Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
* _. <br /> Jim Zimmerman <br /> August 9, 2000 <br /> Page 3 <br /> choose. If they withdraw it,the City will have to decide what actions to take. The decision <br /> on what action the City might take is affected by a number of factors, including: <br /> . The CUP application was not forced upon Ginther and Ault. They chose to <br /> apply for a CUP at the request of City staff, based on the same method of <br /> regulation that the City chose to pursue in 1985 for Narrows docks that were <br /> owned by persons who did not live in the immediate azea. As you know,the <br /> Ginther/Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident as of 1985, <br /> hence no CUP was required at that time for this site. <br /> . In 1985 the City appazently concluded that the narrows docks were legally <br /> non-conforming by virtue of being in place and generally continually in use <br /> since prior to 1-1-68 when the "no accessory use without a principal use" <br /> code was first adopted. The City therefore chcsse not to pursue removal of the <br /> docks. <br /> . The City apparently concluded that those docks owned by persons in the <br /> � immediate neighborhood could be considered as accessory to the neazby <br /> principal residence, which met the intent of the ordinance (security, <br /> primarily) if not the letter of the ordinance. <br /> . The City in 1985 chose to further regulate the docks owned by persons who <br /> did not own a principal residence in the immediate neighborhood. Absent <br /> clear direction in the code,the City chose the issuance of a Conditional Use <br /> Permit as an effective way of establishing suitable controls on the non- <br /> resident docks. The CUP established minimal standards for parking and <br /> dock length, but not much more. The CUP appazently was voluntarily <br /> accepted by the non-resident owners of dock lots as a reasonable method to <br /> establish their continued rights to use the docks. <br /> . Because the Ginther and Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident <br /> in 1985, it was not subject to a CUP. If Ginther and Ault choose not to <br /> accept the CUP method of establishing their rights, the City has limited <br /> recourse via the CUP process,because the zoning code technically does not <br /> require a CUP for a dock. <br /> • City staff agrees that expansion from one slip to two slips is an expansion of <br /> a non-conforming use.However,removing the second AuldGinther dock slip <br /> based on it being added after 1-1-68 is not necessarily as simple as providing <br /> an airphoto showing only one dock at some given date in 1971. <br />