The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLMCD/application/variance/meeting minutes. etc LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS MINNESOTA DNR GENERAL PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER: 97-6098 DATE OF REQUEST: March 27, 2003 RESPONSES DUE BY: April 7, 2003 (Note: Comments on this application are due 10 days from receipt of this notice. Retum to: L.M.C.D.; 18338 Minnetonka Blvd.; Deephaven, MN 55391) FROM: Judd J. Harper PHONE: (952) 745-0789 Administrative Technician TO: X DNR Area Hydrologist: Ms. Julie Ekman, MN DNR, 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 X DNR Area Fisheries Manager: Mr. Daryl Ellison, MN DNR, 9925 Valley View Rd Eden Prairie, MN 55344 X Municipality: Mr. Mike Gaffron, Ciry of Orono, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Other PROPOSAL INFORMATION Name of Applicant: Michael & Donna Wallace Bay: Maxwell Address of Project: 3160 North Shore Drive Orono Project Description: The avnlicant has submitted an application for variance from LMCD Code for dock len th requirements CONIlVIENTS ON PROPOSAL Comments on Project by Reviewer (attach separate sheet if needed): ! N� oP1NroN ,�G �o - � N c� ca t�L u - ,� � �u oCK c� $C�A�A-S� ".�olNr ur u ls D�A.�� ,A-S h�D✓� 7N�N '1-wt� A�'1� tQ.�P�.RtaN owN�S s'�acr�,� ►�r.� � �s� o�.�t s�� oc� �s,K2 swac�l€� Recommendatio of Reviewer: �t�l//� �� Name of Reviewer. Title: �t►�%�.rc�2 Date: � 3 �� MiNNf T�� ' M • LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 0 '-- — = ~ 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. • DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 •TELEPHONE 952/745-0789 • FAX 952/745•9095 �' 'SAVE TNE L1NE� �V s�'�l•qT�pN p�`�� Gregory S.Nybeck,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS March 20, Z003 Bert Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair,Spring Park Lili McMillan Tp: Lakeshore Weekly News Secretary,Orono Tom Skramstad Attfl: SUe KOfUS, Legal Department Treasurer,Shorewood (Fax#473-0895) Bob Ambrose Wayzata D Tonka g Babcock FROM: Judd J. Narper, Administrative Technician Orv Burrna Mound SUBJECT: Public Hearin Notice 3/25/03 Edition Miles Canning g � � Greenwood Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom se�nt�e�s LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Minnetonka Beach Herb J.Suerth PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Woodland 7:00 PM A �II 9 2 Jose valdesuso , P � , 003 Excelsior Tonka Bay City Hall Kary van Hercke 4901 Manitou Road Minnetonka Michael 8�Donna Wallace Variance Application 3160 North Shore Drive,Orono, MN Maxwell Bay, Lake Minnetonka The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)will hold a public hearing to consider a variance application from Michael & Donna Wallace. The proposed application is for variance firom LMCD Code for dock length requirements.All inferested persons will be given an opportunity to comment. Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvtl., 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 Michael S. and Donna D. Wallace 3160 Norih Shore Drive Orono,MN 55391 February 12, 2003 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Attention: LMCD Board Ladies and Gentlemen: We live at 3160 North Shore Drive and own 100' of lakeshore along the southeastern shoreline of Maxwell Bay. As you aze awaze, the water depths in this part of Maxwell Bay can be quite shallow. The table below illustrates the water depths at various lengths froin our shoreline taken on 12/26/O2. On 12/2/02,the lake level was 928.61. Feet from Shore Water Depth @ Adjustment Factor Water Depth @ 928.61 as of 12/2/02 to 929.4 929.4 as of 12/26/02 50' 17" 9.5" 26.5" 100' 25" 9.5" 34.5" 130' 29' 9.5" 38.5" 150' 38" 9.5" 47.5" As you are also aware,on 10/9/2002, the LMCD granted adjustmenfs to the dock use areas to the properties to our west, namely the Finney, Hendrickson/W'indenberg, Pacovsky and Blomberg properties, because of shallow water. During that process,the LMCD board adjusted the dock use area to the Blombergs, our immediate neighbor to the west, which included adjustments to their side setback requirements and a length extension to 130'. At the 10/9/2002 meeting, an adjustment to our dock use area.was proposed by Director Nybeck in order to accommodate the dock we share with the Blombergs. During the ensuing discussion,the boazd concluded that since water depths at our site were not documented and our immediate neighbors were not notified through a public hearing, the board could not grant us an adjustment to our dock use azea. However,board members Babcock, McMillian and Chairman Foster encouraged us to submit an application and that the boazd could consider waiving the fees for the Wallace variance application. In a letter dated 12/4/2002, Director Nybeck nodfied us that the above variances were granted and that"the Board encourages you to submit an application for variance form the LMCD Code and possibly a new multiple dock license, if you want to continue the shared dock with the Blomberg's or if you want to install you own dock out beyond�OQ.'.�.,�_,_„_.�._. ,a from the 929.4' shoreline". In subsequent conversations with Crreg,we discussecl'j,: ;` ;`,' ;� ;' � '• ;r I�;, ,,, f�.� - - - , ,4 �� MAR 1 3 2003 ��!�� ,. ,; ,tJi.: i � L ..,� E �'. � � __.---..._.:._L Michael S.and Doniia D. Wallace 3160 Norih Shore Drive Orono,MN 55391 whether a multiple dock license was required for our shared dock situation. Based upon these conversations, I felt a need to obtain another opinion as to whether a multiple use dock license is required. A copy of this opinion is attached for your reference. Since it is our intention to continue sharing a dock with the Blombergs, we respectfully request that the LMCD Board grant an adjustment to our dock use area and consider waiving the fees to allow for a dock to reach 4' of water. It should be noted that the shared dock length would be limited to the shorter length of the respective dock use areas, currently 130'. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your favorable ruling. ( , C�.�%�/. Michael Wallace Encl. cc. Paul & Bev Blomberg ;,i:.. -�-� :; ........ .... . __ � ! � , i� ��~�!i ;r� . -�i i'�I I� �7 i� i� i„ :r I.i� � �� _ _ ' `-: �i�i �� M�� 3 2003 ��j�� J I.Jy '-�,vy�.-..__y;�.�.:..:-_--- -.---� � ' � . „ VARIANCE APPLICATION ; l Lake Minnetonka Conservation District i �� 18338 Minnetonka Bivd. ,r<,� • -�-�=� --=�•- Deephaven, MN 55391 ,�=-_`�"" . ��TN..r..��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 pub�ic 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 properly owner(circle one). Applicant: 1'�1�c],�,�t + �� Address: ___ 3� �o �f-�,i � ��. City, State, Zip: ___ �✓-o�a , s.A�t �'�� Phone: _°I5� �l7( 3 3�.'y Fax: Property owner(if different from applicant): Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: Fax: PROPERTY LOCATION: The property is located in the city of: C�*ayw The property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s): �-��t� bn,.� LMCD Area Identification Number(s): TYPE OF VARIANCE: �� w State practical difficulties and hardships causing variance to be required: — d I lo.a c,.h,-1-c.. �a � ao� to N ` ��. . ,,'_ ;f_...;.. .. -..i..1`'l�...'f -1 n�t �'il"�� ; �`�� _ Iti ��! I�lif I.I', i� �oo� 'II I�; �a� � � U Page 1 of 3 �1� -:y��---__...:---.--E Variance Application `� � ABUTTING L ESHORE PROPERTY OWNERS: North o es +- .s ►0 3� t��.� Qr-,�,.� (Name and ma' ng address) South r�Ea� N1a..s�C, � �e�,�u,, ree 3 i?,� N'a� S'�•►� Qr (Name and mailing address) Other affected parties (attach sheet if necessary): (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 Hennepin County Auditors Offices, (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 usualty takes finro days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number(PIN) ready when calling for this assistance. 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 cleatly 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 cou/d result in a processing delay. FEE CALCULATION APPLICATION FEE..............(non-refundable).........................................$250.00 DEPOSIT............................. (refundable, upon fult compliance with the Code and extent of administrative, inspection and legal service required)..................:..............+$250.00 n,�� j�r I� �� i`; �'I!R'f_ i�r�I{ �� "� �� i;i�;. Page 2 of 3 �; ) MAR I 3 2003 ��;' 1i � � � :I �_�' �'�'-----_-.�-�.�-_.-- ---_-_I � ` ' i1�• • Variance Application TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED...... (this fee is for processing of the appiication and does not entitle the applicant to a variance).................. 500.00 I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; I understand that any variance granted may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD code. I agree to reimburse the District for any legal, surveying, engineering, i spection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee.�j consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with� 1 agree to submit a certified, as-built survey upon completion of the docks. ��:�;�'v�— �-/2 �D 3. Authorized Signature Date �w��. Title Return this application,attachments and fee to: Relationship to Owner Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391-3232 Fax: (952)745-9085 i�'�1�� l; i� ;'r�; _ 'I=-;'i i•/ _ i ti �f, � � �� I IIl �Q� 1 �' O ��I�r Page 3 of3 iJl� Z 03 �� , �J� 'J�=�-�_ --._.--i f � ' � • ` ; . : . \ � � • . � V/r X . . o � � /— �� '�r,e{'1,_ �i�:�''i.. ... . -.i `� . . . —`ia,� �tG'.SCKti� �xZfN�� Ln^+u^^ i ` . . ` — �' ,� .at . . .. � � H w�de, ^ ` _ ' -- - H'��p �';38,s�,;� Propes.a �di+�o,,,v bu�` �� . � � � � y . i � �� b � ' 1 - - _ _ � �� ~ - � � � �� 50 � W,,o o�b++. e 92q•y � r � ' 36 3b i � �Z �y �� -10- 1 IDO 3ws" I6C,.., t•,dt .: Y6 _ � — � _ � � s;{� li�. ext..,�r ' � , -.....,..�.._.,. " — _ , n, ' t �$� 3$.S �" � � . 3'1 FreM z;d. T;{,c �� I�..�II j � 1 1�c ��^17°"� �� ISO � � � , � � 1 � r ► ' n��r , � r � , � � ti �4 �ihar�a t..�ooden;.-^:� � � t � � � �� 7p � Ib� ��c1c, rl,/ 1 � y w;a� ..c,�� jNN�.,?,�� , K� � �o � � B�5!.Y '� .S�lc:1�;�+,= 30-�+. , is � ' TM � � �i-SHORELINE qNfl 929.4 NORTHINEST LINE OF LOT ORDf NAR Y CON TOUf�, � � H1GH WqTER MARK � 7.8f�� . i � FOUND 3/4" lRON� ' — � � . �`- � -- i � _ \ ' � ',•'-100.04-_. — _ ��1.7f �`N ;57'S1'27" E j� ; °C�ti � � ,SURVEY ' o � LINE ;� `�iR,, . / �� \ � ' ' I �'� ` �'/ ; i � °� � � _ , , � �. - _ , , , < � � � . � � , _ ` ;� � ' � ' �' - � ' � , � . -� , _ _ , . � , �-� � ��` APProxirn�� i � / � � / , �Yer `e , �� . 7- `�,� 423 DO�� .� � _, I /'� � �4$6g ' � � V ��_� W � / I � I v _o� � �J - � � I , , , , �, , . , - � I � 3ieo Nof�h Sh�� p,. ; l ; � .. �. _. .... .._ «._._.__._., � � � II `�f� �", •_: rf�� - I'•_`'r � � � I �� I I� 1 �� '(_ I• � � � Ef0 Na,.{?+� �`h�,,,Q ! � m � �j� �� l�� : �; +�� :� I;� I� , � , o , � , � ,. ;� ; j � ��I NiAR I � 2003 �ji�� IJ� . � � o � � � � , % I ~ � � � .... ,.,._..._._,._._... --. ., _ , � � 'Y------------ -) � ' ^•--. ; � o � BEST & FLANAGAN LLP A7'7'ORNEYS A7' LAW 225 Suu1L Sixth Sirr.�,t,Suitr.4�(NNl 1�9iunta��oliti,Mirmr�ata.ii4{l'1-44�)O � 9�•Icph�,ne G123:i971'?1 1'.ir.nimile G12 339 Fi}�5/7 www.beslluw.cum Writer's Direct Dial No.: � (6l2)341-9722 E-Mai]Address:bross@bestlaw.com February 12, 2003 I�•nuard M.Addin�;luu N.11/ahrr GrafT Allcn U.I3arnard I�i�•Lurd A.I�,��.�,�,�� Michael Wallace ItoLr.n J.CL�is�ian�:un.Jr. r•�:,��vo,;i 3160 North Shore Drive M.iri�m�:R!YauRiu�•u.Jr. to '�S �.�i,,,n.��,,,�r. Orono, Miiuzescw.,...391 Juincs C.Uirarlr.c ' Ru},r.rl�.Rur..lr. "��•,��.M��•�.�,�. Re: Interpretation of the Code of Ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka Morris l:.Kn��pf Judiih A.HoguFL�+nkr. Conservation District 4+0��U.l:'ller C6m•Irr:G.lien�ui+l r•...�<„P,,�,�,re,-<� Dear Mr. Wallace: C:re�;ury 1).Scmle , Cathy E.Gor)in Peitrick I3.Hennesc�� •r,��,�,��„n.s�ir,-�„ At your request, we have reviewed the Code of Ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka Danirl R.V�!h��s�r� Conservation District("LMCD")to provide our interpreta.tion as to how the Code may be »��.7ubk� Steven R.Kruger applied with respect to tlie requirement for and the granting of multiple use pernuts. Puul E.Kaminski Ross C.Fonnel] Specifically, whether a multiple use pemut may be required for the use of the dock that Can�n S.Gluver Mmy E.Shearen you own j ointly with your neighbor,located oi1 Lake Minnetonka. This letter will review Barbara M.Ross � �e provisions that may apply and provide some suggestions for proceeding before the Catherine].Courtne� Sarah Crippeq Madison LMCD. Robwi D.Maher Christopher D.]ohnson ''"B�'�°" To briefl review the facts ou own a home on Lake Minnetonka located at 3160 Daniel A.Kaplan y �y Ruben M.Lewis North Shore D�ive with which you have joint ownership of a dock that is located on the s aiey vc'%;�`;S property line between you and your neighbor. The shazed dock is 130 feet in length from Cynthia L.He�arty llarid C.Murphy the shoreline, witli 90 feet coiisisting of a permanent dock structure. The dock branches HBZ�'�.vy out on each side and you and your neighbor each store your wa.tercraft on the portion of Glenda S.Swthers � Brian C.Eddy the dock that is located on your own site. Rehecce A.Chaifee 'fhomas G.Garry llavid G.Schelzel You have advised me that recently several of your neighboring property owners OFCOUMSEL went through a variance process before the LMCD with respect to variances for their docks Via�d 13.L,ewis n��i��>>8�a s,�c„�e�� and dock use areas. You were not involved in the variance process,but at its meeting of Ruber�M.Skare �o�,�,��.c�>> October 9, 2002 the LMCD granted a length variance to your neighbor with whom you ��n��D.Ol�aon share a dock and indicated ou should a.iso apply for a length variance. The LMCD Kober�L Crosby y ca,,�L.Crippen Executive Director sent you a letter on December 4,2002 giving you notice of the Frank].Walz Scoti P.Moa, variances granted on neighboring properties,and encouraging you to submit an application leannice M.Reding for a variance and possibly a new multiple use permit application. You intend to proceed James I.Best ,�.,� with the application for a length�variance. You have requested our input on whether a Robert J.Flanagan multiple use permit is required under the Code. Your recent use of your jointly owned 1898-19i4 dock has consisted of two jet skies and two boats on your side of the dock in your do.ck use-� : ro`'�°�;° '9z6 area and one boat on your neighbor's side of the dock in his dock use�rea.��.It�is aot cle�x,�., ; ' �. under the Code that a multiple use pernut is applicable to your situatio�:',� `' �V� � �� i I L MAR 1 3 2003 ,��;; L� ,JfMrv v. r. ..._a....... .