this
ordinances,the public health, safety,and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by public or
riparian owners. The following application,when completed, shall be filed with the Executive Director of the
District along with surveys, photos,and such other information as required.
The person completing this form is the authorized agent or property owner(circle one).
Applicant: �ric and Laurie Berg
2965 Casco Point Road
Address:
Clty, State, Zlp: Orono, Minnesota 55391
Phone: 952-471-9000 �aX: None
Properiy owner (if different from appiicant): N/A
Address: N/A
City, State, Zip: N/A
PhOCie: 952-471-9000 FaX: None ; � �
; i i ��
j�) 1�:: C�:,� ,�: �_� �'i l_�. �'�
� 1�
PROPERTY LOCATiON: � - �
The property is located in the city of: orono ���� AUC 1 2�0� ,`��
The property is riparian#o LMCD bay/area(s); I
LMCD Area Identification Number(s): 13�-._ -. -.-..--.-_- -i�
TYPE OF VARIANCE: Dock length and setbacks from extended side lot lines
State practical difficulties and hardships causing variance to be required:
Separate residence has been in existence for more than 50 years and
has 3cept a separate seasonal dock since before 1970. Lot has converging
lot lines at OHW 929.4 with riparian shoreline of 20,OD feet. A Land
Subdivision was approved by City of Orono in 1977 with issuance of a separate
dock permit by City of Orono. Adjoining property owners consented to
waiver of setbac3cs. (See Factual Summary)
Page 1 of 3
Variance Application .
ABUTTING LAKESHORE PROPERTY OWNERS:
North or West: curtis and iCathleen Midthun, 2991 Casco Pt.Rd. Orono, MN 55391
(Name and mailing address)
South or East: Theodore and Deborah Roseboom,2967 Casco Pt. Rd. Orono, MN 55391
(Name and mailing address)
Other affected parties (attach sheet if necessary):
None
(Name ahd mailing address)
Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of the
property. Such owners must be verified by checking with the Hennepin County Auditors Office,
{612) 348-5910 (or a private abstract company)which can provide actual mailing labels at a
cost of$1.25 per#ax parcel (minimum of$25.00). This service usuaily takes two days, and
you must have your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this
aSSlStailCe. �Ordered 4/20/07)
Documents listed befow are required; check that they are attached:
� Locator Map (U.S.G.S area map with scale, North directi�n, Site clearly marked,
Name or Title, LMCD Area Name, LMCD number)
❑ County Plat Map (Site clearly marked, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number)
� Certified Land Survey (Legal description, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD
number, 929.4 N.G.V.D. shoreline)
� Proposed facility site plan (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name,
LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, loca#e setback area,
locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers,
indicate type of slip if applicable)
❑ Existing facility site plan, if applicable (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD
area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate
setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and
slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable)
❑ Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties, and other affected dockage
Absence of significant dafa requested above could result in a piocessing delay.
FEE CALCULATlON � '
APPLICATION FEE..............(non-refundable).........................................$250.00
DEPOSIT............................. (re#undable, upon full compliance
with the Code and extent of
administrative, inspection and
legal service required).................................+$250.00
1- ��: -- �
��, , � , i._,,
�- ��
;fi <<� L� I._:: Li �� ��� �
n1 ;�
Page2of3 LI�I �1�� j L007 ,
J
Ev
Variance Application
TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED...... (this #ee is for processing of the
application and does not
entitle the applicant to a variance).................. 500.00
(certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and corre�t;i understand that
any variance granted may be revoked by the District for violalion of the LMCD code. 1 agree to reimburse the
District for any iegal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District
in excess of the am�unt of the application fee. I consent to Qermitting o�cers and agents of the District to enter
the premises at reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the bistrict is being
complied with.
1 agre ' a cer#ified, as-b ilt survey up completion of the docks.
Authon ignature � ?� ��
Date
Peter W_ Johnson, Attorney for Applicant
Title
Attorney
Return this application,attachments and fee to:
Relationship to Owner
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
98338 Minnetonka B)vd.
Deephaven, MN 55391-3232
Fax:(952)745-9085
Application for variance is submitted without prejudice to existing
rights as a legal nonconforming use.
,,:-- i ��-
.�.��i_�.rl_,...'.I.---I
,
I)� �.�� (i;� �.., �� �_� a.', ;����
l f�ll(� �f 2Di),% il��!�
I�l� ;
E,�__ __ W �
Page 3 of 3 "-y � ��'
Eric Betg Variance Request
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Eric Berg bought his h�me at 2965 Casco Point Road in 2000. At the time, he was toid
by the reaitor that he had the right to keep a dock on the riparian shore)ine of Lake
Minnetonka, as his predecessors in title had all done. His lot is configured in an
unusual way and it has only 20.00 feet of riparian shorefine on Lake Minnetonka (a�
OHW 929.4). Mr. Berg has since confirmed that the prior owners used a dock
configured with a single straight stringer running from the concrete s#eps centered on
his iot and leading down to the shore. Mr. Berg kept a dock and a boat at the shoreiine
without objection until 2004 when the LMCD staff notified him tha#his dock & boat must
be removed.
