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