- — . .. � Michae) S. Wallace � l�ebruary 12, 2003 Page 2 The applicable provisions of the Code of Ordinances with regard to muliiple use �ermits and shared docks are Chapters I and II of the Code. Chapter I, Section 1.02 states the defnitions of terms used in the Code. The term "Dock"is defined in Subdivision 15 as follows: "Dock"meazis any wharf, pier, or other structure or combination of wharves, piers, or other structure constructed or maintained in the Lake, wliether floating or not, including ail "Is""Ts"or posts wh:ch may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. Based on the description you have provided, your dock meets this definition. The definitions also include in Subdivision 28 "Multiple dock or mooring area", which means: Any dock or mooring area constructed or maintained for the storage of five or more restricted water craft, other than commercial docks. This is a broad definition that could be interpreted to include your shared dock at which you are currently storing five watercraft. . The term "watercraft"is also defined, and does appeaz to include jet skies, as Subdivision 59 defines it to mean: Any vessel, boat, canoe, .raft, barge, sail board, or any similar device used or useable for canying and transporting persons on the lake. Wifih respect to t�e quest�o i of the number of watercraft that can be stored at your dock,provisions of the Code that should be considered in your circumstance with a shared dock include Subd. 3 b) and c) of Section 2.01. This section is entitled "Authorized Dock Use Area." The general language of Subdivision 3 sta.tes as follows: Subd. 3—Setback Adjustments and Common Use of Adjacent Dock Use Areas. Two or more adjoining site owners may by mutual agreement adjust the side setback requirements between such adjoining sites or may use their combined authorized dock use azeas for a single common dock or mooring area subject to the - �'"`��i! following conditions . . . �;�- -�_:; M- {'r�;,��? �^j, ii � �!- •iy `�!; '�� 'j � ,`l�� 'ly.i `�I, I�I1 ��,� � Z003 U � . I:,��t� MA� 1 3 I _� Y�__^_e -_- .-. ----. - Michael S. Wallace February 12, 2003 Page 3 The conditions that appear to apply here are those under either subsection b)or c). In reviewing the language of these two subsections it appears that subsection(b)may apply to your property, as you have a single common dock pursuant to an agreement between two adjoining site owners; but it is not completely clear as to which provision would apply given the unique circumstance that the dock is located on the property line, you each own the half of the dock that is locaied on your property, and you each store your watercraft in your respective dock use areas. Regardless of which subsection is applied,it is our opinion that you and your neighbor are in compliance with the conditions regarding the storage of watercraft. Subsection b)provides for the use of one or more sites for a single common dock or mooring area, and the provision that is pertinent to storage of watercraft is as follows: 3) no more restricted watercraft may be stored by any owner of a combined dock facility than would be permitted at that owner's site. In your case, since the shared dock is located on the property line, it is our interpretation of this provision that both you and your neighbor are an owner of a combined dock facility, and may store the number of watercraft that would be pernutted at your respective sites. � Under Section 2.02, Subd. 3) of the Code, it provides that the owner of a single-family residential structure may store up to four restricted watercraft at a dock or mooring azea. Neither you or your neight�or are storing more than four restricted watercraft at a dock or mooring area., therefore, it is our opinion you are in compliance. You have advised that to your knowledge the typical situation on Lake Minnetonka where p:operty owners share a single conunon dock or mooring azea involves a dock that is located on one general site, and is shared by two or more owners, some of which ma.y be adjoining sites. In this circumstance, subsection b)can be interpreted to permit each owner oi the dock,�if an owner of residential property, to store up to four restricted watercraft each at a single common dock. The Code would likely be interpreted in this circumstance to require a multiple use pernut since more than five restricted watercraft would be stored at the dock. It is our experience that dock owners in these circumstances have been required by the LMCD to apply for a multiple use permit. A multiple use pernut in such circumstances appears to be appropriate under the Code. However, it is our opinion that the Code is not clear that a multiple use permit is required if Section 2.01, Subd. 3b) is applied to your circumstance, where the dock is located on the property line, you and your neighbor each own the half of the dock that is located on your property, and you are storing the permissible number of watercraft on your own respective dock sites. _. .__ � i�=�� ;i.__,,i;ii"r n�� II;� ��; ��, i.. i_, "! i_'- iI � ' +� � il I� i'1 MAR 1 � 2003 i��Ji �.Il, E ��,,�- .----�-. ------_::-: Miclzael S. Wallace Pebruary ]2, 2003 Page 4 Subd. 3 c) provides for adjustment of side setback and dock use areas between two or more adjoining sites subject to the conditions listed, which include the following: (4) no more watercraft inay be stored at the adjacent sites affected by the adjustment and the sum of the number of watercraft,which would be allowed at each site if there were no such adjustments. Our interpreta.tiQn of th.is provision is that the owner of each adjacent site cannot store more than four restricted watercraft on their site. In applying subsection c)�4)to your situation, you and your neighbor are in compliance as neither of you aze storing more than four restricted watercraft at your adjacent sites. It is our opinion that a multiple use permit is not applicable to circumstances where Section 2.01, Subd. 3c)is applied. It could be argued tliat c) applies to your circumstance rather than b), si.nce your dock is located on the property line and in essence you have waived the side setbacks to share a common dock and aze storing your own watercraft on your respective sites. The issue then is whether a multiple use permit is required,or should be required, where both you and your neighbor are in compliance with Section 2.02, Subd. 3), simply , because of the fact you shaze a dock. The Code does not address your situa.tion,where the shared dock is located on the property line and the restricted watercraft aze stored on your respective sites in your respective dock use areas, which dock use azeas are regulated separately regazding length and setbacks. Section 2.03 of the Code sets out the requirements for application for a license for a multiple dock,mooring area, commercial dock, and launching ramps. In reviewing the requirements for the license,particularly the review criteria in Subd. 3),it does not appear that the reasons for requiring a multiple use permit should be applied in your situation with a single shared dock located on the property line between two adjoining pazcels of property. Since your shared dock riuis along the prop�rty line and branches out onto each property, you and your neighbor are in compliance with regazd to the number of�stored watercraft, and the only basis for considering whether a multiple use permit is required is the fact that it is a shazed dock. Since you each store your watercraft on your own property, concerns such as volume of tr�c, safety in use in the dock use�areas or dock mooring areas, adverse effects on nearby properties,navigation, safety or the environment should not be of concern to the LMCD. This is in contrast to the situation where there is a single dock facility located on one site that is used by multiple owners. It is our opinion that the Code is unclear as to whether a multiple use permit is required for your dock, and fiuther there is a good basis for the position that a multiple use permit is not required. The question is how to interpret the Code when the dock is located on the property line and branches out onto each dock use azea. It is our redpznri�er��lat�or�"��`,�.._�"r that you request information from the LMCD regarding prior decisions in�i l�ihig 4�tu7�iple =' �� , ' I � ,.jL� MAR 1 3 2003 ;_�; f � ' ,_ �--._ ..-----� --..__ -�-----� ` . ti Michae] S. Wallace I'ebruary ]2, 2003 Page 5 use permits for a single commoii dock between adjoining land owners. If available,this would provide some evidence as to how the LMCD should treat the issue of the multiple use permit in your situation. As we discussed, LMCD has broad authoriiy over regulations on Lake Minnetonka, and its actions would be open to challenge only if it acted in an arbitrary or capricious inaruier. If you have information as to how LMCD has applied the multiple use permit to situations simiiuY to yours, the LMCD should treat your situation in a similar manner or its decision could be considered arbitrazy. If this information is not available, LMCD has the authority to interpret the Code, but the LMCD should interpret it in a manner that is consistent with a purpose and intent of the Code. In reviewing the Sta.tement of Purpose of the Code in Section 1.01, we believe an argument can be made that requiring a multiple use pernut in your situation is not required to meet the District's goals and policies. For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate for LMCD to act on the length variance application and there is a good basis for the position that a multiple use pemut is not required for your situa.tion. � Further, we suggest you consider requesting clarifica.tion of the Code as it is uncleaz with regard to its application to your situation. Requesting information or clarification will take some time, and it is our opinion that because of this,the issue of the multiple use pernut should be separate from the issue of the length variance. ; � If you have any questions or need fiu-ther assistance with regard to this issue, feel � free to call me. � Sincerely, `��_ �CZ� Barbaza M. Ross BMR/pbb . 225959 ;U��(�; i`;�(��jj��` (-��P ; i�� : �_ �, �; �� l MA� ? � 2003 .J� ;�, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 9, 2003 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES- 3/12/03 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 3/26/03 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 • Sun Star Cruises, Inc., new on-sale intoxicating liquor license application for the charter boat, Sunstar. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration • City of Minnetonka Beach, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure the non-conforming facility ur;der LMCD Code Section 2.015. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration • Michael & Donna Wallace, variance application from LMCD Code for dock length requirements. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration 1. WATER STRUCTURES A) (*) 2003 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2003 renewal, without change, multiple dock license applications for Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Sailors World Marina, Smithtown Bay Association, and Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District; B) Additional Business; 2. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Update from Chair on requesting funding from the MCWD for potential funding of the LMCD EWM Harvesting Program; B) Staff update on the possible purchase of high-speed transport equipment for the 2003 EWM Harvesting Program (handout); C) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (4/1/03 —4/15/03) (handout); B) February financial summary and balance sheet (handout); C) Additional Business; 4. SAVE THE LAKE A) (*) Minutes from the 3/11/03 "Save the Lake" Advisory Committee Meeting; B) 3/11/03 "Save the Lake"Advisory Committee Meeting Report; . C) Additional Business; 5. LAKE USE 8 RECREATION A) 2003 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends approval of renewal Intoxicating Liquor, Wine, and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License applications as outlined in 4/9/03 staff memo (handout); B) Additional Business; 6. ADMINISTRATION A) Consideration of draft LMCD Resolution 104; B) Additional Business; 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT �� MiNNf ro�'F � ' M • LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT � '-- — = ~ 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. • DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 •TELEPHONE 952/745-0789• FAX 952/745-9085 y 'SAV[iHE LANE� �� S��ATION ��y�� Gregory S.Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS March 20, 2003 Bert Foster Chair,Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair,Spring Park Lili McMillan Tp: Lakeshore Weekl News Secretary,Orono y Tom Skramstad Attn: Sue Korus, Legal Department Treasurer,Shorewood (Fax#473-0895) Bob Ambrose Wayzata D Tonka ga abcock FROM: Judd J. Harper, Administrative Technician Orv Surma Mound SUBJECT: Public Heann Notice 3/25/03 Edition Miles Canning g � � Greenwood Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Minnetonka Beach Hert>�.s�ertn PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE wood�and 7:00 PM,Ap�il 9, 2003 Jose Valdesuso Excetsior Tonka Bay City Hall Katy vanHercke 4901 Manitou Road Minnetonka Michael &Donna Wallace Variance Application 3160 North Shore Drive,Orono, MN Maxwell Bay, Lake Minnetonka The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)will hold a public hearing to consider a variance application from Michael& Donna Wallace. The proposed application is for variance from LMCD Code for dock length requirements.All interesfed persons will be given an opportunity to comment. Details available at the LMCD office, 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 55391; Phone: (952) 745-0789. is t�� 50%RecycledContent Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org 20�Post Consumer Waste E-mail Address:Imcd C Imcd.org t 1 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT April 4, 2003 T0: Board of Directors � n FROM: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director � � � SUBJECT: Michael & Donna Wallace Variance Application BACKGROUND Michael and Donna Wallace, 3160 North Shore Drive, have submitted a variance application for Board consideration on Maxwell Bay in the City of Orono. The application has been submitted for variance from LMCD Code for dock length requirements, with a physical hardship of shallow water. Pursuant to LMCD Cotle, the attached public hearing notice was published in the 3/25/02 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News. The applicant appears to have slightly greater than 100' of 929.4'shoreline at the site. The applicant has proposed that the dock use area for their site be adjusted to allow for a dock to reach 4'of water depth and to allow them to continue to share a dock with the abutting property owners to the west, the Blombergs, Last summer, the Board received variance applications for the four abutting property owners to the west. These property owners include: Mark Finney, 3210 North Shore Drive; Shirley Hendrickson and Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore Drive; Fred and Michelle Pacovsky, 3186 North Shore Drive; and Paul antl Beverly Blomberg, 3180 No►th Shore Drive. The following variances were granted by the Board for these properties last fall: • Finnev Propert� Dock Length • Hendrickson &Windenburq Property_Adjusted Dock Use Area, Dock Length, and Side Setbacks • Pacovskv Propertv-Adjusted Dock Use Area and Dock Length • Blomberq Prope�t�- Dock Length and Side Setbacks Further details of these variances are outlined in the attached 10/9/02 Variance Order and minutes from the 6/26/02, 8/28/02, 9/25/02, and 10/9/02 Regular Board Meetings. DISCUSSION To evaluate the proposed variance application, staff believes that three Code Sections apply to it. They include: 1. Code Section 2.01, subd. 1 that prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area for docking and storage of watercraft. An authorized dock use area is defines 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 enclosed on three sides for any of these purposes". These three sides are further defined by Cotle for dock length and minimum side setback requirements. The proposed site plan is not contained within the authorized dock use area for this site as defined by Code. Maximum dock length at this site,without a variance from Code, is 100'from the 929.4' shoreline. The applicant has proposed an adjusted dock use area that would extend between 130'and 150'from the 929.4' shoreline. The minimum setback requirement proposed by the applicant for the dock use area � . Michael 8� Donna Wallace Public Hearing Memo,4/4/03, Page 2 beyond 100' from the 929.4' shoreline is 15'. Code requires a 20' setback for the dock use area beyond 100'from the 929.4' shoreline. 