Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Carter Delaittre <br />February 19» 1991 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />In reviewing the staff memos and Planning Comraission/Council <br />minutes I think you will find that Smedberg was less an <br />cooperative in allowing the subdivision to <br />neither Planning Commission nor Council objected to the divisi t <br />Smedberg requested and was granted a tabling of the request for 6 <br />months so he could "research his options" for use of his <br />property. This attitude resulted from one caveat of the <br />Lbd\vision resolution which would require tax comoination of all <br />the parcels within each individual record lot. Tne <br />was tabled on March 25, 1985 and has never been <br />action. Apparently, Nelson and McCloud were able «:lose on <br />their transaction absent City subdivision <br />the involved parties have pushed for completion of this <br />application since that time. <br />I should note that Mr. McCloud did return executed <br />"automatic lot area variance" resolutions to my office on July <br />26, 1985. Because the subdivision has been finalized, the <br />property until a lot area variance is granted and the subdivision <br />is resolved. <br />My recommendation to you is as follows: <br />1. As part of your after-the-fact variance request, y <br />should request City approval of the automatic lot area <br />variance resolution, which action was stalled out in 198j. <br />variance request. For the record. Record Lot 16 also has <br />never been granted the automatic lot area variance. <br />Also, be aware that Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.31, <br />Subdivision 6 (B) disallows issuance of building <br />“seVgl <br />after-the-fact permit for the room additions will be p »- <br />on these requiremsnts being met. <br />V <br />{ ■ <br />-M, ^ 111 ■ i ■ 11 ■il, ii > ■ ‘ iTm, lifti