Laserfiche WebLink
m <br />m mm§ <br />T^v V. <br />vV"*5 <br />>.V/ <br />I7;ri <br />.Vx-\ <br />^ . . ^ ; . .y • . • / '••'•Vt'''VV'V ■-> >7' -V . f-. • ‘'.'..'J ‘ •' • '* • .V “ T.■*. ** ?* *• <br />AXNUTBS op the planning commission meeting held august 19, 1985. PAGE 2 <br />#941-1946-1951 2739 GHADYWOOD RD. continued <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the question is how <br />to deal with the ncn-conforr.ing use of these properties. <br />Mabusth noted that the City has been aware of the non­ <br />conforming use of these lots since the late 50's. Mabusth <br />gave a short background as to when these lots were purchased <br />by the applicants*. Mabusth indicated that because the <br />applicants* are non-acjacent property owners creates the <br />illegal r.on-conforrr.ing use, which has been a non-conforming <br />use fer the past 30 years. Mabusth als'' noted that some of the <br />tracts have been combined and some have not. <br />All three applicants indicated that their request is to be <br />allowed to use the lots for boat dockage. I.n order to do this, <br />the City must recognize them as a legal .ion-conforming use. <br />Rovegno questioned, since back in 1955 this use was <br />apparently a legal thing to do, at what point did it becor.e an <br />illegal use? <br />Zoning Ad.ministrator Mabusth indicated the change occurred <br />in 1967, when the formal zoning ca.me in. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Plan.ning <br />Commission is being asked to addresu two things: 1) recognize <br />these lots as a legal non-conformi:-c use 2) grant conditional <br />use pec.mits because these lots have accessory structures <br />with no principal structure. <br />Mr. Ogle stated that issues to be considered are that the <br />applicants' want to change the conformity of the lots, the <br />lots were intended for residents, parking and access <br />problems for guests, and the proble.m with regulating the use <br />and nu.T.ber of boats being docked. <br />A person from, the public stated that the L.MCO allows one boat <br />per 100 feet of lakcshcrc and the lots in question are 2C foot <br />lots. <br />Tom. Frahn, Chairm.an of the Marina Committee, stated that the <br />Marina Committee found a problem with the number of boats and <br />ownership of beats. Frahm stated that the real proble.m is <br />that the Marina Co.mnittec felt they could not deal with the <br />dockage proble.m without a legal definition of what these <br />pieces of property are, which is why it is before the Planning <br />Co.mmiFsion. <br />Rovegno wanted to m.ake clear the Planning Commission's <br />issues in this natter which is a conditional use perm.it to <br />allow an accessory use absent a principal use and variances <br />because the lots arc sub-stanJarr. under the terms cf today's <br />zoning review. Rovugr.c felt that is what probably a <br />reasonable use because it has been done for over 30 years. <br />Rovegno questioned whether thc.se docks have perm.its fro.m. the <br />L.MCO. <br />. .. *•9m* • <br />t <br />* <br />} <br />: i <br />1