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 this 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 the review of the proposed application for variance from Code,the Board should ensure that the applicant has proposed practical difficulties and/or particular hardships that are caused by the application of Code. In addition, the Board should apply 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? In review of the proposed variance apptication,the Board might want to restrict the length of the variance to 130'from the 929.4' shoreline at this site because this would be consistent with the variance granted at the Blomberg site. The applicant has documented a water depth of 38.5" at 130' from the 929.4' shoreline. Also,the Board should require the dock use area to meet minimum side setback requirements at the Wallace site. This would require increasing the side setback requirement beyond 100'from the 929.4' shoreline to 20' rather than 15'. 3. Code Section 2.01, subd. 3 that allows for setback adjustments and common use of adjacent dock use areas. Use of one or more sites for a single common dock or mooring area is permitted subject to the following limitations: • Combination is only permitted between or among owners of two or more non-commercial docks for the private non-commercial use of the site owners. • Only one dock structure may be constructed on the combined dock use areas. • No more restricted watercraft may be stored by any owner of a combined dock facility than would be permitted at that owner's site. The applicant has proposed to combined their dock use area with the abutting property to the west, Paul and Beverly Blomberg. In fact, this appears to have been going on for a number of years. In 1987,these two sites were granted a temporary dock extension permit for a common dock. This approval was allowed in 1987 when the Board adopted Resolution 53 that declared low water levels on Lake . . � Michael 8� Donna Wallace Public Hearing Memo, 414/03, Page 3 Minnetonka and authorized temporary dock extensions beyond the dock use area. In 1991,the Board adopted Resolution 73 that allowed temporary dock extensions without a permit application. In Resolution 73, it encouraged residents of two or more adjoining sites to combine their authorized dock use areas for a single common dock, for their respective non-commercial private use, subject to no more than four restricted being stored at such a dock without a multiple dock license. Code Section 1.02, subd. 2 defines a multiple dock or mooring area as "any dock or mooring area constructed or maintained for the storage of five or more restricted watercraft, other than commercial docks". In previous discussions with the applicant and on-site observations for the variances granted to the west, more than four restricted watercraft have been parked at the common dock for the Wallace and Blomberg properties. Staff has communicated to the applicant and Blombergs that the single common dock is allowed by Code. However, the storage of four or more restricted watercraft at this dock needs to be in compliance with Code Section 2.02 and it requires a multiple dock license in order to do so. The applicant has requested the Board to evaluate the possibility of amending this Code provision that requires this. In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the MN DNR and the City of Orono were provitled a copy of the proposed variance application on 3/27/03, with comments due in the District office by 4/7/03. The City of Orono has commented that Orono Code will not require a Joint Use Dock License because"Joint Use"is defined as more than two adjacent riparian owners sharing in the use of a single dock. Staff has not received feedback from the MN DNR on the proposed variance application. RECOMMENDATION Staff has the following recommendations or comments: • The Board could direct the District attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the dock length variance application, subject to the dock use area complying with minimum side setback requirements. This Order should take into consideration whether a shared dock, as proposed by the applicant, should be allowed at the Wallace and Blomberg properties. Y - . _ .�. _ , . �� :c _�:.� . __ �:° . „ � ;u�„_... _. �..;.:.,:.' :,':,;,�, :�, t"e �" :.;;uce �r�d 8.;,..`�rg properties, that would store more than four restricted watercraft, should require a multiple dock license. Any changes would require a Code amendment and it might be appropriate to delegate discussion of this Code provision to the Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Sub-Committee because of the precedent in could set on a lakewide basis. In the meantime, no more than four restricted should be stored at this common dock unless a multiple dock license application has been received and approvetl by the Board. � Michael S. and Donna D. Wallacc 3160 North Shore Drive Orono,MN 55391 February 12, 2003 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 Attention: LMCD Board Ladies and Gentlemen: We live at 3160 North Shore Drive and own 100' of lakeshore along the southeastern shoreline of Maxwell Bay. As you are aware, the water depths in this part of Maxwell Bay can be quite shallow. The table below illustrates the water depths at various lengths from our shoreline taken on 12/26/02. On 12/2/02,the lake level was 928.61. Feet from Shore Water Depth @ Adjustment Factor Water Depth @ 928.61 as of 12/2/02 to 929.4 929.4 as of 12/26/02 50' 17" 9.5" 26.5" 100' 25" 9.5" 34.5" 130' 29' 9.5" 38.5" 150' 38" 9.5" 47.5" As you are also awaze,on 10/9/2002, the LMCD granted adjustrnents to the dock use areas to the properties to our west, namely the Finney, Hendrickson/Windenberg, Pacovsky and Blomberg properties,because of shallow water. During that process, the LMCD board adjusted the dock use area to the Blombergs, our immediate neighbor to the west, which included adjustments to their side setback requirements and a length extension to 130'. At the 10/9/2002 meeting, an adjustment to our dock use a.rea was proposed by Director Nybeck in order to accommodate the dock we share with the Blombergs. During the ensuing discussion,the boazd concluded that since water depths at our site were not documented and our immediate neighbors were not notified through a public hearing, the board could not grant us an adjustrnent to our dock use area. However,board members Babcock, McMillian and Chairman Foster encouraged us to submit an application and that the boazd could consider waiving the fees for the Wallace variance application. In a letter dated 12/4/2002,Director Nybeck notified us that the above variances were granted and that"the Board encourages you to submit an applica.tion for variance form the LMCD Code and possibly a new multiple dock license,if you want to continue the shared dock with the Blomberg's or if you want to install you own dock out beyond lOQ',.�,__.._..__...__ ....� from the 929.4' shoreline". In subsequent conversations with Greg,we discussed�j� ;= ;[� ;� ;' �_'• r '�,;;.; f ,; �� i,'' h�AR � 3 2003 �i�i,. ,tJl.: f�: � � �� E +f � `, , I. �s —:__.. -.--. - ----__-_1 � Michael S.and Donna D. Wallace 3160 Norlh Shore Drive Orono,MN 55391 whether a multiple dock license was required for our shared dock situation. Based upon these conversations, I felt a need to obtain another opinion as to whether a multiple use dock license is required. A copy of this opinion is attached for your reference. Since it is our intention to continue sharing a dock with the Blombergs, we respectfully request that the LMCD Board grant an adjustment to our dock use area and consider waiving the fees to allow for a dock to reach 4' of water. It should be noted that the shared dock length would be limited to the shorter length of the respective dock use areas, cunently 130'. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your favorable ruling. � , C�./�� Michael Wallace Encl. cc. Paul &Bev Blomberg ;!! '' i' '., i� ^�~i��' ,'�� ' �'�i i��t i; �7 �� i� ii� :r• I� I / - - _: i�i�i ��,� MAR � � 2003 �� I.J� �.�,_y'M-._,.��.—�:.a.w.-.-- -.--�f . � • " BEST & FLANAGAN LLP A7'7'ORNEYS AT' LAW 22�i Soulh Sixlh Slrr.el,Suile 4<NKl Miun<.a�iolis,Mimictiu�a 5fi�(1`l-�b�)0 ; 7�•Ic��hunr, Gl2 339 7J`ll 1'u�+tiirnilc G12:i3�)fifi97 www.Lutitlaw.r,��m Writer's Direct Dial No.: � (612)34]-9722 E-Mai]Address:bross@bestlaw.com February 12,2003 la•nnurd M.Addin�;luu �.1C4du•r Gr.Ji Allou U.lianuud '��°'�°��'^�''��° Michael Wallace kaL��n J.Clui.ii:u„o��.Jr. ��:��v�� 3160 North Shore Drive A1:u�inus a{Yau Pullrn.Jr. ��n.s��,.a�. Orono, M1I]I1CSCta 55391 .)umr:tiC.Diruolrv ' lio};r.r R.Rur..Jr. "��--M�� Re: Interpretation of the Code of Ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka M�,�,�s h.ti„�,��r Judilh A.Ru��KL�+nkr. Conservation District Scou U.Eller C6arlox C.Rerquixt L..i�,.P�i,�r�e,.�� Dear Mr. Wallace: c�C,;�,�i�.��ie C:alhy F.Gorlin Palrick 13.Heunexc�• •►•��,a„n.s��r,-&,� At your request, we have reviewed the Code of Ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka nanirl R.G�.f�risnn Conservation District("LMCD")to provide our interpreta.tion as to how the Code may be 1):�vid J.ZuLkr Sleven R.Kruger applied with respect to tlie requirement for and the granting of multiple use permits. Paul E.Keminsk; Rrns C.Fonnel] Specifically, whether a multiple use permit may be required for the use of the dock that c�„�r�s.c��,,�, ou own ointl with our neighbor, located oii Lake Minnetonka. This letter will review A9ary E.Shearen y � }� y �81'I1II1'e M.ROAS �e provisions that may apply and provide some suggestions for proceeding before the Callierine J.Courtney Sarah Crippen Madison LMCD. Robmy D.Meher Christopher D.Johnaon J''�B�'�°�` To briefly review the facts,you own a home on Lake Minnetonka located at 3160 Daniel A.Kaplan Roben M.Lewis North Shore D�ive with which you have joint ownership of a dock that is located on the L.enor A.Sclieffler Bradley F.�T�illianu property line between you and your neighbor. The shazed dock is 130 feet in length from cynthia L.Hegany �e shoreline with 90 feet consisting of a permanent dock structure. The dock branches Dm id C.Murp6y � Glenda S.Suvthers out on each side, and you and your neighbor each store your wa.tercraft on the portion of Brian C.Eddy the dock that is located on your own site. Rebecca A.Chaffee 'I'hon�as G.Garry Darid C.Schelze] you have advised ine that recently several of your neighboring property owners OFCOUNSEL went through a variance process before the LMCD with respect to variances for their docks wa�a s.t.�W�S Arc•hibald Spaicer and dock use area.s. You were not involved in the variance process,but at its meeting of ioh�ii c�ii October 9, 2002 the LMCD ranted a len ��ne�D.Olson g gth variance to your neighbor with whom you Robeit L.Crosb�- share a dock and indicated you should also apply for a length variance. The LMCD Gary L.Crippen Executive Director sent you a letter on December 4,2002 giving you notice of the Frank J.Walz Sc;ot�P.Moai variances granted on neighboring properties, and encouraging you to submit an application Jeannice M.Reding for a variance and possibly a new multiple use perm.it application. You intend to proceed James I.Best ,�.,� with the application for a length�variance. You have requested our input on whether a Rober�J.Flanagan m��ple use permit is required under the Code. Your recent use of your jointly owned ]898-I9i4 dock has consisted of two jet skies and two boats on your side of the dock in your do.ck use � : �o��UED 192G �ea and one boat on your neighbor's side of the dock in his dock use�rea.��.It,is not clear.�.. ; '�� under the Code that a multiple use pernut is applicable to your situatio�:',� ��' `-� � `� �.��. I IL MAR 1 3 2003 ;��;; iJ �Y��-�_- .. ___..: .-- -..-� � . . • Michae] S. Wallace � rebruary 12, 2UO3 Page 2 The aPplicable provisions of the Code of Ordinances with regard to multiple use permits and shared docks are Chapters I and II of the Code. Chapter I, Section 1.02 states the definitions of ternls used in the Code. The terrn "Dock"is defined in Subdivision 15 as follows: "Dock"means any wharf, pier, or other structure or combination of wharves, piers, or other structure constructed or maintained in the Lake, wliether floating or not, including ail "Is" "Ts"ur posts wh�ch may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure. Ba.sed on the descz•iptioii you have provided,your dock meets this definition. The definitions also include in Subdivision 28 "Multiple dock or mooring area", which means: Any dock or mooring area conshucted or maintained for the storage of five or more restricted water craft, other than commercial docks. This is a broad definition that could be interpreted to include your shared dock at which you are currently storing five watercraft. The term "watercraft"is also defined, and does appear to include jet skies, as Subdivision 59 defines it to mean: Any vessel, boat, canoe,ra.ft, bazge, sail boa:d, or any similar device used or useable for carrying and transporting persons on the lake. W'ith re�pect to t�'�c questiou of the number of watercraft that can be stored at your dock,provisions of the Code that should be considered in your circumstance with a shared dock include Subd. 3 b)and c) of Section 2.01. This section is entitled"Authorized Dock Use Area." The general language of Subdivision 3 states as follows: Subd.3—Setback Adjustments and Common Use of Adjacent Dock Use Areas. Two or more adjoining site owners may by mutual agreement adjust the side setback requirements between such adjoining sites or may use their combined authorized dock use areas for a single common dock or mooring area subject to the . ----:�;=�"��i' following conditions . . . -;�:• �"�; ��' � `�;� � - �� '�i � i �!'