Laserfiche WebLink
Resolution No . /G� �'� <br /> Page 89 � . - <br /> � � . <br /> c) Since the approval or disapproval of slips is <br /> a govern�ental discretion subject to performance <br /> standard review, and not a vested right of the <br /> lando�v-ner, there is no diminution in value by any � <br /> � zoning decision, only increase in �%alue by such <br /> slip approvals . <br /> d) The value of the Co�ercial zoning at most is <br /> only $14, 000 being �he difference between 66 slip <br /> co�-�nercial and 66 slip non-conforming residential <br /> designation. At tne 30 slip level, the cor�nercial <br /> zoning value is $0. � <br /> e) The indicated value of s�lips in the lake (the <br /> increase in value betjaeen 30 and 66 slips in <br /> . co�-�mercial zoning) is $2,066 per slip. This . � <br /> compares to an annual license iee of $3. 00 per <br /> slip and an average annual rental charge of $500 . 00 <br /> to $1,000 per slip . The question then becomes : "is <br /> the public benefitted to the sum of $2,066 by <br /> • allowing each such addi�ional slip to exist?" <br /> 5. The Council accepts the reconunendations of <br /> Mr. Isberg as being the two most practical alternatives <br /> for the Marina property: . . <br /> a) Zoning the property for residential use only <br /> � would have the Ieast iinpact on the neighborhood and <br /> � �he, environment and would not deprive the owner of <br /> aIl reasonable use of his land. <br /> b) Allowing a limited corim�ercial use of the property <br /> would have more impact on the neighborhood and the <br /> . env ironment, but. would be in keeping with the owner' s <br /> desires . The allowed�;use would be consistent with <br /> the services and historic level of use of the Stubbs� <br /> Bay Resort prior to McCleary' s involvement. <br /> � c) Authorizing development of the full marina is <br /> inconsistent with the historic property use, the <br /> critical nature of Stubbs Bay and the goals of the <br /> � conanunity. � <br /> � , . <br />