Laserfiche WebLink
Deb Breneman of North Shore Drive Marina noted diat she would support realistic sttindards, <br />and would hope that the City would enforce Uiose standards equally for all mannas. She also <br />brought up the issue of die LMCD/City jurisdictional question. Bellows clarified for die <br />Planning Commission members that generally the City has Jurisdiction over the land, t ic .. <br />has jurisdiction over the water, but there are some overlapping gray areas related to docks an <br />boat storage on the land. Breneman indicated that LMCD has the ability to regulate <br />Rowlette suggested it may be helpful for staff to provide additional background on the LMCU <br />code. <br />Bellows reiterated that we need to determine realistic standards to regulate marinas in an <br />equitable manner. She noted it probably is unfair to require major concessions of a manna <br />making an application to the City while allowing the others to continue in relative non- <br />compliance. Cohen questioned whether the LMCD should have control over marinas and the <br />City should stay out of it. Gaffron noted that the City Council apparently is not completely <br />satisfied with how the LMCD has handled its jurisdiction on the lake, and the Council is <br />therefore unlikely to relinquish iheir jurisdiction on land. <br />Cohen suegesteJ that the Cit^ staff find out how the other Lake Minnetonka cines with marinas <br />regulate them. Mabusth noted that the City Attorney has advised that the Ci^ could adopt <br />ordinances to regulate docks and the lake, as long as those ordinances were not less restrictive <br />than LMCD’s ordinances. Cohen suggested that if all fourteen cities had identical ordinances, <br />we might be in a better position for dealing with LMCD. <br />Bellows noted that without a greater understanding of the Council's perspective on the LMCD, <br />it is verv difficult to proceed. Mabusth added that the Planning Commission is at a disadvantage <br />from the standpoint that they have never been involved in the license reviews, and genera y . a <br />little involvement in dealing with the specific marinas, while there are cuirenUy memlKrs of d.e <br />City Council who were quite involved in the marina committee and dealing with marmas. She <br />noL that it would have been very helpful for today's meeting if more of the marma operator <br />tad attended to give their perspective. Breneman suggested that those mannas may be <br />c^L"sol®type of litigation against the City, and that is why they have chosen not to <br />attend. <br />Cohen Questioned whether any new standards the Planning Commission might recommend would <br />ta eTforce r g die prlexisting status of the marinas. He questioned whether it was <br />^proFiate for'the CommisLn to make any suggestions without further background or until the <br />jurisdictional issues are resolved. <br />-^u^tioned as to some of the specific issues of concern to the residents who have <br />^ HinPd nnd asked Breneman what specific complaints she might have about the other <br />maThias. She indicated that staff had written volumes about each marina. Rowlette asked if that <br />• f i; yn rntild be Disscd on to the Planning Commission, along with ordinances from some <br />LMCD. Johnson asked how the Uike Use Co«e <br />ftemrerimo the picture. Gaffron noted that the Lake Use Committee after completing its