-- � jr', '1�; �� t`l j �, �1:.' '�� ~ �' ��11 Dd� �� ,��.�U MAR 1 3 2 � ��—�.�::..�=-- . --. . a....o- � � ., ' Michael S. Wallace February 12, 2003 Page 3 The conditions that appear to apply here are those under either subsection b)or c). 1n reviewing the language of these two subsections it appears that subsection(b)may apply to your property, as you have a single common dock pursuant to an agreement between two adjoining site owners; but it is not completely clear as to which provision would apply given the unique circumstance that the dock is located on the property line, you each own the half of the dock that is located on your properiy, and you each store your watercraft in your respeciive dock use axea.s. Regardless of which subsection is applied,it is our opinion that you and your neighbor are in compliance with the conditions regarding the storage of watercraft. Subsection b)provides for the use of one or more sites for a siilgle common dock or mooring area, and the provision that is pertinent to storage of watercraft is as follows: 3) no more restricted watercraft may be stored by any owner of a combined dock facility than would be permitted at that owner's site. In your case, since the shared dock is located on the property line, it is our interpreta.tion of this provision that both you and your neighbor aze an owner of a combined dock facility, and may store the number of watercraft that would be permitted at your respective sites. � Under Section 2.02, Subd. 3)of the Code, it provides that the owner of a single-faznily residential structure may store up to four restricted watercraft at a dock or mooring area. Neither you or your neight�or are storing more than four restricted watercraft at a dock or mooring area,therefore, it is our opinion you are in compliance. You have advised that to your knowledge the typical situation on Lake Minnetonka where property ovv�iers share a singie conunon ciock or mooring area uivolves a dock that is located on one general site, and is shared by two or more owners, some of which may be adjoining sites. In this circumstance, subsection b)can be interpreted to permit each owner oi the dock, if an owner of resid�ntial property, to store up to four restricted watercra.ft each at a single common dock. The Code would likely be interpreted in tlus circumstance to require a multiple use permit since more than five restricted watercra.ft would be stored at the dock. It is our experience that dock owners in these circumstances have been required by the LMCD to apply for a multiple use permit. A multiple use permit in such circumstances appeazs to be appropriate under the Code. � However, it is our opinion that the Code is not clear that a multiple use permit is required if Section 2.01, Subd. 3b)is applied to your circu.mstance, where the dock is located on the property line,you and your neighbor each own the half of the dock that is located on your property, and you are storing the permissible number of watercraft on your own respective dock sites. ir�� ;::i __ .'�+�� n i� �� `, ��.7 ii. _ "i L�: �I � - ��1; �;Ir . , ��ll MAR 1 3 2003 ��ii , �_�( { 4�,��.".:----- :.. ---..__-_ � ` _ � Michael S. Wallace February l2, 2003 Page 4 Subd. 3 c)provides for adjustment of side setback and dock use areas between two or more adjoining siies subject to the conditions listed, which include the following: (4) no more watercraft inay be stored at the adjacent sites affected by the adjustment and the sum of the number of watercraft,which would be allowed at each site if there were no such adjustrnents. Our interpretation of th.i.s provision is that the owner of each adjacent site cannot store more than four restricted watercraft on their site. In applying subsection c)�t)to your situa.tion, you and your neighbor are in compliance as neither of you are storing more than four restricted watercraft at your adjacent sites. It is our opinion that a multiple use permit is not applicable to circumstances where Section 2.01, Subd. 3c)is applied. It could be argued that c) applies to your circumstance rather than b), si.nce your dock is loca.ted on the property line and in essence you have waived the side setbacks to share a common dock and are storing your own watercraft on your respective sites. The issue then is whether a multiple use permit is required,or should be required, where both you and your neighbor are in compliance with Section 2.02, Subd. 3), simply , because of the fact you share a dock. The Code does not address your situation,where the shared dock is located on the property line and the restricted watercraft are stored on your respective sites in your respective dock use areas, which dock use azeas aze regulated separately regarding length and setba.cks. Section 2.03 of the Code sets out the requirements for application for a license for a multiple dock, mooring area, commercial dock, and launching ramps. In reviewing the requiremeuts for the license,particularly the review criteria in Subd. 3), it does not appear that the reasons for requ:ring a multiple use permit should be applied in your situation with a single shared dock located on the property line between two adjoining parcels of property. Since your shared dock 3•uns along the prop�rty line and branches out onto each property,you and your neighbor are in compliance with regard to the number of stored watercraft,and the only basis for considering whether a multiple use permit is required is the fact that it is a shared dock. Since you ea.ch store your watercraft on your own properry, concerns such as volume of traff'ic, safety in use in the dock use�areas or dock mooring areas, adverse effects on nearby properties,navigation, safety or the environment should not be of concern to the LMCD. This is in contrast to the situation where there is a single dock facility located on one site that is used by multiple owners. It is our opinion that the Code is unclear as to whether a multiple use permit is required for your dock, and further there is a good basis for the position that a multiple use permit is not required. The question is how to interpret the Code when the dock is located on the property line and branches out onto each dock use azea It is our red¢- ' ��ei��a��on�'��"�'._�'j that you request information from the LMCD regarding prior decisions in�i lrr�i�ig Y�iu`l�iple�=� L� � � ;(� MAR 1 3 2003 . �i�� ;__JE � ._ �--------� .-. .-- ---�--� , . ' Michael S. Wallace February l 2, 2003 Page 5 use permits for a single common dock between adjoining land owners. If available,this would provide some evidence as to how the LMCD should treat the issue of the multiple use permit ii�your situation. As we discussed, LMCD has broad authoriiy over regulations on Lake Minnetonka, and its actions would be open to challenge only if it acted in an arbitrary or capricious maruier. If you have information as to how LMCD has applied the multiple use pernut to situations simil4r to yours, the LR�CD should treat your situation in a similar manner or its decision could be considered arbitrary. If this information is not available,LMCD has the authority to interpret the Code, but the LMCD should interpret it in a manner that is consistent with a purpose and intent of the Code. In reviewing the Statement of Purpose of the Code in Section 1.01, we believe a.n argument can be made that requiring a multiple use permit in your situation is not required to meet the District's goals and policies. For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate for LMCD to act on the length variance application and there is a good basis for the position that a multiple use permit is not required for your situation. � Further, we suggest you consider requesting clarification of the Code as it is unclear with regard to its application to your situation. Requesting information or clarification will take some time, and it is our opinion that because of this,the issue of the multiple use permit should be separate from the issue of the length variance. ; � If you have any questions or need further assistance with regard to this issue, feel � free to ca11 me. � Sincerely, �C��C�.- �C� Bazbaza M. Ross BMR/pbb , 225959 ;�� ,; �;-�_��,�;��L<<�-;1� , ;�. : , � � � �; '� � Ma� 1 � zao� : ,�� -�,, ! a „ VARIANCE APPLICATION Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ,�r '� 18338 Minnetonka Bivd. ;f�, • .,_:��-:k_-_.�•.- Deephaven, MN 55391 �.. .._..w... . GV6TNk�.Kt Phone: (952)745-0789 � f� • � 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: __ M�c1��t + �� ,�'c��,�,,` Address: 3� �Q ��-� S'�,,� fl�. City, State, Zip: __ �✓�a , ul,� �� Phone: °15,� �7I 3 3a.'y Fax: Property owner(if different from applicant): Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: Fax: PROPERTY LOCATION: The property is located in the city of: ��Yw The property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s): �►'t-��„�u 6� LMCD Area Identification Number(s): TYPE OF VARIANCE: _ �G�►,�,� � State practical difficulties and hardships causing variance to be required: — �L1o.(�o.J (,�1z,� � P1.II� 't'D Aa� �'0 �1 � IL�� ''I.. ,�f M.i.. ..�...;,.1�'�..'f- I'_'l l , r ! . �" Ic: �� r' IM 'I il��; '.:, ;�. _ - '— Ii�I, I''� '1 2003^ ' I' �I� MAR 1 � l�J Page 1 of 3 t 1� -,�__ ----�----.-,-�� R Variance Application A,BUTTING ESHORE PROPERTY OWNERS: ., North o . es +- �s ►D '3• �1�S�,^� (�r.�,,,� (Name and ma' ng address) South �r East __ (U1a.�-1L � �� H ,.,ee �,�, N`a� 5�++� Qr � (Name and mailing address) Other affected parties (attach sheet if necessary): (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 Hennepin County Auditors Offices, (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 two days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number(PIN) ready when calling for this assistance. Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached: Locator Map (U.S.G.S area map with scale, North direction, Site cleariy marked, Name or Title, LMCD Area Name, LMCD number) County Plat Map (Site cleariy 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 signifcant data requested above cou/d 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 (egal service required)..................:..............+$250.00 '''._�f..�-/,�...�..._--�...._ y. .'1 4 n;r'��[ I�r '� i� �,�! :1- �y!' �: . I '; _ '_ ,.-' I f i �F Page 2 of3 �i I MAR � 3 2003 ��;' � �� _::I ��'-- - ____ - _-�-�...�._..� :- .-.I s , � . Variance Applicafion 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, i spection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee.�j 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 agree to submit a certified, as-built survey upon completion of the docks. �'�J/��.��"u— �?-/2 �D 3 Authorized Signature Date �cJ�-. Title 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 I�-�"'r^'.,.�... �,.-.." .- ... i 'i '�i�;I� �L;, i�= , n; -- �..,,� �,; - J , . .� _ . ._.�,�j, j Jf J MAR I 3 2003 �il � Page 3 of 3 L J� ��-�-�==:..:_ti.--W,-..�--._.—f _ ,� s-- a � �-- Q� , . ,, p � . � � � '� � ` � .i_ ^ �i� y n(� .^I � ��-V \; 19 i� � � � r� '�� (w.d, i ^ ��'��1 � . i 1' Q1 i i � . ! i 1 1 : � , •,�� 1 I 1� � � ~ � �' � � 1 . � � ; q ; a � •---••.. . ....... .....••--------....---------•--....,, ---- 40 �-- '=�t=.�--.....,�` ----.., ---------. ....-----�----•• -------•--._.. . --------••-------•-•--------._......----•- : 33� • 200 - T• . + �= I i ' �� •-. �' __ _-�GpS $ i' 'i I' � ' � -- � ---- D' � �i, �; '� X /��1 " � ; . +�� ii ^NW ` � -� 11 O (��--- . �-^�'�$---��^t^�8--�--� 1 ' 1 i �-�.y � . : W / � ��: � �. /�\ � '� S a� � i �, / ,'�( � y-• � a '• Jp' �. ' . N � � + -�. . .. •' � ,�� i � t10'y�2�„• ~ ��' � � � Y - �� "''_ f65.1 Sf.6� � � ; . � � ¢� � � �� : � N c" � i0 :..� . � N al '�,:� r,� N � �p"' � Y' � OB'f �p N�= V ��$� . � ;� �7�7T ~ � ,�� u � � • �� a L � � F � ��' IY�D i OD ! . y_. � , i 'j� i d'W ,Q 'u96` �� "' " ' i � ~ 1 � .�.. Q� � � a �� • , ' � i ^ � '^�N � ' � � � � �V � � ' - , : , �3 os � �',� ', i � Y North Shore Marina � � ,.�+ Y 4 � � 'i � . � � '(� \ � ' �r• � � \ i � � � � 0� \� _ � � �� . � � j � w � ' r �, a ,: ; Finney Site �� r�� W ; � • Hendrickson/Windenburg Site 91.6a "� � ; � t 3d:3� Ho H , . ..,...�,• m � ';.. � 360.8 • 12�.iz ' � �' -- . �; Pacovsky Site �� o�^- � �E 9L ��`� , . - o°� r� Blomberg Site w . ,, �t a �.:,. � N : � � � �� , i 128.6��_....� Q i�, 16,6 '�' f,+` ., _. � � � Wallace Site ' O Y •Y �r.• .•••r. . � `:� �VI �.�•� � y� • 9�� Y i8B3.53 R�S --.—� ----- -- ,�. . . ` S � : , .. • .. � . � .� , � .. . ' � .. ` , ., . .� ••� � � • . , . . - . . � . . ' . . � X . � � .. ' , . . , � . . � � . � � � � �'`� •4p�a� � -�.. .' . � �. . , ' . .. _ �-17:s e _Ll� .5c.e,.bC•titi t `�c�c'�cwt�� +..--+M�--- � , _ - ~ _ _ ,�' �,. . .. e. — _ — ` — _ — _ -- N�°n`v �:38,5�� Propei.a �di+�o,,,,o dUjq� �t t� � '1 w�e� ' ' , . � ,�1' w � i N i � �� b � ' ' 1 - — _ _ � 3c 1 , - - - _ _ , . " �° � so I�zo Oc1�i-ti, C �12°I.� ' i � 3w 3b � i IZ i ►y . �� 1 �o- 1 �on 3y�s" ies,M ,,dt .16 - - '- - I s;�� iM " � ` , -�.r.�.. " - - _ , . ex+..,iru, , - ..� ��j 0 3$.S �e ' � . 3'1 FreM z;d,. t+{c �, . . 4"1.S,�� 1 ' i ��" �*""°^ i ISO f ' � , . � r � � . r � , � �u� � � p, r � l4 S 1�4re� �oode.�.:,x::,. � ' � I ! �t��'""" 7Q ...._ I 1?e o k, �Ti ,/ 1 ..._.'_'''-�� °° '1 w�dt `�� .�l'�'1.1t�N�''T�� ' , 1Y,�' � , �-.a � '8`�Y ,� s��:1�,��= 30.�. , �� r � � ��-SHORELINE ANfl 92g,4 CONTOUF�, TM ��RTHYVEST UNE OF LOT I � �RDINARY H1GH WATER MARK • � 7.8t�' � i � FOUND 3/4" IRON� �, — - � � � - � --_ � \ ' � `�i 00.04—_. — _ ��.7f �`N ;57'51'27" E ;�� ;�°C�N � ;SURVEY , O � LINE 1� �iR,, . / / l \ � � ; /,p ` �/ I , I �� , � � � _ , , �. - - _ ; i r � � � � . � �` — ` ; I � ; �— _ � ; , � � . '� , _ , � . A � � , r—� _ ��` A r x�� i � — - ' . p��P��o � / � ,� � i S"c.Cr e`e ; � � � �- �,�� ?3 �0�� I ' �4569 � � v �� n/ � � I v � v Q � v o-�•_1 J ' �o I _ , , , , , �, , � � � � � � , � 3�g� NO r�h S h.pr• (,�y � � i O ., .�. .,... .., ._.._._. ....,_.._., ¢ � � - . � i � �I'� r� �. �—; � . �_...`'r � � O � �� , 1 j i I�y�r_' i; � �' � �0 Ne.�h �`�+� ( � m � �j� �t �� ; �!� ;� �;� �; ; I�r`. ; o � � � , , `� I �� ; � � �I M�aR � � 2003 ��i!f . ; , � o �..�; ` ' I, , � --� :� , , , � �, ------ - - — --i , , � .... .._...___.._.,.. . ,. _ ! ...