02-14-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

« A*.-» . - "t •\ % '••■•-f3s.->■ January 26, 1994 0~ <4 r rf* V .; PUBLIC.HEARING - oINNETONKA YACHT CLUB ^ *' . -^4.^5^^* • ' -; • «' V . > “ - Bob Loeffel, 19605 Chimo West, Deepnaven, said the MYC ,oper ates six service boats which are constantly speeding in the No Wake'*zoneThe area is not safe for swimming. He believes the . •SMYC/cou1dVdo a better job of policing its service boats. In ir'* addition,^ he has observed increased activity at Lighthouse Is- V land.>' Loeffel said the MYC property is zoned residential with^a ^ non-conforming use. He said the City of Deephaven should be apprised of this application. Pat McGoldrick, 19575 Chimo West, Deephaven, said the road that has' been plowed on the ice for winter access from the ramp would meet the docks the MYC plans to put up. Penn asked how much further the new dock goes out compared to the current dock. Thibault responded it would be about 25 further east, and a new 100’ dock wing extending north is pro posed. In the information provided for the public hearing it was noted that the MYC has a special density license (SDL) for its three sites. It has 1898 lineal feet of shoreline at the three sites combined with 182 Boat Storage Units, or a 1:10 density. Site 1 has 290’ of shoreline with 36 Boat Storage Units. The District Mooring Area (DMA) does not count toward density. LeFevere said it appears to be necessary to address the SDL the ^ MYC*^ ho Ids for this site. There is a difference between combining sites for density purposes on the one hand, and for purposes of providing amenities on the other. There have been cases where the District has allowed applicants to provide ameni ties at more than one site. However, the Code allows all (com- bined) shoreline to be considered for density purposes only for municipalities. If this site has over 1:10’ density it is possi- ble there may have been an oversight in granting the SDL. It is *> : also possible that the site has been grandfathered. Xjiibault said it is her understanding that the SDL was granted based on 1:10’ density for all sites. It is also her understanding that the MYC does not need a new SDL unless they are adding additional slips. They ao need a new multiple dock license because of the reconfiguration. LeFevere agreed with her interpretation. . .Johnstone asked what discretion the Board has in granting a new multiple dock license. LeFevere responded that if the slip sizes are not increased and number of boats are not increased there is no need for a new special density license. He said the unique thing in this case is that additional boats are coming from a DMA. The LMCD Code encourages conversion of DMAs to slips and provides that the conversion can be made notwithstanding the **^?*'»'density"'(Sect. 2.04, Subd. 9,g)). The Board has the power and authority to grant a new multiple dock license adding these addi- tional. boats under the DMA authority. Johnstone said it is his understanding that the Board has the authority, but is not oLli- i: i f • V •0^ out that -there' is an additional restriction All of the slips must be within 100*.'f oC;»the