12-12-1988 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

No MINUTES or REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING MOVEMBER 28,1988 TONING riLE f1296-PETERSON/STODOLA CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth clarified that an accessory structure could not be placed on property that had no principal structure. However, the lot line rearrangement would place the accessory structure with the Tillotson residence. Orono code does not distinguish between an accessory structure dock as being shared or singly owned. The LMCD Code would have allowed an accessory dock with no principal structure, in this case, because it was created prior to 1978. There may be a question as to whether the intent of the code is met with this application. City Attorney Barrett provided the interpretation of Orono's codes as they would relate to this application. He stated that the code talks about a "private dock" as an accessory structure. However, there is no definition regarding a private dock. The code would clearly prevent commercial use of such a dock, but does not address the situation in this case. It was Councilmember Nettles belief that boat title had to be in the name of the property owner to prevent private docks from becoming private marinas. Mabusth stated that it would be the LMCD's codes that would address the issue of boat ownership. The LMCD would approve this application. Ms. Hurr interjected that it would be possible to have two boats without the need to prove ownership. However, ownership of all boats must be provided for any dock with more than two boats, unless a multiple dock license were issued. Ms. Hurr added that the LMCD has been allowing dock sharing to occur due to the low level of Lake Minnetonka. Mabusth commented that in this application, the dock was in a very limited lagoon with no riparian access. Maintenance dredging will need to be done to allow boat access. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicants had attempted to address the issues raised by the Council in the first review. Staff has presented alternatives of action. She said that the proposal also resolves the concern of Mr. Gustafson's many uncombined tracts. The applicants have stated that they will acquire the remaining tracts and Parcel 0003 and combine them. Councilmember Goetten observed that this application was proposing a new concept. In the 10 years in which she had been involved with the City she had not seen such a case. She could not understand ►iw the City could consider approving such a proposal. Mai ) s•t, stated that the City was being asked to consider this ui:si-dl solution in exchange for the remaining tracts being ca:-r-'ned and belonging to one owner. with the subdivision, the City would be able to better control the parcel. Goetten voiced her fear of precedent setting for other substandard lots in Orono. Mabusth felt that this application was unique and that it would be unusual for another lakeshore property owner to give up boat slips in order to allow owners of undersized lots to share a dock. Goetten disagreed, citing