Eric Berg makes #his variance request without prejudice to his righ#to keep a dock on
Lake Minnetonka as a legal non-conforming use.
Relevant Facts:
Prior to July of '1977 the City of Orono was aware that a portion of the traveled public
street adjacent to 2965 and 2969 Casco Point Road was not constructed within the
platted right-of way. Whi1e the City maintained the public road, it had no recorded
easements for the traveled route. Furthermore, the right of way tha# had been originally
laid out and dedicated in the area was too close to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka to
be of practical use for road purposes.
!n July of 1977, the Orono Planning Commission suggested that property owners
adjacent to the improperly located right-ofi-way consider cornbining a formal request for
vacation of the unimproved platted right-of-way and an offer to convey a portion of their
land to the City#or roadway purposes (some of which had been improved as a road
many years earlier and was then in use as a public road). As a result of these
discussions, Hamilton and Charlotte Moran appeared before the Orono Pfanning
Commission to discuss their existing rights as the property owner of homes at 2965 and
2969 Casco Point Road. (No#e: both homes were located on a single parcel of land.)
The City Planning Commission encouraged the Morans to assist the City in resolving
the poorly defined right-of-way in the area. While appearing before the Planning
Commission, the Morans were encouraged by the Planning Commission to subdivide
their property into two separate legal parcels. The Planning Commission members
were aware that the Moran's had two separately occupied single family homes on their
property, that said homes had been in existence for more than �0 years, and that each
home had a separate mailing address. The Planning Commission members were also
specifically aware that each home used a separate seasonal dock on Lake Minnetonka.
At the Planning Commission meeting on Augus# '1, 1977, the proposed plan for
subdivision was reviewed and a Public Hearing was held.
Upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council of Orono passed
Resolutions in September 1977 and in January 'l978 granting variances t���}�� ,:. � I����M;�:= �:. I
�i��� �[� l�- �r �I 1.. i_-• �;��i
��'� �`,UC; S ZOGi ;�j�i
�III �J
�,-_ -
� � �
accommodate the formai subdivision of the Moran proper#y creating separate individual
homesites at 2965 and 2969 Casco Point Road, including "variances for structures and
dock". The variances were granted and park dedication fees were waived in recognition
o#the fact that the homes had existed for many years and that the homeowner had
cooperated with City efforts to resoive longstanding right-of-way issues.
The Applicant has submitted Orono City Council and Planning Commission Minutes as
well as the Neighborho�d Homeowners' Petition showing the consent and approval of
all homeowners in the immediate area, including spec�cally homeowners on either side
of the riparian shoreline then owned by Hamilton and Charlotte Moran. All neighboring
homeowners received Notice of the Public Hearing at which Hamilton Moran explained
that he had the consent of his adjoining riparian neighbors to waive dock setbacks so he
coufd maintain the riparian dock on 2965 Casco Poin# Road.
\1WORKROOMbESKTOP1SharedDoaslaaPWJactivelBerg,Eric-LMCDWIEMO 7-30-07.docx
,-_""'_—�
� ;t.:� ,, r � ; 1'e:
I)�L, (� L�.: L� � �� ���)
I ,�
AU� �. ZUU; i,,�I'
��ll �
z �,,
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
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
August 22, 2007 Page 6
prepare Findings of Fact and Order to deny the side setback variance request and to
approve the dock length variance request. In this case, the only way the site would have
a dock use area would be if one or both of the abutting neighbors, by mutual agreement,
adjusted the side setback requirements.
• An alternative recommendation was for the Board to table or continue this agenda item to
a subsequent Board meeting to allow staff to work with the applicants to amend their
application and site plan to meet the direction of the Board based off of information
collected during the public hearing addressing the three fundamental issues outlined
above.
• He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Seuntjens asked LeFevere to comment on the recommendation made by Harper to table or continue
this agenda item, including the status of the public hearing.
LeFevere stated that the Board had two options to consider relating to the public hearing. First, the
Board could open the public hearing, take testimony, and close the public hearing. Second, the
Board could keep the public hearing open for additional testimony at a future meeting by tabling or
continuing it. He reminded the Board that there was no need to act on the application at this
meeting, whether or not the public hearing was closed.
Harper stated that he had recently discussed this recommendation with the legal counsel for the
Berg's. He believed that there had been some preliminary discussion with the abutting neighbors on
revising the proposed site plan.
Tanner asked if the abutting neighbors had agreed in writing on side setback relief for the applicants.
