Laserfiche WebLink
Toi Mayor Peter on & Orcno Council Meiitbei s <br />City Administrator Moorse <br />COUNCIL MEEmiG <br />MOV 2 5 1991 <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />/ <br />Froas Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />November 21, 1991 <br />Subjects Marina Licenses - Options for Review of 1992 l.icenses <br />Diecneaion <br />In December, staff will be mailing marina license applications to <br />the seven marina operations in the City. Per Council's direction, <br />application fees paid in 1990 and 1991 shall be credited towards the <br />1992 license fee. In two cases, Minnetonka Boat Works and Shoreline <br />Marina and Yacht Club, this would still leave a future credit of more <br />than $400.00 each, which could be credited towards the 1993 license if <br />Council desires. <br />In the case of North Shore Drive Marina, there is an issue of the <br />historically licensed number of slips/dry stack spaces, hence the <br />correct license application fee remains to be determined. <br />Licoase Mowiew Options <br />Prior to 1966, marina license applications were reviewed by a <br />Marina Committee which was advisory to the Council. Applicants were <br />invited to discuss their marina operation with the committee, and <br />outstanding issues or problems were reviewed in some detail. This <br />pro*~ '8 included a staff review of the license applications to <br />idi '■y issues or concerns prior to marina committee review. <br />Council has the option to consider two di.* <br />action: <br />courses of <br />1. <br />2. <br />Continue the process outlined above with review of an <br />advisory body to the Council, dealing with problems and <br />concerns prior to issuance of license. <br />OR <br />Issue each license as merely «*n administrative function <br />without detailed review, then deal with problems and <br />concerns as they may occur. <br />Virtually all of the marinas in Orono fail to meet many <br />performance standards of the ronlug code. These "non-conformities" <br />may be site-related issues (i.e. hardcoves:, structures too close to <br />the lake or lot lines, etc.) or operations^ issues (i.e. boat storage <br />location, vehicle parking dry stacking/traiIrr storage services, <br />etc.). The existing site non-conformities are 'or the most part <br />"grandfathered* or were the subiect of e past variance approval, and <br />cannot easily be made more conforming unless a zoning application for <br />improvements to the property is fcrthcomirg. We have re antly had