CC 02-27-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I . .- I I . . . . I .- I .MillEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 27. 1995 10 Mr. Fritsinger indicated the applicant is proposing to rebuild the home on the same footprint, with the exceptions of two small additions, but they will not encroach further into the existing setbacks of the home. He added, by building on the same footprint it allows the construction to begin immediately and also e1iminates additional encroachments into the setback. Mr. Fritsinger pointed out that if the lot was vacant and current setback requirements enforced there would not be a "buildable" lot available on the site. Mr. Fritsinger stated much of this neighborhood was developed prior to present zoning standards, so most homes do not conform to present standards in one manner or another. It is highly unlikely that the City plans on redeveloping these lakeshore areas with the intention of making all homes conform to the lakeshore setback regulations. Mr. Fritsinger indicated after an in depth discussion, the Planning Commission approved several motions. 1. Approval of the variances requested. The location of the salvaged deck and previous house footprint, along with the proposed new additions will establish setbacks at 1516 Arden Place. Any proposed future expansions beyond the limits described previously will require additional variances. 2. The rationale for allowing these variances was: a) It has been an established history of single family dwelling use on the land. b) Circumstances beyond the control of the resident displaced them from their home. c) It is reasonable to assume the City would allow this lot to be used for residential purposes. d) It is unlikely the City intends to require the development of the homes in the area to conform to the lakeshore setback regulation. e) The development of the lot confortns to the generally accepted standard of development abutting the lake. t) The intent of the nonconfortning use Section IX, J of the zoning ordinance was written to address issues regarding commercial property or nonconfortning use, not residential homeowners. Mr. Fritsinger indicated the Planning Commission requested City Attorney Filla to review, the need for a variance to the nonconforming use section of the ordinance and his conclusion was that a variance was still required. MOTION: Hicks moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 95-7, McGuire Variance. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).