Harper stated the neighbors had not agreetl in writing.
Babcock questioned the status of the variance application with the 60-day rule.
Nybeck stated that the 60-day rule commenced on 8/1/07 when the variance application was
deemed complete.
Seuntjens opened public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Eric Berg, 2965 Casco Point Roatl, statetl that discussions were being held with the abutting
neighbors to the north, Curtis and Kathleen, and the abutting neighbors to the south, Theotlore and
Deborah Roseboom. Alternative proposals, inclutling a zero foot side setback from the Roseboom's
site, have been discussed and Peter Johnson, representing the Bergs, was in attentlance to discuss
them.
Mr. Peter Johnson, Attorney at Law, made the following comments:
• There have been extensive discussions with the abutting neighbors and he concurred that
changes should be made to the variance application at this point.
• The Roseboom's have indicated that they have no reluctance to a zero foot side setback
variance, which has existed through consent since 1978. The Roseboom's also do not
, ,
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
August 22, 2007 Page 7
object to the granting of further variances from LMCD to adjusting the side site line(s) in
order to make a 20' wide area, from which the tlock use area would be established.
However, the Roseboom's have requested that the dock be place along the north side of
the dock use area established by the variance from LMCD Code, with the boat to be
stored on the south side of the dock. The primary purpose for this was to provitle some
distance between a deck at the Roseboom property and the dock at the Berg property.
• The Mitlthun's have indicated that they had no opinion at this time with regards to
adjusting the extended side site line. They like the concept of a full five foot side setback
and they were in attendance to provide atlditional comments.
• To continue the discussions with the abutting neighbors on a revised site plan, his clients
have requestetl that their variance application be tabled or continuetl.
• He provided the Board some historical background on the use of this property. In 1978,
there was discussion at the Orono Planning Commission to subdivide this site. An
application was submitted that createtl 2965 Casco Point Road, which was currently
owned by the Berg's, and preserved the shoreline improvement of the deck that the
Roseboom's still enjoy at 2967 Casco Point Road. He believed that the site at 2965
Casco Point Road was configured as narrowly as it was because of this deck, with a
variance granted by the City of Orono. A large amount of documentation from the City of
Orono was submitted in conjunction with the variance application that the subtlivision of
the property in 1978 would not deprive his clients property of a dock use area.
• This site was created in 1978 with the idea that the dock use area would be preserved by
mutual consent arrangements from both of the abutting neighbors. Thus, he believed that
this site was comparable to a grandfatheretl lot that has consensus to either waive or
reduced side setback requirements.
• He believed that the hardship for this site was that tlock had existetl at this site for around
five tlecades. Enforcement of LMCD Code by staff a couple of years ago has made the
dock go away.
• He entertained questions and comments from the Boartl,
Seuntjens statetl that a claim had been made that the property owner at 2967 Casco Point Road
historically agreed to a zero foot side setback. He questioned whether the owner of this site had
changed since 1978.
Johnson stated that the owner of 2967 Casco Point Roatl had changed since 1978. However, the
current property owner at 2967 Casco Point Road at one time owned both properties.
Babcock stated that LMCD Code does not allow for zero foot side setbacks. However, LMCD
Code allows for combined dock use areas, with side setbacks required on the outer edges of the
combined dock use area.
Johnson stated that he understood that. However, the previous testimony was raised to describe
the process in 1978 to waive sitle setback requirements.
Babcock asked Johnson to comment on the variance granted by Orono on the dock use area,
Johnson stated that the City of Orono in 1978 granted reference to structures and a dock.
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.
. �
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
August 22, 2007 Page 9
Curtis Midthun stated that they had approximately 90' of lakeshore frontage.
Babcock stated that the dock use area at the Midthun property, based on LMCD Code, would
extend the same distance that they have lakeshore frontage, providetl it does not exceed 100'.
Page asked the Midthun's if they would be agreeable to maintain the current extended side site
lines and to allow for a five foot side setback from their common extended side site line with the
Berg's.
Curtis Midthun stated that he and his wife would agree to that.
Harper stated that the neighbors could annually agree to a reduced side setback through a mutual
consent agreement rather than an approved variance process.
Seuntjens stated that although comments have been received from the applicants and the public,
he believed it made sense to keep the public hearing open. This would allow the app►icants to
consitler changes to their proposed site plan, in addition to allowing for further comments from the
applicants and the public on any amendments.
Babcock agreed with Seuntjens assessment; however, he believed that it would be beneficial to
provide the applicants some guidance or direction on where the applicants might consider some
alternatives to the current variance application. Alternatives recommended by Babcock included:
1) a reduced five foot side setback makes sense because the lot was created by a subdivision as
a result of a governmental agency, 2) if an adjusted dock use area was proposed, the brunt of the
adjustment should be made to 2967 Casco Point Road since these two lots were one until 1978,
3) the length of the dock should be between 50' and 60', with no "L's"or"T's", 4) there should be
one boat at the dock with no canopy allowed, and 5) mutual consent for side setback adjustments
should be allowed to continue for combined docking situations. With the amendments to the
proposed plan that follow these five alternatives, he believetl that he coultl support this variance
application.