-_. ; D LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RE: APPLICATION OF FREDRICK AND MICHELLE PACOVSKY AND RE: APPLICATION OF SHIRLEY HENDRICKSON, RICK WINDENBURG AND MARK FTNNEY FTNDINGS A public hearing was held on the application for dock ]ength, side setback, and adjusted dock use area variances for Fredrick and Michelle Pacovsky a17:00 p.m. on June 26,2002,at the Tonka Bay City Hall in the City of Tonka Bay, Minnesota. A public hearing was held on the application for dock ]eng111, side setback, and adjusted dock use area variances for Shirley Hendrickson, Rick Windenburg and Mark Finney at 7:00 p.m. on August 28, 2002, at the Tonka Bay City Hail in the City of Tonka Ba.y, Minnesota. Both matters were considered at subsequent meetings of the Board. Because the two applications are for adjacent properties, the resolution of one application appeared likely to affect the other. Therefore, the two applications were combined in an effort to consider a11 the implications of the variances requested and to reach a single conclusion that would provide reasonable access to the Lake for the various properties involved. The four properties that are subject to this order are: 3210 North Shore Drive(the Finney Properiy); 3200 North Shore Drive (the Hendrickson/'Windenburg Properiy); 3186 North Shore Drive (the Pacovsky Property); and 3180 North Shore Drive(the Blomberg Property). All four properties are on Maxwell Bay in the City of Orono. All four properties have shallow water within their authorized dock use areas and one, the Pacovsky Property, has converging lot lines. The Board finds these conditions to be hardships within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 1.07. The Boazd further finds that variances for length, setback, and adjustrnent of dock use areas, as provided in this order, are consistent with the spirit and intent of the Code and provide reasonable and equitable access to the Lake for the owners of the properties involved. ORDER On flie basis of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the LMCD Board of Directors grants and orders variances for the four properties involved as follows and as depicted on Attachment One, attached hereto and made a part of this Order: A. The Finnev Propertv. A variance is ordered for the Finney Property in accordance with the following description and conditions: 1. A dock use area length variance is granted to a length of 100 feet from the shoreline at 929.4 NGVD. 2. All docks and watercraft storage must be contained within the area defined by such 100 foot length limitations and 15 feet from the extension northward of the east and west lot lines of the site. CLL221662v1 I.3CI 10-4 1 3. No side-openinb slips openinb toward the easi are permitied. B. The Hendrickson/Windenbur 7 Aropertv. A variance is ordered for the Hendnckson/Windenburg Properiy in accardance with the fo)]owinb description and u�nditions: l. A dock use area lengt.h variance is��ranted to a length of l0U feet from the shoreline at elevation 929.4 NGVD. 2. For reference purposes, the northerly exte�lsion of the easterly Iot line of the Hendrickson/Windenburg Property is deflected 13 degrees 31 minutes to the west from the point at which it crosses the shoreline at 929.4 NGVD. The side lines of the dock use area for the Property will be the area lying between the following two lines: a line 5 feet west of and parallel to the adjusted east lot line;and a line 39 feet west of and paralle] to the adjusted east lot line;provided,however,that the dock use area shall not include #he area lying west of the extended west lot line of the Hendrickson/Windenburg Property. All docks and watereraft storage must be contained within the defined area. 3. No side-opening slips are pemzitted opening either toward the west or toward the east of the Hendrickson/Windenburg Property. C• The Pacovskv Property. A variance is ordered for the Pacovsky Properiy in accordance with the following description and conditions: 1. A dock use area length variance is granted to a length of 90 feet from the shoreline at � elevaxion 929.4 NGVD. 2. For reference purposes, the northerly extension of the westerly iot line of the Pacovsky Property is deflected 13 degrees 31 minutes to the west from the point where it crosses the shoreline at 929.4 NGVD, and the northerly extension of the easterly lot line is deflected 15 degrees 13 minutes to the east from the point at which it crosses the shoreline at 929.4 NGVD. The dock use area.shall maintain a 5 foot setback from the deflecteti east and west lot line extensions. All docks and watercraft storage must be contained within the defined azea. 3• Only one straight dock may be constructed in the dock use area and such dock shall � be constructed adjacent to the west edge of the dock use azea. 4- Only one watercraft may be stored at the Pacovsky Property dock use area. Such watercraft may have a beam not exceeding 8 1/2 feet and a length not exceeding 24 f��, as meas�.u'ed with a11 equipment in normal opera.ting position. Such watercraft must be stored on the east side of the dock CLL221662v1 1dC110-4 2 �' �� B��-�'r��n�ny. A variance is ordered for the Blomberg Properiy in accordance with ihc followin�;description �nd c;onditions: �• The dock use area lenbrth variance is granted to a length of]30 feet from elevation 929.4 NGVD. 2• For reference purposes, the northerly extension of the westerly lot line of the B)omberg Property is deflected l5 degrees l3 minutes to the east from the poi�3t at. which it crosses the shoreline at 929.4 NGVD. Setbacks from the extended east lot line and t.he adjusted extended west lot line shall be 5 feei for the first 50 feet frorn the shoreline and 10 feet from the area betvveen 50 feet and 130 feet from the shoreline. No side-opening slips opening toward the west are permitted. All docks and watercrafi storage must be contained within the defined area. The granting of these variances shall grant no vested rights to the use of Lake Minnetonka Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to assure the public of reasonable and e�uitable access to the Lake. BY OR.DER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the Lake Minnetonica Conservation District this ;%-"' day of_ �:,�r.�=/ ,2002. ,�:- � /' / .�-��,�'�� ,L . Albert O. Foster,Chair ATTEST: � i; !� ,�' v�-,(�� (��. 1� , i Lili McMillan, Secretary CLL227662v1 1K110�4 3 - . i��A��t M�N�' (�i'v� PROPOSED DOCK SKETCH FOR IV� ICHELLE PACOV � KY � IN BLOCK 2, CRYSTAL. BAY PARK & IN GOV' T LOT 1 , SEC. 8-1 17--23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE � �INNEToNKA . MAXWELL BAY EXISTING DOCK I f � . _. , 1 I:. 3,.� ......; � h � '. i�� . \ � \\ � 2$ ..... �,, I �� ` . I `� . � I , � '� 1 � ` I � : , � �....... � ; , � . ............... I ` I ._3,+....................... �� p�`i �, ........:�:� EXIST�JG EXTENDED LOT LWES � ��, i ................ 1 �� . • //�i I �� i � I`� � . �,... �� ; �� ',� DOCK $ ,` �� i `, a USE �`�\ i� � �` AREA 4a � � � �� ' � DOCK �� = I D�CK � � �� t USE 1 , � �� $ AREA I 1'� I1 I U�A ` /�� . ...... . � ...............�„J ��CK CONTOUR�, � � k „�• :•'� :' I �ETBACK ' �� LWE I j. / �.��... � 5 � �, ,:��. � I � ': ••........... � � � � , . �'`�.... � .. ... ,� . �SETBACK I 1 � � I I.:�,z'.. 1 6q.: ............. i ,t ..... �`, . 5a= •_, .:............. _ � ................................ 57.3 ................................... ..................................57.75.................................. MARK FINNEY SHIRLEY HENDRICKSON FRED & MIr,MELLE PACOVSKY 3210 NORTM SHORE DRIVE 3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE 3186 NORTti SHORE DRIVE ,� � . � -r � �� : � � �' _ .--- .._..- ------ , .; __ .- r; ,,� ___-_. . ; . � __ � ,. ,,, ,-. �, : � � . � � , _. , , �-� . t_� .. � ,. ; � . - , ; E REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION I FEREBY CERTFY THA7 THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATiON, OR REPORT ��E � �� ►�� ro GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES INC. WAS PREPARED 8Y A1E OR UNDER MY ORECT SI�ERVISqN ANO ,N� � THAT I AM A OI,LY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENCYrEER MA LAFb s io-�-ox eoa ae Ww uo Pwa��aeD rKaxt ooac swM eco SIRYETOR tWER iFf UwS Of t�f STAiE OF 1rtfESOTA DATE ECO � �onioa ecvsm rucPocxsaK n+ar voac usc Mus rn CONSULTWC ENCNEERS�LrUD SUR4ETORS�SITE PIAM�RS 7-30-02 hA5 N. WN.LOW DR. LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 CMSQD 952-473-41h1 DATE AN! IICENSf N1�18ER ��. 02-2328 02-2328 - -- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26,2002 Page 3 Foster opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and asked for background on the proposed application from staff. Nybeck made the following comments • The applicant has submitted an application for variance from Code for the residence at 3186 North Shore Drive in the City of Orono on Maxwell Bay. The applicant has proposed a variance from Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. Physical hardships identified for the dock length variance are converging lot lines and shallow water. • The proposed dock would originate from approximately 27'of continuous 929.4' NGVD shoreline. The applicant has proposed two site plans, both with an "H"shaped dock that would extend approximately 110'into the Lake from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline, with three BSU's. These three BSU's would include: 1) a 16'x 36.5'slip without a canopy, and 2)two tie-ons in front of the 16'x 36.5'slip for the storage of two personal watercraft. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26,2002 Page 4 • Code Section 2.01 that requires docking and watercraft storage to be contained within an authorized dock use area, and Section 1.07 that allows the Board to consider applications for variance from Code, were reviewed. A typical hardship for a dock length variance is shallow water, while a typical hardship for a side setback and adjusted dock use area variance is converging lot lines. The applicant documented water depths of approximately 28"-31", 60'from the 929.4'NGVD shoreline, and approximately 35.5"-38", 110'from the 929.4' NGVD shoreline. He believed that a physical hardship existed for the proposed dock length variance. • In addition to the dock length variance, the applicant would need some combination of adjustment of lot line extensions, reducing the area available to the neighbors on one or both side, and setback reductions. The impact on the storage rights of the neighbors could be reduced by granting side setback or dock length variances to the neighbors, or by changing the configuration of the applicanYs dock,or both. An alternative dock design, possible a straight dock with watercraft stored on one-side of the dock, might be more appropriate for this site. • The City of Orono stated that they believed a physical hardship existed for the applicant; however, an altemative dock design that is agreeable to the applicant and the abutting property owners was recommended. No comments were received from the MN DNR. • He believed that a physical hardship existed for the dock length and adjusted dock use area variance requests; however, he recommended that the Board should take into consideration how it would impact the abutting property owners. The abutting property owners have expressed concem about the proposed site plans and the Board might want to consider an amended site ptan that would have less impact on them. The Board might want to consider holding the public hearing and continuing it to a future Regular Meeting and send it back to staff level, with interested Board member participation, to investigate whether an amended site plan could be agreed to by the applicant or other interested parties. • He entertained comments or questions from the Board. Foster stated that he had been involved in other adjusted dock use area variance requests in the past. He raised a concem that one of the proposed site plans would primarily adjust the side site line extension from the east neighbor rather than equally between the east and west neighbors. He added that he would like to see further information on the proposed site plans that documents 929.4' NGVD shoreline at the two abutting properties. He supported the dock length variance requests but he questioned whether a dock as proposed should be allowed at a site with 27'of shoreline. He supported the concept of allowing staff to work out the details on the possibility of an amended site plan for the proposed variance request. He asked the applicant how much fetch is in the area for the creation of waves. Mr. Fred Pacovsky stated that the property faces north and there is an occasional northwest wind in the area. He clarified that the proposed "H"dock measurements are 16'x 40'on the outside. Nelson stated that he believed review of the letters received and the proposed site plans would result in an unfair impact on the abutting property owners. He supported the neighbors in the area sharing a dock(s),or an amended proposed site plan,that would have less impact on the abutting property owners. Seuntjens stated that he would like to know how much shoreline the abutting property owners have. Mr. Paul Blomberg, 3180 North Shore Drive, stated that he owned the abutting property to the east and he purchased it in 1986 with 100'of shoreline. He has had a permanent dock with the abutting property to his east that has 100'of shoreline. His dock is currently approximately 135' in length and was granted a temporary low- water variance in 1987. In 1986 when he purchased the properry, there also was a common dock for the applicant's property and the abutting property to the west, 3200 North Shore Drive, that existed for a number of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26,2002 Page 5 years until around 1998. This dock was abandoned at that time and the situation changed from a common dock to two separate docks. He stated that his primary interest is to ensure that the variance request being considered by the Board for the Pacovsky's does not greatly impact his rights to docking in the future in case his common dock goes away. Ms. Shirley Hendrickson, 3200 North Shore Drive,stated that she and Rick Windenburg owned the abutting property to the west. She made the following comments: • A letter was circulated that summarized their comments on the proposed application, suggested factors when considering a variance, and two altemative proposed site plans. She clarified that their site had 57' of shoreline and she reviewed their current dock configuration, noting that it extends approximately 90' into the lake. • The applicant's property is currently for sale and she expressed concern about the correlation between large dock site plans and how they would increase the resale value of the property. She believed that a revised site plan that would be scaled back might more appropriate than the two proposed site plans. • The installation of the North Shore Marina multiple dock squeezes the abutting property owners to the east. She reviewed the two altematives they proposed for the Pacovsky site, noting that they would involve a shorter straight dock rather than an "H"dock. The applicant does not currently live in the residence and she believed that the primary purpose for the proposed variance