07-14-2009 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

Jim Zimmennan Au�ust 9. 2000 PaRe 3 choose. If the��withdra�-it, the Cit�� will have to decide what actions to take. The decision on wnat action the City miaht talce is afiected b�� a number of factors, includina: • The CUP application was not iorced u�on Ginther and Ault. They chose to apply for a CUP at the request of Cirv staff; based on the same method of re�ulation that the City chose to pursue in 198� for Narrows docks that were owned by persons who did not live in the immediate area. As you l:nov��,the Gintner/Ault dock lot was owned bv a neiahborhood resident as oi 198�, hence no CUP was required at that time ior this site. • In 198� the City apparently concluded that the narrows docks were leQally non-conforming by virtue of beina in place and aenerally continually in use since prior to 1-1-68 ��hen the "no accesson use without a principal use" code was first adopted. The City thererore chose not to pursue removal of the docks. • The City apparently concluded that those docks owned b�� persons in the immediate nei�hborhood could be considered as accessory to the nearby principal residence, which met the intent or the ordinance (securit��, primarily) if not the letter of the ordinance. • The Cit}� in 198� chose to furthe;reaulate the docks owned by persons who did not own a principal residence in the immediate neiRhborhood. Absent ciear direction in the code, the Cin� chose tne issuance of a Conditional L1s� Permit as an effective waS- of establishir_� suitable contro?s on the non- resident docks. The CIJP estaolisned muumal standards for parkin� and dock len�th, but not much more. The CUP apparently was voluntarily accepted by the non-resident owners of dock lots as a reasonable method to establish their continued ri�hts to use tne docks. � Because the Ginther and Ault dock lot was owned by a nei�hborhood resident ir. 198�. it was not subject to a CUP. Ii Ginther and .4ult choose not to accPpt the CUP method oi establishina tnei� riahts, the City has Iimited recourse via the CUP process, because the zonina code technicall5� does not require a CUP for a dock. • Cit�• stafi a�rees that expansion from one slip to two slips is an expansion oi a non-conforminQ use.Howeve:,remo��in�the second Ault/Ginther dock slip based on it bein�added after 1-1-68 is not necessarily as simple as providin, an airphoto sho��ing onl}- one dock at some aiven date in 1971.