Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />FEBRUARY 26, 1992 <br />request based on the 50% rule was a little vague. <br />Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended the comp <br />plan amendment to provide firmer ground for variance <br />denials. The Planner reported that as long as a home <br />exists and is maintained, the 50% rule would not come <br />into play unless the house burns. The Planner noted <br />that in the case of 34 Little Canada Road there was not <br />much that could be done to the structure without <br />exceeding the 50o requirement. <br />Pat Aurley, 2 West Little Canada Road, asked what would <br />happen if he needed to replace a roof that was blown <br />off. <br />The City Planner replied that Mr. Hurley would need to <br />apply for a building permit. As long as the <br />improvement was less than 50% of the fair market value <br />of the structure, the building permit would be <br />routinely granted. <br />Todd Hagen, 52 East Little Canada Road, asked why the <br />City is amending the Comprehensive Plan if everything <br />else remains the same. <br />The Planner replied that the purpose for the amendment <br />arose out of concern by the Planning Commission for <br />denial of variances for improvements to homes. Before <br />the Commission was prepared to recommend a denial it <br />wanted to know what the future land use for the area <br />was. For the area on the north side of Round Lake, the <br />Planning Commission is recommending a future land use <br />of open space. Zoning is not effected by this <br />recommendation. <br />Hagen felt that amendment of the Comp Plan was the <br />first step towards changing the zoning of the area. <br />Hagen felt that if a house burns down in this area, the <br />remaining land would have a lesser value that it did <br />when there was a home on it. Hagen pointed out that <br />most of the properties would be unbuildable because <br />Shoreland Ordinance requirements could not be met, <br />therefore, the land is currently being used to its <br />highest and best value with the existing homes on it. <br />Aagen stated that the undue hardship statute <br />grandfathers in these existing homes. <br />The Planner felt that this was one of the reasons that <br />the Planning Commission chose not to recommend that the <br />area be rezoned. <br />Hagen felt that a change in the comp plan placed an <br />undue hardship on the homeowners in the area. Future <br />potential buyers will see the comp plan designation <br />Page 13 <br />