application is to increase value to the property that is currently for sale. • She concurred with the recommendation of staff to get the applicant together with the neighbors to see if an amended site plan could be agreed to by the applicant and the abutting property owners. Babcock asked the applicant whether they currently resided at 3186 North Shore Drive. Pacovsky stated that they moved from this residence last fall and that they were in the process of selling it. The purpose of the proposed variance application was to define the dock and boat storage allowed at this site, noting that the size of the lot was 3/4 of an acre. Nybeck stated that staff advised the applicant last summer that the variance application process was the only way to get long-term clarification of the riparian rights for this site rather than utilizing the mutual consent option. Pacovsky stated that they had always had an "H"dock extending from site in the past to store a 26'long boat. The intent of the proposed applications is to illustrate that they have lakeshore rights and not to increase the value of the property through the variance process. The dock currently installed at 3200 North Shore Drive does not comply with Code requirements and they might also need a variance from Code. Babcock stated that the District generally does not get involved with the docking at the neighborhood level when there is mutual consent because the issues generally work themselves out. In this situation,whether a dock with a certain configuration has been done in the past is not a relevant issue because it appeared as though it did not conform to Code and was illegal. Ms. Michelle Pacosky expressed concern about the Code and how side site line extensions extend into the Lake the same direction that they are platted on land. She suggested that Minnesota law would extend these side site lines into the Lake from the shoreline at right angles. She believed that the shoreline at the site was 34' rather than the 27'that has been documented by the surveyor, because they pay taxes on 34'. Babcock clarified that the jurisdiction for the District is at the 929.4' NGVD,the ordinary high water mark established for Lake Minnetonka. Above the ordinary high water mark is private property and below it is joint Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26,2002 Page 6 space for the public and the abutting property owner, noting that it is subject to reasonable regulations of the District. The 27'of shoreline documented at the 929.4' NGVD by the surveyor is the correct figure to use when evaluating the amount of shoreline at this site. The ordinances for the District extended the platted side site lines in the water the same direction from where they intersect the 929.4' NGVD shoreline at this site, noting that this sometimes creates a physical hardship and needs a variance from Code. Foster stated that he believed a physical hardship exists for this site; however,the primary question was how the side site lines should be adjusted on the abutting properties. Mr. Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore Drive, stated that the dock installation used by the applicant in the past made it difficult for him to get a boat out from his dock when the applicant parked a boat on the west side of their dock, noting that their dock was installed from the center of their property. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Wert stated that the concept that there was mutual consent for dock in this area in the past and it does not currently exist was not new for the District. He suggested that it would be appropriate to send the proposed variance application back to staff to see if all parties involved could agree on a revised site plan, Foster agreed that he believed the proposed application could not be resolved this evening at the Board level and that it should be sent back to staff level, McMillan stated that she believed physical hardships of converging lot lines and shallow water existed for the applicant's site. The site itself is very narrow and the applicant deseroes a dock extending from it; however,the applicant needs to compromise on the type of dock and the number of watercraft to be stored at it. She believed that a shared dock with one of the abutting property owners seems to make sense; however, a compromised individual dock needs to be considered if that is what they desire. Foster and Van Hercke concurred with McMillan. Foster stated that he would like to have a more comprehensive survey that highlights the side site lines and docking of the couple of sites in both directions from the applicants site because the adjustment of dock use areas might include multiple neighbors in the area. He believed that the applicant would need to revise their proposed site plan a much smaller dock, without an"H", if a permanent variance is granted for the site. Babcock stated that when the District grants variances from Code, it takes into consideration physical hardships created by the property and not a boat to be stored at the dock. He concurred with Foster that the survey proposed by the applicant should broader in scope and should include other affected property properties. Seuntjens stated that he would also like the North Shore Marina dock included in the survey proposed by the applicant. Wert stated that the Board should not take whether the applicant lives in the residential property at the site into consideration when reviewing the request for variance from Code. Pacovsky asked if he could put a dock out in the interim while the Board was considering the proposed variance application. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 26, 2002 Page 7 Babcock stated that a dock from the applicant's site should not be installed unless there is mutual consent from the abutting property owner(s). The Board directed staff to facilitate a meeting with the applicant and the affected property owners in the near future to investigate whether a revised site plan could be agreed to by all parties involved,documented by updated survey, and brought back for review by the Board a future Regular Meeting. The meeting was recessed at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 28,2002 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING • Hendrickson/Windenburg and Finney, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. 1A. Fredrick and Michelle Pacovsky, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area variance(Public Hearing conducted at 6/26/02 Regular Board Meeting). Foster called the public hearing to order at 7:05 p.m. and asked staff for background on the proposed application. Nybeck made the following comments; • The staff memo prepared for the public hearing also pertains to agenda item 1A,the pending Pacovsky variance application. During the public hearing and consideration, it would make sense to consider both proposed variance applications at the same time. • Shirley Hendrickson and Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore Drive, and Mark Finney, 3210 North Shore Drive, have submitted a joint variance application for consideration on Maxwell Bay in the City of Orono. The application has been submitted for variance from LMCD Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. Physicaf hardships of converging lot lines and shall water have been identified, with a public hearing notice published in the 8/13/02 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News. • At its 6/26/02 Regular Meeting,the Board conducted a public hearing and considered a variance application from Fredrick and Michelle Pacovsky, 3186 North Shore Drive. The applicants at this meeting proposed two site plans, with concems raised BY the abutting property owners. The Board took no action at this meeting and staff was directed to facilitate a meeting with the applicant and the affected property owners to investigate whether a revised site plan could be agreed to by all parties,documented by an updated survey, and brought back for review by the Board at a future Regular Meeting. • Staff facilitated a neighborhood meeting to discuss the docking situation in the area on July 11th. In addition to Nybeck, Board members Babcock and McMillan were in attendance at this meeting. Also in attendance were Fred and Michelle Pacovsky, Shirley Hendrickson and Rick Windenburg, Rich Anderson, Paul Blomberg, and Mike Wallace. Based on the discussions at this meeting and subsequent discussions amongst these property owners, a revised survey has been proposed for the Pacovsky variance application and the joint variance application submitted for the Hendrickson/Windenburg and Finney sites. Foster stated that this area of Maxwell Bay has a characteristic of shallow water and the proposed docks are longer than what is allowed by LMCD Code. Nybeck continued his comments: • At the Pacovsky site, a 90' long straight dock(no canopy) has been proposed from the 27'of continuous 929.4' NGVD shoreline,for the storage of a 26' long dock and a jet ski. The applicant has proposed to adjust the eastern extended side site line slightly over 17 degrees to the east and to adjust the westem extended side site line slightly over six degrees to the west for this dock. No side setback variances are proposed from the adjusted side site line extensions. • At the HendricksonNVindenburg site, a 100' long "H"dock(no canopy) has been proposed from the 64'of continuous 929.4' NGVD shoreline, for the storage of a 26' long dock and a 16' long boat. A six foot side setback is proposed from the eastem adjusted side site line extension and 15'from the westem side site line extension. No boats are proposed to be stored on the east side of the dock. • At the Finney site, a 100' long dock(with canopy) has been proposed from the 58'of continuous 929.4 NGVD shoreline, for the storage of a 22' long pontoon and a 19' long boat in front of it. The proposed Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 28, 2002 Page 3 canopy and dock structure would comply with Code for side setback requirements for both the dock and the canopy. • Two Code Sections apply to the proposed variance applications. First, Code Section 2.01,subd. 1 requires that docking and watercraft storage be contained within the authorized dock use area for these sites. He reviewed the Code requirements for these sites, noting that none of them were fully contained within their authorized dock use areas. Second, Code Section 1,07 allows the Board to consider applications for variance from Code, provided the application of the Code causes the applicant a practical difficulty or a physical hardship. A dock length, side setback, and adjusted dock use area variance is required for the Pacovsky site. The proposed adjusted dock use area variance has been supported by the Hendrickson/Windenburg site; however, there has not been direct communication ftom the abutting neighbor to the east, Paul Blomberg. A dock length and side setback variance is required at the Hendrickson/Windenburg site. A dock length variance is required at the Finney site. • The City of Orono and MN DNR were provided a copy of both variance applications. The City of Orono stated that they recommended approval of the proposed variance applications, provided the neighbors can agree on an altemative site plan. No feedback had been received from the MN DNR. • In considering the proposed variance applications, the Board should take into consideration the written comments from Mr. Blomberg. If the Board is comfortable with the proposed variance applications as submitted, staff�lieves that the Board could direct LeFevere to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the applications as submitted. He recommended those Findings of Fact and Order should be prepared for each site individually. • He entertained comments or questions from the Board. Wert asked if each of these sites had a primary residence. Nybeck stated that each site had a primary residence. Foster asked for comments from the public on the proposed applications. Mr. Paul Blomberg, 3180 North Shore Drive, stated that he was the abutting property owner to the east of the Pacovsky site. He reviewed comments he e-mailed to the District on 8/3/02 and 8/4/02, noting that he had some concem about the proposed variance applications for the three abutting sites to his west. At the Pacovsky site, he was not opposed to the proposed dock; however, he would prefer that the boat be stored on the west side of the dock rather than the east. He reviewed Code pertaining to the authorized dock use area for his site, noting that he believed it would be within his authorized dock use area if a boat were stored on the east side. He believed that there were altemative dock arrangements that would allow the three neighbors to achieve what they desire,which he stated that he would support. He expressed support that his authorized dock use area would take the brunt of the adjusted lot lines needed for the proposed variance applications. He asked the Board if they had any questions for him. Skramstad asked Blomberg if the dock with four slips in the 8/3/02 e-mail was hypothetical. Blomberg stated that this dock was hypothetical; however, he would be allowed to install it based on his review of the Code without a need for a variance. He added that installing the dock as proposed in the hypothetical would not work with the proposed variance application for the Pacovsky site. Foster stated that the District has established the jurisdiction in the past to adjust extended side site lines when concave conditions exist, noting that it sometimes involves the adjustment of several properties. