05-22-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Tlie Council asked the neighbors and dock owners to addrccs the parking situation, which we did last Fall. At that time we all agreed how the one car per slip (or total of 3 authorized) could be easily accomplished. As a neighborhood, we did what the city asked us to do and resolved the issue to everyone’s satisfaction. At last Fall’s Council meeting, one of the Council members summed up the situation very well. In addressing one of the non-resident owners, he told him that these properties were very unusual in Orono and were all non-conforming lots. Because they were non-conforming, they had special restrictions that had to be adhered to. He suggested that the one car condition mandated for the boat slip was appropriate for this area and that the dock owners needed to conform to the requirements of the conditional use permits. It was suggested to the dock owner that there were hundreds of properties in Orono that would allow the parking of multiple cars and if that were critical to this dork owner they should look at purchasing a home in Orono or other community that would provide for multiple car parking, but that that wouldn’t be possible with this property. As neighboi:s, we agree wholeheartedly with that point of \iew. There are marinas and homes on the lake that would accommodate their parking needs, but we feel that the permits governing these docks were well thought out as relates to parking, and we would not support any change or amendment in parking for non-resident dock owners. Frankly, from our perspective, it’s very frustrating that the City Council will be addressing this issue for yet a third time. We can’t^ honestly understand why there is such a strong feeling that the city needs to accommodate the non-resident dock owners. Their parking rights are clearly spelled out in their conditional use permits and they have never once been denied their right to park the one car they are allotted. As a neighborhood, we are vigorously opposed to increasing or expanding the parking for the non-resident dock owmers and we would ask that the city vigorously enforce the parking restrictions set forth in the conditional use permits. Further, we see no need to once again address the parking issue that has already been addressed twice by the City Council. As far as we’re concerned, the issue has been resolved per the direction of the City Council. If, however, the City Council w'ants to address this issue for a third time, we’d ask that it be postponed until at least May when the Ogle’s return home. Without them, any discussion about the dock properties cannot be verj' productive since their property' is the one that controls all the others.