08-21-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The City of Orono has received several letters and comments from concerned property owners in the neighborhood questioning the legality of the second dock slip on the property. Staff has no strong evidence to suggest one of the slips had been added after the adoption of the ordinance requiring a principal structure to have a dock as a accessory structure. Although no CUP has been issued by the City of Orono, it is the position of the City the property has been “grandfathered” as a legal non- conforming use for dock use. City* Staff believes that it would be difficult to require these docks, or one dock, to be removed based on there long existence. The City of Orono has no strong evidence that the use of the second dock is illegal. History of Dock Lots The 1985 conditional use permits were apparently only required for dock lots whose owners did not reside in the immediate neighborhood, approved the use of the lots as dock lots for Tracts S/T, R/Q, 0/P and E. Since that time the Hoffman/Messer Tract U has been sold to non-residents Ginther/Ault and they had initially agreed to apply for a conditional use permit. The Orono Zoning Code does not have the provision of a conditional use for dock lots. The CUP was accepted by the non-resident owners in 1985 as a practical way of placing some limits on the dock lot usage. Review of Hardcover The existing hardcover on the property is 792 s.f. The driveway has been determined to be 28' X 17'. Other hardcover located on this property is a small amount of retaining wall and landscaping which encroaches from an adjacent property. The parking area is located immediately next to a fire hydrant. Should the Planning Commission approve the request, it may be appropriate to require the parking area to be moved to allow some separation to the fire hydrant. It has been suggested that a 10' separation would be adequate. Issues for Planning Commission Discussion 1. It is unclear how long Tract U has been used for the mooring of two boats. This makes it difficult to determine if there has been an expansion of the use based on the number of boats using the lot. Previous CUPs for adjacent dock lots only permitted one boat and one parking space per dock lot. Because this lot currently has two boats and two boat slips the applicants have requested an after the fact variance to permit a parking area to accommodate two vehicles. 2.Recently the City of Orono has prohibited parking on Shady wood which has been very controversial. Is there a created need for internal parking for this specific dock lot? Does the parking area have to be gravel? » 3.Is a variance to allow an increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ zone for the parking area justified since on street parking has been eliminated? ^2571 Jim Cinthtr and Doug Alt 2739 Shadyivood Road After the Fact Vanance August 21. 2000 pagt-2