Tanner stated that it sounded like there was discussion that needed to take place relating to
establishing boundaries for docking and boat storage, With the 2007 boating season nearly over,
he believed that it might make more sense for the applicants to withdraw their variance application,
work out the boundary issues with the abutting neighbors, and re-apply for a variance from LMCD
Code during the winter months.
Babcock stated that another option for the applicants to consider would be to sign an intlefinite
waiver to the 60-day rule.
Page asked Babcock to clarify what he would comfortable with regards to a side setback variance
at this site.
Babcock stated that he woultl be comfortable with a five foot sitle setback variance from both
extended side site lines, similar to past policy action by the Board. This would not preclude the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District � .
Regular Board Meeting
August 22, 2007 Page 10
neighbors from dealing with this at the neighborhood level on a year to year basis.
Page concurred with the recommendation made by Babcock to provide a permanent option at the
neighborhood through the variance process. He believed that one could preclude that this was
akin to grandfathered situation because of the governmental involvement in the creation of this
site.
Nelson concurred with Babcock that if an adjusted dock use area was necessary at this site, he
believed that the adjustment should be made towards 2967 Casco Point Road.
LeFevere stated that the replatting of this site in 1978 took place approximately seven years after
the five foot grandfathered side setback was established in 1970. With regards to the
governmental effect on the replatting of this site, this site would have only been allowetl two
restricted watercraft because it would have approximately 120' of lakeshore frontage but would not
have qualified for the four boat rule. Thus, both of these sites benefited from a docking right
standpoint because of the replat that took place in 1978. He believed that an adjusted dock use
area might not be needed in this case and that reduced side setback requirements might be more
appropriate. He reminded the Board that it should grant a variance from LMCD Code if the
applicants document that a hardship exists, whether or not the abutting neighbor(s) agree to the
proposal.
Seuntjens recommended continuing the October 10th Board meeting to allow the applicants
adequate time to consider amending their variance application, working closely with the abutting
neighbors.
MOTION: Babcock moved, McDermott secondetl to continue the Eric and Laurie Berg
variance application public hearing until the October 10th LMCD Boartl Meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Wayzata City Hall �,
��F/V��
CALL TO ORDER A�� 2 � ?007
ROLL CALL C�T Y o,��jRO
Np
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Skramstad
READING OF MINUTES- 8/8/07 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
PUBLIC COMMENTS — Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one
motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will
be removed from the consent agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
• William Mernik, variance application to amend a previously approved variance for a
permanent dock at 5341 Three Points Blvd. on Harrisions Bay.
1. Public Hearing
2. Discussion and/or Consideration
• Tom Niccum, variance application to amend a previously approved variance for a
permanent dock at 5351 Three Points Blvd. on Harrisons Bay.
1. Public Hearing
2. Discussion and/or Consideration
• Eric and Laurie Berg, dock length and side setback variance application from LMCD
Code at 2965 Casco Point Road on Spring Park Bay.
1. Public Hearing
2. Discussion and/or Consideration
1. WATER STRUCTURES
A) Mark and Kati Lovaas, dock length and side setback variance application at 17840
Breezy Point Road:
• Ordinance Amendment, second reading of an ordinance relating to dock use
areas on Lake Minnetonka, amending LMCD Code Section 2.01, Subd. 2.
• Consideration of draft Findings of Fact and Order to approve a dock length
and side setback variance (tabled at 8/8/07 LMCD Regular Board Meeting).
B) Big Island, Inc., Seahorse Condominium Association, and Smithtown Bay
Association, staff update on 2007 multiple dock license status;
C) Additional Business;
2. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) Staff update on 2007 partial Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP) for Lake
Minnetonka;
B) Additional Business;
3. FINANCIAL
A) (*) Audit of vouchers (8/16/07 — 8/31/07);
B) (*) July financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Additional Business;
4. LAKE USE & RECREATION
5. ADMINISTRATION
6. SAVE THE LAKE
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10.ADJOURNMENT
� , �� � �" ;e�� ,.�
.. ��y, .:���� � ..� ���3 � �Lt ' _L //i��+r�
C., �
� �. > � � -��� �. . . � � ���titi ��� � ;
.. .,.� �� �€� . .. .. . . . � ��`° _ '�- �t �
� .��,. { ' . . ..�� {e .
�. � . �g� � , , � � ,. � � �ti�� �
�. "ro k
. _� • . � 9.� �a-�,�'��, ,... ,.. � . . ��-., � _
.
