11-28-1988 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'oning File #1296 June 17, 1988 Page 5 of 6 street from the outlot purchased it ana continues to own the property now. Once again, the background and reason behind this subdivision was the owner was giving up a commercial marina and the City granted certain variances for residential use with the rezoning so that there would be no serious challenge of a taking. There have been subdivisions in the past, specifically the Greentrees and the Pink Palace Subdivisions where riparian tracts were created for the exclusive use of adjacent lot because of extensive lineal feet of shoreline that easily satisfied the required lot width of the specific zoning district. The RS district (island districts) the ordinances of the City allow for accessory docks without principal structures. This would be a reasonable use in consideration of the uniqueness of island properties and the intent of the City to minimize development. In the Heintz application noted above where the City denied Mr. Heintz the lot area variance for building. Heintz was told he couldn't construct an accessory dock and that the property was merely limited to picnic, tenting, possible fire place for picnicking and that a boat could be pulled up on the side of the shoreline, but not permanently stored on the property. The new members of the Planning Commission should be advised that the City does not allow an accessory dock to be constructed on a lot being developed until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the new residence. The reason for this is that someone is at home to supervise and protect the dock property. Docks, boats and boat equipment are always being burglarized. As with all accessory structures/uses, it is the resident of the principal structure that is there to watch out for their personal property. Prior to approving any use of these parcels, Mr. Gustafson should be asked as to how he is planning to dispose of the other tracts within this RLS. The applicants advised that Mr. Tillotsen has spoken for 0003, but what of 9, 10, 11 and 12. Review your wetlands map. They are all located within a wetlands area, except for 0003 and Tract G. Tract 0009 through 0014 should be legally combined as one parcel, depending upon the resolve of this issue, possibly for future acquisition by Mr. Tillotsen. Issues for consideration: 1. Does the physical character of the area have any bearing on your consideration - limited channel area, dock screened by natural vegetation. Tillotsen has a dock on Tract F, the same as applicants', is a shared dock more appropriate? 2. The City has approved the creation and use of riparian tracts where future owners live within a reasonable policing radius of the dock area. The applicants live in other cities. How does the Punning Commission feel on this issue? It is important on a limited channel area where the dock is shielded by natural vegetation and within visual scope of neighbor Tillotsen? How permanent?