Laserfiche WebLink
February 20, 1992 <br />Fa9« 2 <br />hiring counsel and incurring significant expenses to <br />fight the issue, and has a greater likelihood that the <br />City's desired end result is accoirplisbed . <br />4. <br />II?' <br />Oltinately, the City's goal is not to shut down marinas but <br />to have then substantially comply with City regulations. <br />Where historic deficiencies exist, the City must determine <br />whether those deficiencies are acceptable as is, or whether <br />steps should be taken to gradually bring the <br />property/operation into compliance. Inherent in the <br />existing regulations are many standards with which few if <br />any of the existing marinas comply. The only performance <br />standard for which a procedure for gradual compliance <br />currently exists, is the landscaping requirement. Council <br />stay wish to asiend the B-2 standards to forma li2e a structure <br />for requiring gradual upgrades in conformity for issues <br />other than landscaping. <br />Aa noted previously, staff would recommend that the Lake Use Committe <br />review the siarlna licensing and B-2 zoning code sections, and consider <br />whether revisions are necessary to establish procedures for bringing <br />the properties into compliance. This review will also include a <br />review of the historic and current conformity of each of the marinas. <br />The City’s goal should be to establish t e current level of <br />oosf^liance, dfctermining what degree of compliance should he sought, to <br />fonnilate a program for bringing each marina into compliance which is <br />acceptable to the city, and proceed with licensing reflecting this <br />process* The City must be willing to negotiate with the marinas, but <br />also must be prepared to follow through with legal action to force <br />cOMpliance, if the regulation of marinas through licensing is to be <br />effective. <br />ch <br />V* - <br />.:v-. <br />i..: .. C -----•*-