Laserfiche WebLink
i . � � ' <br /> / <br /> /� O� . . <br /> � O O <br /> . �,. - � � �CITY of ORONO <br /> � � . . . �. <br /> '� RESOLUTION.OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> . .� ���IfE p4�G . ' � NO'. � c� � c L . <br /> SH <br /> � 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the,request and recommended approval by <br /> ' a vote of 6 to 0 to approve an after-the-fact variance based on the following <br /> . . fmdings of fact: � � <br /> A. Citing concerns over safety, the City of Orono posted Shadywood Road � <br /> in the area of the dock lots as a "No Parking" zone. To accommoclate <br /> � parking on-site rather tk�an on the street, the property owners exparided <br /> a parking area from one vehicle width�to allow for parking of two . <br /> � � vehicles.� � � <br /> B. The lot is commonly owned by the�Ault's and Ginther's. Each properry <br /> � owner has one boat slip for a total of two slips on the property. <br /> � G The entire lot is located within 75', of the lakeshore. It would not be <br /> possible to construct or expand a parking area without impacting the 75' <br /> • . setback.� � � , � <br /> D. The dock lots were created as part of Registered Land Survey No. 415 <br /> (2/3/1955) in common with residential properties located within the plat. <br /> ' It was assumed at the time of the plat lots within the neighborhood <br /> would have access to dock lots for storing of a boat. Since none of the . <br /> � dock lots were ever legally combined with the residential lots nearby, <br /> � , ' they eventually were sold off separately and are held in private <br /> ownersfiip. " <br /> E. The City of Orono has received several letters and comments from � <br /> concerned property owners in the neighborhood questioning the legality <br /> . of a second dock slip on the properiy. Staff has no strong evidence to <br /> - � . suggest� one of the slips had been added after the adoption of the <br /> � ordinance requiring a principal.structuie to have a dock as an accessory <br /> structure. Although no CUP has been issued by the City of Orono, it is. <br /> the position of the City the property has been "grandfathered" as a legal <br /> non-conforming use for dock use. City Staff believes that it would be <br /> � difficult to require these.docks, or one �dock, to be removed based on <br /> their long existence. The City of Orono has no strong evidence that the <br /> � use of the second dock is illegal. � <br /> • � Page 2 of 8 . � <br />