Laserfiche WebLink
- i <br />• We have been told by the city and the LMCD that rental of these boat docks is absolutely not <br />allowed. <br />■ Despite knowing about the rental problem in 1984 and our reiterating the rental situation in <br />1999 and again this year, to our knowledge the city has never taken any action to restrict <br />dock rental by non-resident dock owners, <br />■ We want the city to vigorously enforce the no rental restrictions beginning \vith the 2000 <br />boating season. <br />Docks Have Moved From Intended 1Q8.S Daytime Recreational Use to Becoming Habitable <br />Docks and Essentially Weekend Homes <br />■ Wirh the addition of electricity, the non-resident docks have very large boats that are <br />essentially used as weekend homes by. many of the non-resident dock owners. <br />■ Shore power allows them to have the t>pe of boats that can be used essentially as weekend <br />homes and that ’s increasingly how the boats are used. <br />■ The larger more valuable boats allowed by shore power are also attractive targets for crime <br />and there have been numerous break-ins on the non-resident boats. Theft and crime were <br />a^:.o referenced in the 1984 city memo. <br />■ Because uf the crime attracted to our neighborhood by the large, expensive non-resident <br />boats, they have installed a high intensity anti-crime light. <br />• One of the boats, R Tonka Toy (owned by Ginther), in the past installed a motion activated <br />burglar alarm. The alarm malfunctioned, causing it to go off at all hours of the day and <br />night, completely disrupting the neighborhood. Since Ginther did not live in the <br />neighborhood and we had no way to contact him, the neighborhood was disrupted for weeks <br />until he returned from vacation and turned off his alarm system. <br />• There have been a number of instances of trees being diseased and dying or trees coming <br />down by storm in the non-resident dock lots. Since their entire dock is in the 0-75 foot <br />range, it is our understanding that legally these trees need to be replaced. None of the trees <br />that were taken down or came down have ever been replaced. <br />• In 1999, a flagpole was added to one of the non-conforming dock properties. We’d like the <br />flagpole removed since this clearly was not there in 1985 and is an expansion. One flagpole <br />may lead to others. <br />• Essentially, the addition of electricity has resulted in the non-resident dock owTiers being <br />able to use their 35 plus foot boats as weekend homes on Lake Minnetonka while paying <br />S200-$300 per year in property taxes for the prmlege of having a “second home" on the <br />lake. <br />SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATING TO GINTHER AND AULT <br />We feel the above information relating to the non-conforming dock lots and the long history of <br />problems and issues is essential in looking at the specific issues related to Ginther and Ault. Our <br />specific issues relative to this lot and the conditional use permit they’re seeking are as follows: <br />• Two Boat Docks on One Non-Conforming Lot - It is our understanding that only one dock is <br />allowed per non-conforming lot. If this is the ordinance in Orono, we would ask that a <br />condition of the permit be that one of the two docks on this property be removed. <br />■ Boat Slip Rental - For many years, we understand Ault has rented his boat slip. We want <br />the city to enforce a strict no rental policy on this dock property and actively and <br />aggressively enTbrce this policy.