Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 26, 1992 <br />were adhered to. Maximum density for the area under <br />the Shoreland Ordinance is six units. The Planner <br />reported that the Shoreland Ordinance requirements <br />discourage anything beyond low density sinae the <br />shallowness of the lots leaves virtually no buildable <br />area after setback requirements are met. After <br />considering all these options, the Planning Commission <br />preferred a long range open space designation. <br />The Planner noted that the proposal calls for changing <br />the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but not the zoning of <br />the area. Zoning would remain as R-1. Existing <br />single-family homes would continue to exist. <br />Properties seeking property improvements would still be <br />subject to single-family zoning requirements. <br />Scalze asked if properties bought and sold and <br />continued to be lived in would continue to exist as <br />today. <br />The Planner replied that this was correct. The Planner <br />noted that the 50% rule for property improvements would <br />continue to exist as it does today. That is, <br />improvements to a property are allowed up to 50% of the <br />fair market value of the structure. Should a property <br />owner wish to exceed the 50% rule, a variance would be <br />necessary. <br />The Planner stated that the Planning Commission wants <br />to see a long range transition of the area to open <br />space. <br />Scalze noted that the Comprehensive Plan is a guideline <br />as to the future intent of the City. <br />Collova asked what will happen if one of the homes in <br />this area burns down and setback requirements cannot be <br />met. <br />The Planner replied that the Zoning Ordinance provides <br />that repairs that would exceed 50% of the fair market <br />value of the structure would require a variance. The <br />Planner noted that this requirement is in effect today, <br />and the proposal before the Council would not change <br />that rule. <br />Blesener asked then if it were correct that the <br />proposed change in the Comp Plan has no effect on these <br />property owners. <br />The City Planner reported that in the Planning <br />Commission's review of the proposal for 34 Little <br />Canada Road, the Commission felt that denial of the <br />Page 12 <br />