Laserfiche WebLink
ri <br />4. <br />I <br />:: <br />*. <br />•1.ji <br />5I <br />I <br />A" <br />Ko'j' “ *.^' Vc* <br />..7 <br />-.v <br />^.iy ■ ", ‘ .V <br />•fSiT-vu '»>/.♦- <br />•’>41 <br />•••1 <br />•*''?» <br />.•7y:< <br />? « <br />Review of Application <br />In the Spring of 1934, after receiving coT.piaints concerning the <br />intense use a'nc reported operation of a - area <br />Narrows Lagoon area, Council directed staff to su^^w area. <br />Staff advised Council that there was indeed a <br />public safetv and welfare in the unrecuiatec use of these 20 foo. wide <br />’-ioa’-ian •■racts (see Exhibit F) given the linited area of the lagoon. ine <br />original'Registered Land Survey division (1954) created these tracts to <br />provide protected dock use area for the homestead lots <br />Lgistered Land Survey. The covenants dealing with the ,^se of ;-"®®- <br />have long expired (1915) and four tracts are currently in the ownership of <br />non-adjacent land owners. <br />The City was introduced to this multiple dock area in 1979 in the <br />process of reviewing a lot area variance for a^ Robert Watson. <br />application involving the common ownership o. two traCwS ° ‘ r <br />oroperties. One was developed, the other uncevcloped. A cond^ition of <br />approving that variance application was that both homestead <br />mainlake retain a lagoon tract for dock purposes, ns a <br />owners of Tracts X. & N and K i L are the only legai or <br />the riparian tracts. The original covenants established standards fo.th <br />use of these limited properties but they are no longer in effect and many <br />would require variances to our present code. <br />The Marina Committee had been attempting to deal with the <br />owners, two adjacent residential ewners and four owne^rs^^^ <br />found It impossible to come to any agrccm.ont uecausc^ of the divers- <br />ship pattern and the illegal or unresolved status o. of'the four <br />c I. and E. The chairman of the Marina Committee advised ®^^he <br />owners of the need tc ga’.n legal status or recogni ion un»-v"with all <br />riparian tracts from the Council before the committee could work with all <br />six owners on a safe agreed upon use o.*’ the iageon area. <br />Planning Commission was asked to consider the fcliowing is.sues: <br />1. Can these tracts be put to another reasonable use under the <br />present r.onir.Cj? <br />2. Were the hardships created by the owners or due to circumstances <br />unique to this :'io[»ctty? <br />3. is the current use of ehc property cut o-' character with the <br />surrounding lagoon ncighborb.oou? <br />4. Is there a safe level of use for a 2C wide riparian lot; <br />5. Should the fact that these <br />formal zoning have any beat ing on the * f nr^. <br />that these tracts were not owned at:d ustn. ey adjacent 1*