Laserfiche WebLink
Deb Breneman of North Shore Drive Marina noted that she would support realistic standards, <br />and would hope that the City would enforce those standards equally for all marinas. She also <br />brought up the issue of the LMCD/City jurisdictional question. Bellows clarified for the <br />Planning Commission members that generally the City has jurisdiction over the land, the LMCD <br />has jurisdiction over the water, but there are some overlapping gray areas related to docks and <br />boat storage on the land. Breneman indicated that LMCD has the ability to regulate parking. <br />Rowlette suggested it may be helpful for staff to provide additional background on the LMCD <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 marina <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 their jurisdiction on land. <br />Cohen suggested that the City staff find out how the other Lake Minnetonka cities with marinas <br />regulate them. Mabusth noted that the City Attorney has advised that the City could adopt <br />ordinances to regulate decks and the lake, as long as those ordinances were not less restrictive <br />than LMCD’s ordinances. Cohen suggested that if ail 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 very 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 generally had <br />little involvement in dealing with the specific marinas, while there are currently members of the <br />City Council who were quite involved in the marina committee and dealing with marinas. She <br />noted that it would have been very helpful for today’s meeting if more of the marina operators <br />had attended to give their perspective. Breneman suggested that those marinas may be <br />considering some type of litigation against the City, and tliat is why they have chosen not to <br />attend. <br />Cohen questioned whether any new standards the Planning Commission might recommend would <br />be enforceable, given the pre-existing status of the marinas. He questioned whether it was <br />appropriate for the Commission to make any suggestions without further background or until the <br />jurisdictional issues are resolved. <br />Cohen questioned as to some of the specific issues of concern to the residents who have <br />complained, and asked Breneman what specific complaints she might have about the other <br />marinas. She indicated that staff had written volumes about each marina. Rowlette asked if that <br />information could be passed on to the Planning Commission, along with ordinances from some <br />of the other Minnetonka cities and the LMCD. Johnson asked how the Lake Use Committee <br />factored into the picture. Gaffron noted that the Lake Use Committee after completing its