. e^..'..�, e'. ,i.,, . . " . tti, ".� "S �, . i� . '�',.'~�'^'rtY
< .t ... ... ��
. '.'1�L � �fJr� � �..
Y
.4 �M1 � o
? �, 4'a'� �Y
�•y �
.�'� � w �� � �' y 9
" � � �•�
� �
i{a.9 4 � .. . � � �, »�.�+.
� #� � :'� , � . , � �. �„ � �
;�, ' n,, ' , � ,
� .�� .:> � � :. .. �.
�� t. • �
��� ,� .."�".' � 'k t .. 4`� d�, ,��'
q o� � � e`�, � � .. y,1 �E s••.�.d• �, � a'�1, .. . <
a � '�ti� t t �i � xk ,�
e � I , . >�r� � _ 5� �'i � �'�y� '�� ''
�E � � � . _ � ��.. � l " �es,i 4 V l
,`� �� . �� � . � .. � . � . a �ti� r.r
�� .�i� „ -� �"���� ,y� .,g� ��. . �..� : .. . ��� . . � .�� �•�
.
, - �
.� A°' % & � 4 . rJ� f . ..
�
�, I� . TM�f . '� . � � . .. . �f
,�j �;,.�'� ,s' � �" "<_ ��
' �,,,
- ' �
� ��. �� � �.e ��� ,v"�'
> � � �� � ����� � ' � r
,.. � , �� s�! a �� � " +, .. -R y,�t rsrl
.p�p . a+ �� .�°�.� �,�0� � � ��rR ... "t, � ' ' �µ '�•d �... :a �..� � J�f +�
.
'; � . s�i r' ��•:�. � .`°"a �� �� i�9 .� V. l . �
� ' �� � ,.. �$ � d �. .� � ( ' S� � ' t't� �,'�r� � Y�`'i
' , -� � ,� <„ �
� � � ��,
� P
�
- e �
� � �� �.:�.� � , �a � ��,, �� ��� 1 -
� � ���'•
� r � , �� �
�, ��
� � s� �,. '� ' �
� , � r' '�
^���� �{: � "� ' � r.
.� ' _
_ r� �_���� � ��� ��'`�, � �" x�'
. _`� � - �r� � � �� ��..t= '� =t .'� ��;�
--_.,. _ ,
`M'��-.�, a °� � �,,� [`��'�'� �S . � ..,�-r�I.� �' �� �
- .��
, � �
�9�'� �`�k'� . �"'��r, ,��,r�5�� � ��,..c;�' ':°.�—�_—���� ���- �,� . ..
� '
t € 'r . 6'�1 ��Y { �,,.
r'4 � ��� � .�i ��s�• ti.� �. g,s'i � 6'��� �� �` �� � �5 �� �
-�.� ��i� . � 4' .� �� 4 '� � -�� _a � .� �> ��,.�°`�5 � � �� �°'� � �� � t£a
,�� ; . �t. �� .a'� �`4,. �" � r�d � ` ,s� 3 . � � •e•1 +�� -
� �^ �
,a�� � .� �4 � ' �� � �� -� � `" ����
',� � 1' . f � � � � �i ?�`� � u�
�� � •� ""'� ��rF:"�. dF.,: . �g ��' , �S �' . � :
�L� p � � ��� �� � ��� ��� � �� � � � � � � �
l�,� '�° t� � ,� ~i• � ��'x r �e "�Y� ��.,, �c �P� �
� ; �t , � �
��`.� a �e�f�`�, �a ��'� a , � � � �x =.te �� � .+� '� r�
,,'"��`° � � ` '� -' �'� "� -- � `
,� i,� � ,t� , � � �� �,:'r �.. .. „ .. ti «� � �
��, �� L a� � �"' � � �' � k� , �r
� � � � � � �_
�'.� �� �rr�'� �� � �, ',�" � �,,� �ti . .
����"-�T• � ? -, ,F. �' - �r . 'i - � "� �.. � a,»q � ��� L� a.� .
i
� { � ,��" � , � �y � �� a 'y
�� � , �''� ri�� �'' ��� 1�, � � ..�� •� ,.rE a ,s� -.����. ��� . ..
�� �,, '.� � .� � �� � �'�
F.i ��J ' ' �"'6 .�; *.,,- '�� ',4 ,.� ,�� �"r.�' e �� � �r ... . .
