Laserfiche WebLink
Jim Zimmerman <br /> Au�ust 9. 2000 <br /> PaRe 4 <br /> . The findings made b��the City Council in the 198� CUP's support continued <br /> use of the e�isting docks subject to a small number of conditions. <br /> .At this time the Ci�� does not intend to pursue removal of the docks from anv of the <br /> docl: lots. City staff believes that it wi11 be virtually impossible to le�islate these <br /> docks out of e�istence, given their lona history of continued use. The issue of <br /> whether the second dock on Ginther and Ault's lot is IeQally nonconformin� is <br /> extremel��murky in our opinion. Th� factthat the Cit�-has allowed this property to <br /> exist unhindered with two sligs for nearlv 30 vears makes it difficult for the Cin�to <br /> make the case that this use shouldn't be allowed to continue as it has in the past.Had <br /> the second dock appeared very recently,the Cit��would be in a much better position <br /> to pursue its removal. <br /> It is my understanding that the Mayor has had numerous discussions with you and <br /> with various dock lot owners in an attempt to �ain for you and your nei�hbors a`first <br /> riQht of refusal' for purchase of the non-resident dock lots as they come up for sale. <br /> City staff fully supports the concept that dock lots should be owned by property <br /> owners in the immediate neiahborhood. Citv staff will support your efforts to <br /> estabiish covenants which will disailow the separate sale of dock lots from the <br /> neiahborhood principal residence propem� to which they are accessory. Such a <br /> covenant would provide you with more neiQhborhood control of the situation than <br /> currently exists. <br /> B. General ext�ansion of use at tne docks: <br /> I. Vve do not consider the fla�pole as an intensification or extension of the <br /> nonconforminQ use or a violation of anv past CUP conditions, and we will <br /> take no action regarding the flagpole. <br /> ?. VJe do not consider the provision o�electricity at the docks as an eztension <br /> or intensizication of a nonconforming use. even tnou�h electricin�allo��s the <br /> docks to have certain amenities wnich ma��be offensive to the neiRhborhood <br /> such as liRhting, etc. <br /> �. We do not consider the addition of canopies over the individual docks as an <br /> expansion of the nonconforminQ use. <br /> 4. We do not consider overniQht occupancy of boats stored at the docks as an <br /> expansion of the nonconformina use. The City has not adopted any <br /> ordinances prohibiting overniQht occupancy of boats. <br />