11-27-1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR P4EETII]G OF '^IiE OROP10 COUi1CIL, NO�ITPIBFR 27 , 1979 Page 14 6. The City staff and the Council have in rmanv NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARIN meetings with Douglas and Hork always held the (Continued) same position - namely, that dock use area and 200 ft. dock length requirements r►ust be met by the marina. This is true for this vear, last year, and every year. Each year Hork has submitted an anplication based upon the 1975 survey which showed dock encroachment beyond 200 ft. Each year the City questioned this. Each year Fiork promised to prove otherwise. This year, in February, the Citv Council refused to accept the same survey without such revisions and proof. Every year, including this �ear, the City has tried to work with Hork to ensure the continuation of his business activities while still protecting the rights and interests of the public to the full enjoYment and use of Lake P•linnetonka, and Ynsuring the riqhts and interests of the abutting residential pr_operty owners from over-use and encroachment bv the r.larina. The considerations given Hork b�� the City are the same, and then some, as given to any other business by the City. 7. The City has always expeditiously issued annual dock licenses to marinas in compliance with the ordinances. In certain cases, including North Shore Drive P4arina, the marina has asked for additional tirle to submit materials in support of their cases, to prove compliance, or to revise the dock layout to becorme conforming. The Citv has always granted these delays. As part of this cooperation, the City has never tagged nor enjoined marina operation durinc7 these periods despite continuing violations or lack of compliance. Only when the rtarina has refused to cooperate; has the Citv been forced to enf_orce the ordinances. This is only fair to the majority of marina operators who do conform to City and LP�CD ordinances. To do other�aise than to seek equal enforcement would be to place an unconstitutional burden on the other operators to the c�.etriment of fhe public and to the special advantage of Hork. In response to Douglas' stater_ient as to license denial, he is well aware that there are proven on-going violations, that there has been no attempt by Hork to revise his dock layout within 200 ft. of the shore and that many smaller issues and rec�uireraents have not been completed as agreed upon. (Continued)