_ . ��, . �. .. ,
3� � ,:� �� ' ,n� ` � �
y �, �� � �
•! �.-�; � �� ;� �� �,�� �,y_� �, ; � c
�� �. �� � �'� ,'' ti gS�� ,�,'� ��� ,. � . i��
' # ��'� � �- �'.�i ��
�� �a.9.:,� .'.� �1`.1,., � •1 " . . ,L� .rr'4 ., �5,�� .�. "�
ti R� � �
<
` 5'. �.'�. .h �� 4' �. ' .���� i � � .. �i�
� x4.D� �� .�1y a i � .� � •� � �t � . 1 . 'q "l�'
� �"`� E �y y �( •h �`•,t� �� ,�
n ,, � .��' .c ,� '
Q . titi,•� �. � �n �, .,y ��.. �¢ '.a. ,���� !% ''' �..�
�,e� � �.�ti 3 •� .i ,� . �� �. ��t .
. +� �;..;. .� �'9i " .� aW� �; . � ��. �� �,
�� �ms:- �� �
�•
� _
� et°�° �•'k .• � . ti �v� � :��
�: �� � '" di �; „g �1 .. ' < , � ��,;'i�•.4 e �� ��� .�' .
^�,N p� ' Z �. . .
�,-� � . -& :F�'+� `' .,� 3 .ti�'y 1_� , . �'� �d 11. � �S'S .
e '���',. � �,4 ""� � '�'ti� p� �'{Y� - L -,
��� :.t� .. S1�,
E`
���, �, . . �� , � tl � .�k �� �1 °����
�"�� � '� _. �s T�� , f� �(4 ����
n- r
� .� � . . � •'•w'� � �1 f
&�!
� �.ti�s. �'0 3 � �,.�i �'�ti � , �;�
L�qy
_ ° �5�' ��'*l ��'� 'ti �,�,� �
� , ���r � �' w �Lti� ' -
�s���: „�'�, ��.� �;.�e„ f .
�: a . ����ri sti „��'H ��.... �.. .
� ��� ��
'�'. � �` ��` .
�
r
�� ,•� ;a,�'� �� � �,�
�i.g�ffi, «a �� ' 0.a-�
T�� � � � � ,.�, •y4
. � a<� .�,� '�
�� s"� �, ,ti� "`�
��r �;� rz � ��.
i ��'`�r�ti
.
� :
� � �' , .� � � � � �
REV/SED PROPOSED
aG�
O
�� •1
------------------ x , �
--- . � / � / � iJ �
� �� �
� \ DECK ` �
'•: � -
.. g
�L1 SURVEY
'•, --- S LINE
_, S�EP .
;�,• �OpO�g,�'+J
•�.
/'��h•• '�
�s�s.e� � ,6� s 931.5
_ � --
� - ,��5 '.\ -----CONTOUR
(9255� � �° � LINE _
� / ,�o�� �� `�� l�� =� Th A �� I ��
�APPROXMATE 925.4 CONTOUR LNE �,,� � 'l / : '•-. \
;(4 FEET OF WATER DEPTH) � . Q�'�,'(Gp1� '
i
1A1 ���i�1�� �926.4� ��.
ftsz4.s� � �- GpN���(
� \ � 9�9 A� Z� ���NE
� � R
/ �o�� t(szs.$) �O�SN� .
���� �
� N�S
�O�.�� �
/ �1
�r�924.7) /// \
// CANOpY QOC'�
�
-.�
DOCK DETAIL
1 " = 20' S � A L E
0
v
I
N
N CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
PROPOSED ERIC A . BERG .....�-�. � � �
OF TRACT A. R.L.S. N0. 1470 �.`� �� °���
HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA � ��� ��� BLACKTOP I'�N
� 1.69 FROM ���
,,p� � LOT COR. I O
`� � �� -
. -
�� � �
................... # , �
� �
g' - ���-� � ,10'`�
•�\ � . cK ` Dc cn
929.4 CONTOUR �, •> �,�9 �Y � � �O -
LINE-20 FEET�... •-• uc cD
OF SHORELII� � �St� --. � �°
/ 19 �
�ozaa . ;. � 931.5 ��� I O
��A , v , •••CONTOUR � _
cyu.s� aaovoseo ' /
�o �p LINE
/ - �T�"r o�.�' -I�N/��,r � ,�� TRACT A `�
r,�����oFa,,,,� n � ...�
� �0 �5 926A) ,O"if1 �
l�' I
�'. �(o2a.n) \ �o�oac r��7ruom� :� �� � i J
�� tio:�.a� � W
�•. , DO� —' �
E
L A K E . �.s��t "
�ot.� , �� �
. "PK" NAL
.-�r
/,�(s2s.n �� �� BLACKTOP
�(924D) c�rarr � '�
� ����
MINNETONKA �� ��� ������o��
���•-----�--�-----�--....-•-•-�" .r�ti�, 0
0
DOCK DETAIL o�'�� � ��6° �+
�co2�.9> �c, :'�'`LO'�`� ''S6`� � Op'' �
1" = 20' S C A L E , -�0� .��" S 5a ��'g2°�� � �,
5���g ��6$� N �'�.� '�
� ��,, �N ��� O�
� ,...��� 6oa�o' ,, � I�F'l��,r 3 �
................ ; : � 2� o
x-� 6 , 0
929.4 CONTOU�2 ':�' � ,g'I' � '�2 6��0�
LINE-20 FEET•.,. .,'y ' , e¢ �j 60
OF SHORELINE SE,� •.
