Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1396 <br />May 4r 1989 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />Pleaje review Exhibit the record of accident reports <br />reported by the Orono Police within the area of Windward Marine <br />and Minnetonka Boat Works from 1985 through the present. Five <br />accidents were reported within the marina areas. None involved <br />the cross-over activities of clients of the marina nor of the <br />clients cars ingressing oi egressing the marina parking areas. <br />The majority of the accidents involved loss of control of car <br />because of high speeds, bad weather conditions, and driving under <br />the influence of achohol. <br />Staff would also ask that you review Exhibit Ur the <br />comparison table drafted by staff reviewing the status of all <br />Orono marinas in relation to boat density per total acreage and <br />lineal footage of shoreline. The LMCD representative will be <br />able to comment on the comparison of other marinas on the lake <br />with the Minnetonka Boat Works* current proposal. <br />In the original memo presented for the Planning Commission's <br />review, it was noted that a variance approval was required to <br />remove trees within 75* of the lake. Per Ordinance No. 24, <br />Second Series passed by the Council on July 1986, tree removal <br />within the lakeshore protected area was to be governed by the <br />issuance of permits by the City staff. Staff was to assure that <br />appropriate trees would be replanted at least equal to the same <br />number that would be removed. <br />The applicant i supportive of the cross-walk and if a <br />flashing light is deemed necessary, they would support the <br />flashing light. In recent conversations with the applicant, <br />there was discussion as to installing a loading dock on the east <br />side to minimize the need for clients and guests to cross over <br />the highway. Applicant's dock plan should be amended to <br />designate loading dock for client's use. <br />Options of Actions Available to Council - <br />1. Denial based on the following findings: <br />A) Increase in hardcover within the 0-75* setback <br />area. <br />B) Major increase in slips on west side requiring <br />intensity of cross-over use. Applicant has not <br />sufficiently addressed this concern. <br />C) Over-head ramp and under-head raunp is not feasible <br />and cross-walk does not address safety concern or <br />possible liability of the City because of the Intense <br />use of the county road.