05-22-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r n ( It’s very clear that the reason the non-resident dock owners continue to approach the city about the parking issue is that they want to find a way to park multiple cars per slip. As stated earlier, there has never been an issue with having access to the parking spaces designated in the conditional use permits. The issue has only arisen from the non-resident dock owners e.xpanding parking beyond what is authorizeo and approved. When the Cit>' Council met last Fall and discus.?ed this issue, the agreements were as follows: The safety issue of parking on Count)’ Road 19 was a significant issue and the area should continue to remain no parking. There seemed to be unanimous agreement on this point, and certainly nothing has changed since last Fall that would now make it safe to park on County Road 19. The Council asked that the neighbors and non-resident dock owners meet to discu.ss the parking issue. We did that last Fall and both groups were in agreement about how’ the 3 cars that w'ere allowed to be parked could bK’ parked. We talked about adding gravel to the roadway and asked the non-resident dock ow’ners to trim the bushes back so there would be easy access to the three parking spaces. From the neighborhood perspective it was v ’er>’ clear from that meeting that there was no problem whatsoever in accommodating the three parking spaces that were allowed by permit. We fe!t comfortable that we had done what the city had asked us to do and that the issue was put to bed. One thing that’s been clear from the discussions at the City Council as well as our discussions with the non-resident dock owners is that Meigel in particular does not want to abide by the one car restriction that was agreed to for these docks. He has indicated that he and the woman he boats with come from different directions and they need to park two cars at their dock. Because of that, they continue to push every angle and option to get around the one car restriction that’s tied by permit to their dock. This latest attempt at asking for parking permits along County Road 19 is just one more attempt to accomplish his objective of being able to park multiple cars for his boat. We’re quite confident that if permits were issued, he’d request 2 to 4 citing the fact that he has multiple cars and needs multiple permits. W’e’re also quite confident that if those permits were issued, on any given weekend, Meigel would have 1-2 cars parked along County Road 19 plus a car in front of his dock. This isn’t about making sure that he has the right to park the one car he’s entitled to, it’s about his trying to find a way to expand the parking rights he was granted in the conditional use permit that governs his dock. Summary To summarize, the key points of this issue are as follow’s: The paperwork in place today in terms of permits and easements is exactly the same as it has been for the past 15 years. • During that time there has never ocen an issue of non-resident dock ow’ners getting to and having access to the one parking spot they’re entitled to. The non-resident dock ow*. 't-i have consistently and increasingly violated the agreement on one car parking which creaJ ■ a.nificant safety and nuisance issue prompting the neighlxirhood to petition ii*e ci»y ,'or help. The city agreed with the safety issue and designated the area along County Road 19 as a no parking area. The non-resident dock owners asked the city to readdress the no parking issue, which was done at a city council meeting. The city once again agreed that there was a significant safety issue and left the no-parking restriction in place. n in M .l.'V.’ji-..