Laserfiche WebLink
•To: • Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Froa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Data: May 4, 1989 <br />Subject: #1396 Minnetonka Boat Works, 1449 Shoreline Drive - <br />Variances/Conditional Use Permit - <br />Commerical Site Plan Review <br />Additional CouBents and Planning ConiBission irnrciBBiimliil Inn - <br />Additional Exhibits <br />Exhibit Q - Alternate Parking Plan (submitted in preliminary <br />sketch stages by applicant) <br />Exhibit R - LMCD Hearing Notice & Notification List <br />Exhibit S - LMCD/Staff Memo April 8th Meeting <br />Exhibit T - Minutes of LMCD Hearing <br />Exhibit U - Table Comparing Boat Densities with Acreage 6 <br />Shoreline <br />Exhibit V - MCWD Report/Approval <br />Exhibit W - Accident Report - Orono Police <br />Exhibit X - Windward Marine Site Plan <br />Please review the attached staff memo by T. Jacobs dated <br />April 14, 1989 that covers the preliminary review of the <br />application through the Planning Commission review. In addition, <br />review the Planning Commission minutes of April 17, 1989 for <br />background discussion on the major issues. <br />The application involves the need to expand the parking area <br />(36 new stalls) of the marina to support the increase of 48 slips <br />(6 on Browns Bay and 42 on Tanager Lake). Please review the LMCD <br />review (Exhibits R, S & T). Staff has received word that the <br />Minnetonka Boat Works* application was tabled at the LMCD Board <br />meeting to resolve the aunenities portion of the application (i.e. <br />fishing pier, etc.). Please note che various public amenities <br />discussed in there which involve only the Wayzata Boat Works <br />facility - the Orono facility cannot meet parking needs. <br />The six member Planning Commission was unable to effect a <br />majority vote for a formal recommendation. The denial position <br />based their recommendation on the safety factor concerned that <br />the City would assume additional liabilities by allowing a major <br />increase in boat density on the west side where parking would be <br />provided on the east side. The denial position did not feel a <br />cross-walk would be effective. The members who denied the <br />applicarion would also not approve an expansion of hardcover <br />within the 0-75* setback area.