10-23-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m I , • • •- '.T •• . • i Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 3 choose. If thev withdraw it, the City will have to decide what actions to take. The decision on what action the City might take is affected by a number of factors, including: The CUP application was not forced upon Ginther and Ault. They chose to apply for a CUP at the request of City staff, based on the same method of regulation that the City chosp *‘o pursue in 1985 for Narrows docks that were owned by persons who did not live in the immediate area. As you know, the Ginther/Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident as of 1985, hence no CUP was required at that time for this site. In 1985 the City apparently concluded that the narrows docks were legally non-conforming by virtue of being in place and generally continually in use since prior to 1-1-68 when the "no accessory use without a principal use" code was first adopted. The City therefore chose not to pursue removal of the docks. The City apparently concluded that those docks owned by persons in the immediate neighborhood could be considered as accessory to the nearby principal residence, which met the intent of the ordinance (security, primarily) if not the letter of the ordinance. The City in 1985 chose to further regulate the docks owned by persons who did not own a principal residence in the immediate neighborhood. Absent clear direction in the code, the City chose the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as an effective way of establishing suitable controls on the non resident docks. The CUP established minimal standards for parking and dock length, 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 rights to use the docks. Because the Gintl ■ and Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident in 1985, it was not subject to a CUP. If Ginther ^d Ault choose not to accept the CUF method of establishing their rights, the City has limited recourse via the CUP process, because the zoning code technically does not require a CUP for a doc^c. City staff agrees that expansion from one slip to tw o slips is an expansion of anon-conforming use. However, removing the second Ault/Ginther dock slip based on it being added after 1-1-68 is not necessarily as simple as providing an airphoto showing only one dock at some giver, date in 1971. A