10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ml.MTKSOFTIIK OKO.NO V VNM.M; <'0.\I.\1I.S.SI0> ^IKKl iNc; %*'-iday, SeplrmiH-r 20.2004 6:00 o*chick p.m. (M4>305I Kr«in aid Jalkr Fit/palrick. foBtiaacd) the history of the neighhortuHid i> that tho>e snull lots have been aettutred and combined sluiviy in order to creale ’he larger lots. Tronan slated it is not out of the ordinary to request the Kit/palrcks to try to comply with the I.R*I A standards, and that redevelopment should not happen in a significant way unless a larger lot is combined and 30-fool side vurd setbacks can be provided Cronan staled the combination of the history of redevelopment along West I ake and the aggressive nature of this proposal should give the Shields and iinckstins some confidence that this application will be denied. C'ronan pointed out there aa* three findings that ore required by the Planning Commission: and that is. that there is something very unique about this property, that this uniquctH.*vs creates a substantial hardship, and that there w ill be no harm to the neighbors ( nman stated these same conditions have been slured by others, are enfoaed by the I.R-I.A zoning standards, and have been upheld by the bst four decisions on West l ake by the C'lty. Cnman suicd the required seventy findings deal w ith the fact that the property m question cannot be pul to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofncial controls. Cronan staled in his opinion the existing hrimc is a rcax^nablc u>e that can continue In addition, it is not a substantial nghl to he able to construct a dream home on a S0-fotii lot C'ronan pointed out the shed K'ing pmpt»ed now spans the property and is a two-stoiy building with a peaked riMif I hc longest continuous wall on the north side currently is .^0 feet and on the Miuih side is 50 feel, with the proposed structure being 76 feet in that required selhaek. I he currenl structure is 1 1 feet tall, w nh a 3K-ftHU sinKture being proposed tor the residence and a 20-fiNit tall structure for the garage, w ith the bottoms of the caves being propi*sed 20 feet off the ground for the residence. C'ronan stated in his ivpinion this is a substantial change from what currently exists and constitutes a rc/immg. C'ronan stated by approv ing ihesc variances, the two U»Ls lo the north of this property would also be cntiiled to those same variances and that the Shields and itncLsons arc in opposition to that avoning Tim llarrcr. 340 Wc-xi I ake Sireel. indicaicd he is the tmner ot the pr««pertv hKaied two ht»uscs o the north of the Fil/patncks’ pnipcrty. llarrcr stated m hi> opinion the cuaeni house has met its useful life and that the proposed structure by Ihc Fitzpatricks is a g«M>d improvement lo the ncighborhiKxl. llarrcr indicated he has seen the pbns for the proposed structure and he is not opposed to the project. llarrcr stated the a*devclopmenl that has iKCurred within the recent past atimg West lake has been largely the elTorts of one mdividiul. and that this individual also had ihe up|Hinunily to acquire this property. Ilaner staled in his opinion the Fit/|ulncks have a right to develop this properly, and that a policy of development based uptm the ability of one person to acquire additional property to creale larger lots is not giHid public policy. Harter staled the nghis of a property owner to redevelop a pn>perty should stand, and if Ihc variances are denied in this situation, his nghts to redevelop his property would bIno be resincted. Ek)b Olson. 346 West lake Sueel. indicated he is the owner of the property to the north of the Filzpatncks and has resided in this area for the past 1 1 years OI>«>n stated the trend to consolidate smaller lots along West lake is basically the trend of one person, and that a person has the nght to own a small lot and develop it just as a person with a larger lot has a nght to develop that property. Olson P.AGE 17