°�,�' 931.5
� � ••:.••-C�NTOUR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : ���;�-- �~�I q� � `
'•, LINE � r� f r f � f
c azs..���.E T . � (� L; (� � U ��� L� I I i
SEE DETAIL�-�-....�,�.�,��TM,�/ ' �y ;•1�' Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1470, files of � �
�� a� R e g i s t r a r o f T i t l e s, H e n n e p i n C o u n t y, M i n n e s o t a. i 'I
/ \ ,
IJ AUG I2007
,., V
'� � /��� o : denotes iron marker R
�°`'�� �'� y- --
LAKE ��t� . � — —
�g •, l� o� (925.5): denotes existing lake bottom elevation, NGVD 1929
�� •.
�� ,.
' •••..............•-•' Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
MINNETONKA
This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property,
and the proposed location of a proposed dock thereon. It does not
�,Z,�,�, purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
°esic"Eo r�vis� DATE
°��T�" G R 0 N B E R G 8e A S S�C I A T E S I N C. ' h�°�Y certify tha, ,h�s survey was prepared by me, ���
or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly ���=30�
� �-��� ������ � registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the
oa�`�+N s �-�a-o� L�KE lOTTOH ELEVA7qN5 TAKEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS 1ON's of the state ot Minnesota. o�rE
3 7-30-07 PROPOYD DOCK t LOCAT/JN RtVIgD
cr�c�n 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 J�,���_ /� 7-18-05
952-473-4141 ���� 'i°e"o.
Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota Li nse Number 12755 ��-282
07-282
0
V
� CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
N
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED E R I C A . B E R G -�� � I � �
r � ��
OF TRACT A. R.L.S. N0. 1470 ��% �� �
� /1 �� SET INNA1 I��N
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA �� � '� BLACKTOP,
- o
1.69 FROM I���
�� ` � LOT COR �
� -
� �L,�
�� �
_..._•------•-•----•�. � . `' �. (J \
� �
�..�.. p�
` . � �1 I�
19� .- ECK ` � C� O
929.4 CONTOUR - '��\> rj, wt�Er I(D
LINE-20 FEET.., •- � � � �
OF SHORELINE ��s9,-� '• �
/ ��'--- �•� IO
(oza.a Y � 931.5 :, _
��o -�-CONTOUR �
� =a ,o LINE /�1 � T R A C T A IT
(925.5� / _I�iOPCA�NOP , � I I .�l�i� J // !� '�1
' BO�T LFT
925.4 CONTWR LfE � �o �y. ^O}
(4 FEET Of WATFR DEPTX) O�''- �� \ JO.-11
� �o �5 9sa.,� �i 6' � N
,'. ��9Y4.0) \ PROPOSED DOCK TO BE PLACm ON • �� ��J
D(TEt610N OF SIXITICRLT LOT UE ; OlT �' �
�� 4azs.e� O; cn
� � ��
E+t � I�
LAKE o�,���s , �� � - �T..�Aa
� • �� BLACKTOP
�r(924.7) /
�(924.0) / CANOPT �� �����
.'., \ .
.•. '
M I N N 0 A � ��-�.............................��� ,.. : -..... ..����°°�,
DOCK DETAIL .�� o�°� `���� S 6° �� `"
�oz�.s�
1 " = 20' S C A L E , '�� � '. ���0�1� $Zo�� �� � �'
5���g ���'�2 N �'�� y
� ,, � ��O ��
o� �� 260�0, �� o � -�-N�� T � '�'
.--- �- ---. � 6
, o
ti°
-�� � ��� . .�=-., .�; .. 2� p5
929.4 CONTOU;2 ''..\ : 9'I �� .�., 6
LINE-20 FEET-.., ,..'y1' .�r+� �j 60
;' OF SHORELINE "- • SE� ••. • .
: opO,�� - "
, � .., •
. .... .
931.5 � .,_._ ._ _ . . .
:� � �� .,`,•-•CONTOUR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : ' r '� � �
�arosc o �� '•. LINE �i i i � � �i �i I �; i� �
� : {
:�925.a CONTWR L►IE � N:MY ..r1, ��' � L I '- i �'�. E
SEE DETAIL��--....�.�.�Ta�TM,�/ � ����- . � Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1470, files of 1
� Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. �i !�I , � '' �
� � .. �, �; � AUG � 200�r i I! �
.,,
'
, � �
/'II o : denotes iron marker r�.
