Laserfiche WebLink
3.The property as subdivided in the mid 50s wthout under apparently minimal local controls, <br />is a unique situation requiring use but for limited dock use. <br />4. The property because of its physical constraints, cannot be put to any other reasonable <br />residential use but for limited dock use. <br />5.A variance to allow an increase in hardcover in the 0-75‘ zone for parking area is justified <br />since on street parking has been eliminated, (or should on street parking be allowed for this <br />lot?) <br />The recent flurry of neighborhood concerns regarding the dock lots has raised many issues related <br />to this application. These issues can be summarized as follows: <br />1.General neighborhood resident concerns about parking on Co. Rd. 19, overnight stays on <br />boats, lighting, security alarms, and a general expansion of a non-conforming situation with <br />the concurrent perception of increased activity. <br />2.Non-resident dock lot owners concerns about parking needs and the need to provide <br />amenities such as lighting and security alarms to make the dock lots usable. <br />3.Resident dock lot owners negative response to City’s suggestion that they permanently tie <br />the dock lots to their neighborhood homestead properties. <br />4. Lack of clarity as to existence and impact of Existing casements and covenants dating back <br />to the 1950's that may impose limits on use or require maintenance of access. <br />Staff expects area residents will be in attendance to voice their specific concerns about this <br />application. Also see attached letter from neighbors. <br />Options for Planning Commission Action <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Table for additional information <br />Recommend approval with condition <br />Recommend denial, stating reasons <br />Other action <br />12571 Jim Gimher and Doug Alt <br />2739 Shadywood Road <br />Condiuonal Use Pennit and Variance <br />After the Fact Variance <br />March 20.2000 <br />post-3