Laserfiche WebLink
1 "1 rr ri <br />m- *■. <br />. i <br />• I <br />* • • * <br />1- ■ "■: <br />yt <br />; <br />\ <br />I <br />"Jay <br />,>■■- <br />• % <br />'•T*^4 <br />I <br />f <br />t • I <br />:r <br />i-l* <br />Zoning File #1296 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />B^ree^ from ^he ouflof purchased it and continues to owns the property <br />now. Once again* the background and reason behind this subdivision was the <br />owner was giving up a cosonercial marina and the City granted certain <br />variances for residential use with the rezoning so that there would be no <br />serious challenge of a taking. <br />There have been subdivisions in the past* specifically the Greentrees and <br />the Pink Palace Subdivisions where reparian tracts were created for the <br />exclusive use of adjacent lot because of extensive lineal feet of shoreline <br />that easily satisfied the required lot width of the specific zoning <br />district. <br />The RS district (island districts) the ordinances of the City allow for <br />accessory docks without principal structures. This would be a reasonable <br />use in consideration of the uniqueness of island properties and the intent <br />of the City to minimize development. <br />In the Heintz application noted above where the City denied Mr. Heints the <br />lot area variance for building. Heintz was told he couldn't construct an <br />accessory dock and that the property was merely limited to picnic* tenting* <br />possible fire place for picnicking and that a boat could be pulled up on <br />the side of the shoreline* but not permanently stored on the property. <br />The new mezibers of the Planning Commission should be advised that the City <br />does not allow an accessory dock to be constructed a lot being developed <br />until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the nsw residence. The <br />reason for this is that someone is at home to supervise and protect the <br />dock property. Docks* boats and boat equipment are always being <br />burglarized. As with all accessory structures/uses* it is the resident of <br />the principal structure that is there to watch out for their personal <br />property. <br />Prior to approving any use of these parcels* Mr. Guitafson should be asked <br />as to how he is planning to dispose of the other tracts within this RLS. <br />The applicants advised that Mr. Tillotsen has spoken for 0003* but what of <br />9* 10* 11 and 12. Review your wetlands map. They are all located within a <br />wetlands area* except for 0003 and Tract G. Tract 0009 through 0014 should <br />be legally combined as one parcel* depending upon the resolve of this <br />issue* possibly for future acquisition by Mr. Tillotsen. <br />Issues for considerationt <br />1. Does the physical character of the area have any bearing on your <br />consideration - limited channel area* dock screened by natural vegetation. <br />Tillotsen has a dock on Tract F* the same as applicants'* is a shared dock <br />more appropriate? <br />2. The City has approved the creation and use of riparian tracts where <br />future owners live within a reasonable policing radius of the dock area. <br />The applicants live in other cities. How does the Planning Commission feel <br />on this issue? It is important on a limited channel area where the dock is <br />shielded by natural vegetation and within visual scope of neighbor <br />Tillotsen? How permanent? <br />T <br />> <br />; ■ <br />V./" <br />!■ /. <br />H <br />U. <br />r,’ <br />r* .1 " <br />.