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regul�r Board Meeting August 28,2002 Page 4 Knudsen asked Blomberg if moving the hypothetical four-slip dock in front of his site to the east would cause him a hardship. Blomberg stated that the 27'of shoreline at the Pacovsky clearly does not have an authorized dock use area if the side site lines are extended into the lake the same direction they are platted on land. At the neighbofiood meeting, he proposed a compromise for the Pacovsky site that would allow for a 17'wide adjusted dock use area with five foot side setbacks from the adjusted side site lines. This compromise would involve bisecting both of the Pacovsky side site lines; however, it was not well received by the neighbors in the immediate area. He stated he supported the Board granting a variance for access purposes for the Pacovsky site; however, he had concem about the HendricksonNVindenburg site being granted a 100' long dock length variance at the expense of his authorized dock use area. Wert stated that in concave shoreline situations, which appears to the case in this area, the District has in the past adjusted dock use areas of abutting property owners. He believed that it could be possible for Blomberg to move his proposed hypothetical dock to the east within his authorized dock use area to the east, yet protect his riparian rights. Foster stated that if the authorized dock use area is adjusted for the Pacovsky site and it impacts the Blomberg authorized dock use area, it would be the responsibility of both the owners and the interested party purchasing the Pacovsky residence to communicate this in the future. One option for the Board to consider would be to include any variance order approved by the District as part of the deed for the property. The area in question is public water and is not owned by the sites that abut the lake, and are subject to reasonable regulations. Babcock stated that Mr. Blomberg's comments regarding his authorized dock use area were based on strict application of Code. He questioned whether it is the responsibility of a property owner that has recently purchased a property with parallel side site lines to look down the shoreline and determine whether it could be impacted in the future by a variance request by a nearby property. He believed that the primary issue is whether the proposed adjusted dock use area request for the Pacovsky site should be adjusted more with the abutting property owner to the west, the Hendrickson/Windenburg site, noting that there would be a need for some give and take. Foster stated that if the Board required the Pacovsky's to store the 26'long boat on the west side of the dock rather than the east, it probably would include the moving of the Hendrickson/Windenburg dock also to the west. LeFevere stated that the proposed adjusted dock use area for the Pacovsky site would include adjusting the eastem extended side site line slightly over 17 degrees to the east towards the Blomberg site and the westem extended side site line slightly over six degrees to the west towards the Hendrickson/Windenburg site. Side setbacks are not proposed from either adjusted side site line extension and finro watercraft have been proposed on the Blomberg side of the dock. A six foot side setback has been proposed from the east edge of the Hendrickson/Windenburg dock to the adjusted eastern Pacovsky side site line extension. It might make sense for the Board to consider some form of a side setback variance for the Blomberg site on the east side of his dock use area. He believed that there would need to be probably a full side setback from the eastem adjusted extended side site line to provide maneuvering space for the front watercraft stored on the east side of the Pacovsky dock. Foster stated that he believed there were a number of issues regarding the proposed variance applications that would not be resolved at this meeting. He suggested moving the discussion along with the public to get their input before the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fred Pacovsky, 3186 North Shore Drive, stated that he and his wife submitted the original variance application being considered by the Board. There have been discussions with the affected neighbors and staff to amend the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting August 28,2002 Page 5 original proposed site plan to make it work. He believed that the proposed site plan addressed the neighborhood concem; however, they would be open to consider other changes. He urged the Board to make a decision in the near future because he believed that the process had been drawn out. Ms. Shirley Hendrickson, 3200 North Shore Drive,clarified that she had met with Paul Blomberg on August 11th to discuss the proposed site plan, She expressed concem about making further adjustments towards her property because she has a limited amount of shoreline and the location of the North Shore Marina dock causes them problems. She believed that the proposed site plan was reasonable and that both property owners abutting the Pacovsky site needed to give something. Mr. Mike Wallace, 3160 North Shore Drive, stated that he currently shares a dock with the Blomberg's. He expressed concem that the proposed site plan would have a great impact on the Blomberg site because the proposed jet ski does not include proper maneuvering space. He believed that there was enough space to move the structures slightly to the west and that would allow for joint maneuvering areas that would make all parties involved happy. Mr. Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore Drive, stated that if the Board had concems about maneuvering space for the proposed jet ski at the Pacovsky dock, it could be moved to the west side of the dock where a 6'side setback has been proposed from the adjusted side site�line. Babcock stated that if that were the case, it would require a greater adjustment of the westem side site line. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m. McMillan complimented the neighborhood for the compromises that had taken place to accommodate the docking needs for the Pacovsky site. She questioned whether the request made by the Pacovskys for two watercraft is reasonable. She suggested that it might be appropriate to limit the number and size of watercraft at this site. Babcock echoed the comments of McMillan and complimented the efforts of the neighborhood. He believed that the proposed dock was relatively close; however, there are four points for the Board to consider if the applications are sent back to staff for further work. They include: 1) limiting the number and size of watercraft at the Pacovsky dock, possibly to 24' length with less beam width, 2)the angles are skewed slightly to the south and should be equaled out,3)there might be a possibility to granted a further dock length variance at the HendricksonNUindenburg site to accommodate for the Pacovsky site with further adjustments to the west, and 4)any reduction in the dock use area for the Blomberg site could be adjusted elsewhere in the their authorized dock use area. Foster stated that he would support reducing the proposed adjustment of the eastern extended side site line. The Board directed staff to get the applicants and the affected property owners together to resolve the issues addressed by the Board. The meeting was recessed at 8:03 p.m. and re-convened at 8:07 p.m. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING REPORT 7:00 PM,Wednesday, September 25,2002 Tonka Bay City Hall ..._...--•- r•---••- ._ .._._ ...._ ...---••-o -.. ..._..__-�� - . . . Sheriff's Water Patrol would be scheduled for 10/31/02, with further details to be worked out at a later date. • Fredrick 8�Michelle Pacovsky, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. • Hendrickson/Windenburg 8 Finney, variance application from LMCD Code for side setback and dock length requirements, plus an adjusted dock use area. Nybeck provided an overview of a staff proposal for variance(s)for all three sites. This included an adjusted dock use area and dock length variance for the Pacovsky site; an adjusted dock use area,dock length, and side setback variance for the Hendrickson/Windenburg site; and a dock length variance for the Finney site. He believed that the applicants at these sites generally supported the proposal, noting that there would be a need to remedy the water surface area lost in front of the abutting property to the east of the Pacovsky site, Paul Blomberg. He recommended that the Board decide on dock use areas for the applicants and to direct them to update survey work to include the dock use areas at an upcoming Board Meeting. In addition to the applicants, testimony was received from Paul Blomberg and Mike Wallace. Chair Foster directed LeFevere to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of these variance applications, with the applicants to update the survey work to accompany these Findings. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 9,2002 Page 2 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. Consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the following variances: • Fredrick 8�Michelle Pacovsky, adjusted dock use area and dock length. • Shirley Hendrickson&Rick Windenburg, adjusted dock use area, dock length, and side setback. • Mark Finney,dock length, Foster asked staff for background on the draft Findings. Nybeck made the following comments: • At the 9/215/02 Regular Meeting, staff proposed dock use areas for the three sites that have submitted an application for variance from Code. The consensus of the Board and the applicants at that meeting was to proceed with the dock use areas because they believed that they were reasonable. The Board directed the applicants to transfer the proposed dock use areas on the survey and LeFevere was directed to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the variance applications for consideration at this meeting. • The Draft Findings of Fact and Order include four properties that are subject to this document. They include: 1)the Finney property-3210 North Shore Drive, 2)the Hendrickson/Windenburg property- 3200 North Shore Drive, 3)the Pacovsky-3186 North Shore Drive, and 4)the Blomberg property- 3180 North Shore Drive. • At the Finney site,there is only a need for a dock length variance. The dock use area length would be 100'from the 929.4'shoreline and would require a minimum of a 15'side setback from both extended side site lines. No side-opening slips towards the east would be permitted. No language was added to the Findings that would allow a canopy with less than the 20'side setback required by Code; however, this possibly could be done through mutual consent. Babcock stated that he believed the Code would not allow the owner of a commercial structure to enter into a mutual consent for amendment to required side setbacks for the canopy with the abutting resident. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 9,2002 Page 3 , Foster stated that he believed the intent of the 20'side setback for canopies was to aliow better views for abutting property owners that might be obstructed from a less restrictive side setback requirement. Because the Finney property abuts North Sho�e Marina that is a commercial property, he stated that he would not be troubled with a smaller side setback for the property to shield them from the commercial activity. Babcock stated that a dock with a canopy is not prohibited at this site. The problem at this site is that the applicant is proposing to put both a canopy and a wide dock within the authorized dock area. There was no adjustment of the side site line extensions at the Finney site and he expressed concem about granting a variance that would allow them to store more watercraft than they would be allowed if a dock length variance was not granted. Nybeck continued his comments: • At the Hendrickson/Windenburg site, the Findings include variance from Code for dock length,side setbacks,and an adjusted dock use area. A dock use area length variance would be granted to a length of 100'from the 929.4'shoreline. The northerly extension of the eastem extended side site line would be deflected 13 degrees 31 minutes to the west from the point at which it crosses the 929.4'shoreline. The side lines of the dock use area would be the area lying between the following two lines: a line five feet west of a parallel to the adjusted east lot line and a line 39'west of an parallel to the�justed east lot line. The dock use area shall not include the area lying west of the extended west lot line of this site. No side opening slips would be permitted opening either toward the west or toward the east. • At the Pacovsky site, the Findings include a variance from Code for length and an adjusted dock use area. The dock use area length variance would be granted to a length of 90'from the 929.4' shoreline. The northerly extension of the westem extended side site line would be adjusted as described in the Hendrickson/Windenburg site. The northerly extension of the eastem extended side site line would be deflected 15 degrees 13 minutes to the east ftom the point at which it crosses the 929.4'shoreline. The dock use area shall maintain a five foot setback from both of the deflected east and west lot line extensions. Only one straight dock may be constructed in the dock use area and such dock shall be constructed adjacent to the west edge of the dock use area. Only one watercraft could be stored at this dock and it may not have a beam exceeding 8%2 feet and must be stored on the east side of the dock. Some Board members have expressed interest in also restricting the length of the watercraft. Babcock stated that he would support restricting the length of the watercraft at the Pacovsky site to 24' length overall, with its equipment in normal operating position. Nybeck stated that the Board might want to expand the order to include the Wallace property at 3160 North Shore Drive. In the draft Findings for the Blomberg site, a dock use area length variance would be granted to a length of 100'from the 929.4' shoreline. Blomberg has requested a dock length variance at his property and the adjacent property to the east,of 130'from the 929.4'shoreline. Blomberg proposed a five foot side setback for the entire 130' long dock use area on the west side and a 10'side setback on the east side. In the draft Findings, LeFevere has proposed setbacks from extended line of five feet for the first 50'from the 929.4'shoreline and 10'setbacks for the area between 50'and 100'from the 929.4'shoreline. The granting of a length variance to 130'at both sites would generally allow the common dock they share to be continued. Babcock stated that extending the dock use area to 130'from the 929.4'shoreline at the Blomberg site might make sense because of the water depth problems in the area,especially if its four feet at the end of the dock. � ,Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting October 9,2002 Page 4 Although water depths may be a problem at the Wallace site, he stated that he would be reluctant to include this site in the Findings because the water depths have not been documented and a public hearing has not been conducted. LeFevere stated that it would difficult to include the Wallace property in the Findings because the Pacovsky adjustment did not adjust the Wallace side site line extensions and the neighbors in the immediate area were not notified through a public hearing notice that variance from Code was being considered at the Wallace site. Babcock stated that the Wallace property could always make an application for variance from Code in the future. Foster stated that he believed the Board could support a 130' long dock use variance at the Blomberg site, noting that Mr. Wallace could make an application for variance from Code for dock length. The Board might want to consider waiving fees for the Wallace variance application; however, he believed that the Board should focus on the four sites that are included in the Findings. Babcock stated that he concurred with Foster; however, he was concemed about waiving fees for a hypothetical variance application for Wallace. LeFever�stated that the Board might want to consider the following changes in the draft Findings: • In