Laserfiche WebLink
. . <br /> � ' ' . . <br /> i � Page 5 <br /> �, Page Z�ao <br /> July 25, 1977 <br /> � Re : Ordinance No. 193 <br /> • � <br /> � .4. There are no factual findings by the City sufficient to <br /> establish an "emergency" giving rise to a need for a moratorium. <br /> • <br /> 5. The only basis upon which you acted were -the increasing <br /> � numbe.r of requests for the licensing of docks and mooring <br /> � areas on Lake Minnetonka which you claim result from the extension <br /> of existing or new dock facilities. The mere request of such <br /> � power or authority from the City does not in fact establish an <br /> emergency requiring such drastic action as you have taken. <br /> • <br /> 6. You do not have jurisdictional power over what you claim is <br /> ` a "dangerous lake-use situation. " <br /> � 7. You have no demonstrated factual �basis upon which to find <br /> � that the lake-use situation on portions of the lake abutting <br /> the City of Orono create a danger to the safety or property <br /> � of the public and adjacent land within the City of Orono. <br /> � 8. The "critical or potentially critical" classification of <br /> • the lake by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District does not <br /> establish an emergency. <br /> � 9. The level of water patrol services previously unl-awfully <br /> � supplied by Hennepin County has no bearing on the so-called declared <br /> emergency. <br /> f <br /> . 10. Aennepin County' s retracting of funds previously unlawfully <br /> expended to provide water patrol services has no bearing on the <br /> � boat storage capacity of marinas. <br /> � 11. The City of Orono may not -establish standards relative -to all <br /> matters directly or indirectly impacting on the use or crowding <br /> a of Lake Minnetonka as this is not within the jurisdictional power <br /> of the City of Orono and belongs to other public bodies, to-wit: <br /> • The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and the State of <br /> . Minnesota. <br /> � 12. There is no basis for your finding that "the grantir�g of <br /> applications will be detrimental to your ultimate plan, if one <br /> � is ever adopted, for without having even adopted a preliminary <br /> plan, there is no basis for your conclusion that the granting of <br /> • any application would be inconsistent with that plan. In short, <br /> you again have no evidence for the conclusion that you reachin <br /> � Section 1, Paragraph 193. 010. <br /> � 13. This moratorium is clearly aimed solely at commercial marina <br /> • <br /> � <br /> • - <br /> � <br /> • <br />