/°� �
LAKE � v
_ _— _
j��- � , -v_ _.___ _-_.�_
�s�.'� ., l c�Y �`` (925.5): denotes existing lake bottom elevation, NGVD 1929
�
�°s Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
.......
MINNETONKA
This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property,
and the proposed location of a proposed dock thereon. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
oneaxEv�scoz.sca
oEs�cnEo REVISION DATE DESCRIPTpN I hereby certif that this surve wos re ared b me, SCALE
G R 0 N B E R G & A S S�C I A T E S I N C. �� under my direct supervision,yand that�am a d��Y ,..=30.
t �-is-0� vaoposco ooac srawN � registered Civil Engineer and Lond Surveyor under the
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS �aws of the state ot Minnesota.
D AWN p 7_�p_p7 UKE BOTTOAI FIEVATIONS TANEN DATE
a �-w-o� MiOP�75ED WCK k LOCATqN REV5ED 7-18-05
CHECKED 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 i�i��_ ///., '.�%�� ,ioe no.
952-473-4141 ��
Mork S. Gronberg Minnesota Li nse Number 12755 07-282
07-282
0
v
• m
N CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
PROPOSED ERIC A . BERG .... � �� I �� �
0
r � IV
OF TRACT A. R.L.S. N0. 1470 �.`� ��o W
� rl� .��� SET IN� �� �N
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA � B69 cFRo� �,,� O
�� ` � LOT COR. I�O�
. -
• Q
�� � �� ,"�
..,....----�-�----�- � . ,. /_ �� _
`�N�J \ �o
�� .�� ECK ` ' ` � �
�
929.4 CONTOUR ,':\� �,'� �,. \ C �p J
LINE-20 FEET... --� � � I o
OF SHORELINE �st� "' O
. �9 � � ,� _
(926.6� / � �' ' 931.5 ` lO
" '-��CONTOUR , �
J �4� � • '
(925.5� / - ��o �� `'� LINf �-1 � �'� T R A C T A I
,��T��T �, r , � m
925.4 carrout l►E � �o •..10 '
(1 FEET O�WATER DF➢TH) � � ,..(�
J�V" 1
� �o �5 926.a) �1(s —I N
�•� J(9Y4.6) PROPOSED DOCK TO BE PU(SO ON . �', 'uI�I
\ ExTENSqN OF SWfNERLT LOT LK ;• O(.J� �I �
/ �Y25.8) O/ �
K ��S��t�� � �� . "���
L A E ..�� �� . �T-.�A�
�����.. / ��
�r(924.7) � `, � BLACKTOP
�(B24A) `, //CNKWY �� GJ�
., \ �16 .
_••".
MINNETONKA � �� � ���-� �- ..6���00''
--- .
---------------����� o �
DOCK DETAIL .. o ,���. : �-s-, °��
o� ���.: 6 ,, �
.�(923.9) 1` � ; �.�^0�1�56Ooo1 0o O
1 " = 20' S C A L E o�g, �� �v �"� c, � N a2 r„� �'
` 1
� 5� ��6' r�� O� �
�� �l `J� O�
oo�� ', 260�0, �� O � -I-���� r � �
' . .�=-., 'a. , O
929.4 CONTOUR �'.,� : 1g'I�. `��,� ���LY2�6 �jr����
LINE-20 FEET•... ...'y ,�Rc �j 60
;'� OF SHORELINE "••�. �,SEQ� -�. �
+ „ 9• •.' "'..
931.5
�• ��� .�o � �'• LINETOUR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : � I
SEE DETAIL�--�... :�°25.4°����
_�;�.recT or o�n,�� �Y °'� ;•1�'� Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1470, files of I ��� ,, '�
� � �. �� Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota i ��,I � ���� � �� �
� �,U G
, I I �_ �
�� �o : denotes iron marker �� �
. ;' ,
�,/�� /� . � ..
L A K E �SE'���' ' , l CANOPY �`� (925.5): denotes existing lake bottom elevation, NGVD 1929 ` � � Y �
`�°S� � ' ••............... "� Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
MINNETONKA
This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property,
and the proposed location of a proposed dock thereon. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
o�zea�vrsco2.sca
DESICNED REhsqN DATE pESCRWTqN I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me, SCALE
G R 0 N B E R G 8c A S S 0 C I A T E S I N C. �� under my direct supervision, and that � am a duly ,..=30.
t �-tc-o� vnoaos¢o ooac sNoww � registered Civil Engineer and Lond Surveyor under the
DRAWN s �_�9_0� LAKE BOTTOM FlEVAT10N5 TAKEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS �aws of tne state of Minnesoto. p�TE
3 �-w-o� PROGOSED DOCI(k LDCATION REVISEO 7-18-05
CHECKED 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 ���I.o���
952-473-4141 .ae No.
Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota Li nse Number 12755 07-282
07-282