A2) in the Order, Babcock has recommended changing the word "boat"to"watercraft. Babcock has also added language at all four sites in the Order that would require°all docks and watercraft to be contained in the defined dock use areas". • In C4) in the Order, Babcock has recommended limiting the watercraft length at the Pacovsky site to 24'length overall, with equipment at its normal operating position. • At the Blomberg site in the Order, it might make sense to adjust the dock use area length from 100' as detailed in the draft Findings to 130'as recommended by staff. He recommended that it might make sense to maintain the side setbacks at the Blomberg site from both side site lines as outlined in the draft Findings. McMillan stated that it might be beneficial for future residents and Board members to add language to the Findings that state what variance are approved at each property. At the Wallace site, they should make applications for a separate dock length variance if they would like to extend their dock 130'from the 929.4' shoreline because they are not directly related to the variance applications included in the draft Findings like the Blomberg property is. Mr. Rich Anderson, owner of North Shore Marina,stated that he believed the 24' length restriction for the watercraft at the Pacovsky site might be too restrictive based on the current market. Seuntjens stated that he might be supportive of a 26'length restriction at the Pacovsky site rather than 24'. Babcock stated that other applicants have been restricted to a 24' length restriction by the Board because that was believed to be a reasonable boat size on Lake Minnetonka. He recommended a 24' length restriction for consistency purposes. MOTION: Gilman moved, Babcock seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for the Pacovsky, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District , Regular Board Meeting October 9,2002 Page 5 Hendrickson/Windenburg, and Finney variance applications, subject to amending it to incfude the language as outlined by LeFevere. VOTE: Motion camed unanimously. Foster directed staff to notify the owners of the Wallace prope�ty that they were not included in the approved variances granted in the approved Findings of Fact and Order. He encouraged them to submit an application for variance from Code if they want to continue the shared dock with the Blomberg's or if they want to install their own dock out beyond 100'from the 929.4'shoreline. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. � , �.�-� � / �7-o y-.� � �� 'J `'� Lake Minnetonka Conservation District �j� TFMPORARY I)OCK LMCD }�cc �1--.��-- 7'ENStUN — (for LMCD use) ause this form is ! to be copied, please ! �``/"� �„r�`-`l '"1. Z � use black ink or type. ! '�iI arr��~«� `' _`` i APPLICATION: TEMPORARY DOCK EXTENSION PERI�IIT During periods when the Lake level falls below 929.4 feet and when so declared by resolution of the Board, the Executive Director may issue permits for temporary dock extensions beyond the authorized dock use area. This application is being made pursuant to LMCD Resolution No. � �? declaring low water level. ��ViV��H �, �v//O �fqU� J ,�'Lo M�r�r (Print or type owner's name) �!o a .v ,�7�✓�f�.o r �3 /�o �/o��1'!,o�P�f; `f�l -��S� (Owner's address) (Phone) the owner of land in the City of CrJ �'�j ,�(j mailing address or location of dock for which permit is sought: c.,.�,q-�i z�i�- 5�3�'/ c..�:�i Z.q-�� .�,.�- S�3�/ Business name, or name of occupant on premises where dock is to be located: X �n nt�i A� �c.�//U � ��i N i � ��L J� ✓3 Lor�G.�zr ��/-��,5� (Phone) (Piailing address if different from street address) which is riparian to LMCD area(s) No(s).�� Lake Minnetonka, applies pursuant to LMCD Code §3.02, Subd. 2(c) for a Temporary Dock Extension Permit, in accordance with all data and other information submitted herewith and made a part hereof. The following must accompany this application: (a) Locator map (c) Site plan of dockage showing present dock, (b) County plat of area extension requested, and water depths 1. Type of facility ( )Outlot association ( )Municipal ( )Commercial marina �please check one): ( )Multiple dwelling ( )Transient ( )Private club ( )Private multiple �Other (explain) �Q,f j�,o,��j�9L 2. A. Site Lake frontage: ��a feet. -�4�c"�i c� a �OM�+oN .�o?J' B. Distance of dock presently into the Lake: �feet. C. Depth of water at end of dock: �'� f.�.�., D. Lake elevation: 9�feet, date: -�� E. Feet below: 929.4 minus Lake elevation (D) _ , /� feet. F. 929.4 water depth at end of dock (C + E) _ ' �� - G. Distance (feet) beyond end of dock to reach 929.4 water depth (F) = 9(� feet H. Distance of temporary dock extension requested: �_feet. I. Total temporary distance dock extends into the Lake: /�� feet. NOTE: Dock length is measured from the 929.4 shoreline. �� r , . Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Application: 1'emporary llock ��P�i�-P�� z�silc� z. Extension Permit Name �,<{u� �LL�!�^ v'�<<7 5. Special requirements: A. Please indicate the need for the temporary dock extension: - �L� �•� t�.�.A�T�r- 1 �}fl�LC� �/`fz�r-� A�'F� f�A T! B. The extension shall be a temporary, seasonal type dock. No extensions�may�/ be on pile driven or permanent year-round docks. Noted: check here (C�! C. The extension shall meet all requirements of the LMCD other tha,n�/the length limitation described in this application. Noted: check here (�I. D. The extension shall only be permitted during the time the water level is below elevation 929.4 feet and, at any given time, shall be permitted only to the � extent of the equivalent dockage and comparable depth existing at a lake eievation of 929.4 feet. Noted: check here ((�! E. The extension, together with the original dock, shall not be used to provide storage space for a greater number of boats or watercraft than are authorized under the LMCD Code or for a greater number of boats or watercraft than are licensed if a 1'cense for the dock is required under the LMCD Code. Noted: check here (� I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct statements; I understand that any license issued may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code; and I consent to permittiag officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at all reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District being com�ed with. 3�� Ownc � (iu�"�i''',;'� G�.c�/� � �-.-^-,Q . tiu_7or�zed sigr►at•�are ui�,.� � ��c.:�=4�� fj�r to Title Relationship to owner .�,Q '� . Date �"�,� �� Return this application and attachments to: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Phone: (612) 473-7033 4-6-87 f • . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Resolution No. 82 �t:,�>Gi��';'i'� ::_::�:..".:�-';G E?�i) TU LOtti' HA�r-R CO:�liITIG:� A:��) ��.SC.T\JI�vG RrSG�.:.�_0:�� ?F�3 & 73 t',r�:s<�A� the i:aicF� ?✓innetoi?ha Gonservation District (1_�'CD) !3<�"u-'?'Q Ui �! 2't'(:t0_"S �iG�07tt�Q �eSOlilt_iU:l ?fJ3 j)E'!"'L21:??Il� i0 t!7E! �'I':-!:l ."t� U� I,f`r'T::i : S I.(;?' tEli!UOI'cI",' , SE:3SU212±-�J''T�e GOC1� E'?�i.f-71S2U:1S i7f�t'G;1Ci L ;1� (1UC}: liSe i3?"EH 25 pI'OV?CEQ i:?1GeI" !i"C,17 GoaN Sect.io�i 2 . Ci_ , $ub� , 2 (Q j wr,en tne Laice ieve� ialis �e' ow 929 . 4 � eic,vation and wnen so deciared bv resoiution of the Baard ; and r :'tH-R--1iS �ne ��'CJ 3oa:d ac:op'ted Resoiution ,''�/3 perLairiinG to wai�-in� appiic�ticns ier permits ior temporary aock eatens�.o:�s at resicientisl docxs not requiring a ' icense unc�er L:vGD Gode Sectior_ 2 . 03 ; ana ��:iY��f1� tne curren� La+ce ievei slands at eievation 929 . 72 ' , -� • G • 4•� • , i 9?9 . as observee ane reported "b�� the ''inne�a�a GreE k ;�;�:.ersi?�c_ �; s;.�_c` , �O�ti , -�iERr�GRE , �� I� RESOL��=D 'o�- tne Boara of Directors of :.i12 ::F3l�P. �'_37:']E�;_0=?zC.:i �.O_'1SC-'T'V2L10Il ✓1StZ1Ct t.'laL L�':C' Resolutions ;k�3 �nc ��73 are rescindea Aaontec by the La%e Vinnetonka Conservation Dis��ict Board of Directors this 26th dQy of February , 1992 . �� . / :� i Gc.v-�� - /� ' ` � David h. C�chra>> . Chair ATTE:.;ST: �, � ._ � - �.:.�`-J '�%�?�7i1�� Euge e R . Strommen , Eaecutive Director . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION N0. 73 RESIDENTIAL TEMPORARY DOCK EXTENSIONS WITHOUT A PERMIT APPLICATION WHE1tEAS LMCD Code §2.01, Subd. 2 d) requires that during periods when the Lake level falls below 929.4 feet and when so declared by resolution of the Board, the Executive Director may issue permits for temporary dock extensions beyond the authorized dock use area subject to cer- tain limitations; and WHEREAS LMCD Resolution No. 53 of 4-1-87 declared a low water emergency con- dition for Lake Minnetonka existed, and that resolution has not been rescinded but is still in effect; and WHEREAS Because an extraordinarily high number of residential temporary dock extension permit applications had been received for the 1989 season, that the Board on 5-24-89 waived applications under certain guide- lines for docks at residential properties; and WHEREAS On 1-24-90 the Board renewed the waiver of residential appiications for temporary low water extensions for the 1990 season; and WHEREAS On 2-26-91 the level of Lake Minnetonka stood at elevation 926.65 feet, N.G.V.D. , 1929, as observed and reported by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 2.75 feet below elevation 929.4 feet; and WHEREAS It is proposed that the application requirements for temporary dock extensions at residential properties be waived for the 1991 season, with guidelines publicized and/or advertised to enlist public re- sponse and cooperation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the LMCD Board of Directors waive appli- cations for permits for temporary dock extensions at residential docks under the following guidelines: 1. Residential docks may be extended beyond the authorized dock use area (that being the area basically bordering on the Lake which extends into the Lake a distance equal to the site Lake frontage measured at right angles to the side site lines, and not extending into the Lake a dis- tance greater than 100 feet measured on a line parallel to the side site lines as extended into the Lake) on the following conditions: a. Dock is extended only to the extent necessary to meet the normal navigable water depth of three feet. b. No additional boats may be docked than permitted prior to the exten- sion as authorized by the LMCD Code. c. The extension shall be permitted only during the season during which the low water emergency has been declared by LMCD Board resolution. (continued) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Resolution 73 (cont) d. The extension shall be a temporary, seasr�nal-type dock. e. Neighboring dock use area shall not be encroached, maintaining a minimum 15 foot side setback from the dock or watercraft moored to the dock. f. Subject to inspection by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol to assure no hazard to navigation exists. g. Red reflective material shall be applied to end and all sides of dock when extended beyond 100 feet in open water. 2. During the low water period the LMCD encourages residents of two or more adjoining sites to combine their authorized dock use areas for a single common dock, for their respective non-commercial private use. The side setback requirements must be maintained at the outer site lines of the combined sites. No more than four restricted watercraft may be stored at such a dock without a multiple dock license. 3. Residential docks in restricted channels will continue to require exten- sion permits to assure interference with navigation is avoided. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this 27th day of February , 1991. /� , ll�u�� /p - David H. Cochran, Chairman ATTEST: � .�—� ..�-%'�► '�.�_... _ ..m_.. Eug .- lt. Strommen, Executive Director LAKE MiNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT � RESOLUTION N0. 53 A RESOLUTIOIJ DECLARING LOW WATER LEVEL TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY DOCK EXTENSIONS BEYOND THE DOCK USE AREA WHEREAS the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) is respon- sible under the Laws of the State of Minnesota for the regulation of the use of Lake Minnetonka, including the construction of docks, to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use; and WHEREAS the LMCD has received an increasing number of requests for temporary dock extensions beyond the dock use area because of low water levels this season; and WHEREAS the LMCD Code provides in §3.02, Subdivision 2(c)�he following: During periods when the Lake level falls below 929.4 feet and when so declared by resolution of the Board, the Executive Director may issue permits for tempo- rary dock extensions beyond the authorized dock use area subject to the following limitations: 1. ) Need for the temporary dock extension must be demonstrated by the applicant. 2. ) The extension shall be a temporary, seasonal type dock. No extensions may be on pile driven or permanent year-round docks. 3. ) The extension shall meet all requirements of this Code other than the length limitation described in this section. 4. ) The extension shall only be permitted during the time the water level is below elevation 929.4 feet and, at any given time, shall be permitted only to the extent of the equivalent dockage and comparable depth existing at a lake elevation of 929.4 feet. 5.) The extension, together with the original dock, shall not be used to provide storage space for �� c.7.0/, �r�L�r,� ,� �� ..Gu�+,�'�C/� �. �..., LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Resolution No. 53 Page 2 ' . t,�:T:`��r� � a greater number of boats or watercraft than are ' authorized under this Code or for a greater number of boats or watercraft than are licensed if a license for the dock is required under this Code. and WHEREAS the elevation of the Lake during the winter season has been below elevation 929.4 feet, N.G.V.D. , 1929, with little or no expected spring runoff; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors that: 1. On this April 1, 1987 the level of Lake Minnetonka stands at elevation 928.37 feet, N.G.V.D. , 1929, as observed and reported by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1.03 feet below elevation 929.4 feet. 2. The Executive Director of the LMCD is hereby authorized to issue temporary seasonal dock extension permits under the provisions of LMCD Code §3.02, Subdivision 2(c). (§2.01, Subd. 2(d) recodified] 3. This resolution shall remain in effect and force only during the time the water level is below elevation 929.4 feet. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this first day of April, 1987. . �,�.-� �.-�� _ Robert Rascop, Chairman ATTEST: )�� .C.� C��f. i�/, v�o-��, �° u�t:-- , � !NAJr.�ti.r,a:l�. �: �c-C_C�..%1—L:ti. /..L/-�c iU , ,�_--:,, �,� .1.L6 k.- � `/��,G : � /,a%, ,(�"G' `i �� ` Frank Mixa, Execut ve Director �ti; uraT��i d.�='-r_'e�c:i /-d�l-�e. ` afe...ti: ,�,v�� ,e�'.�Lo.r..c.,C :.�-�t%_�I, l�.t" �i a�..!rS'J