Laserfiche WebLink
■Tim Zimmerman <br />August 9,2000 <br />Page 4 <br />The findings made by the City Council in the 1985 CUP’s support continued <br />use of the existing docks subject to a small number of conditions. <br />At this time the City does not intend to pursue removal of the docks from anv of the <br />dock lots . City staff believes that it will be virtually impossible to legislate these <br />docks out of existence, given their long history of continued use. The issue of <br />whether the second dock on Ginther and Ault’s lot is legally nonconforming is <br />extremely murky in our opinion. The factthat the City has allowed this property to <br />exist unhindered with two slips for nearly 30 years makes it difficult for the City to <br />make the case that tliis use shouldn’t be allowed to continue as it has in the past. Had <br />the second dock appeared very recently, the City 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 gain for you and your neighbors a first <br />right 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 neighborhood. City staff will support your efforts to <br />establish covenants which will disallow the separate sale of dock lots from the <br />neighborhood principal residence property to which they are accessory. Such a <br />covenant would provide you with more neighborhood control of the situation than <br />currently exists. <br />B. General expansion of use at the docks: <br />1.We do not consider the flagpole as an intensification or extension of the <br />nonconforming use or a violation of any past CUP conditions, and we will <br />take no action regarding the flagpole. <br />2.We do not consider the provision of electricity at t^e docks as an extension <br />or intensification of a nonconforming use, even though electricity allows the <br />docks to have certain amenities which may be offensive to the neighborhood <br />such as lighting, etc. <br />J.We do not consider the addition of canopies over the individual docks as an <br />expansion of the nonconforming use. <br />4.We do not consider overnight occupancy of boats stored at the docks as an <br />expansion of the nonconforming use. The City has not adopted any <br />ordinances prohibiting overnight occupancy of boats. <br />i______