Laserfiche WebLink
To; <br />Froni: <br />Date: <br />PI an-ni nq Lorrimi S5i on <br />9 <br />Jeanne? A. Mabu^th, Zomnq Aclmi ni str ator <br />Seplember 12, 193T <br />Subject: ttOl 1 Jolin Ericson, 1620 Shadywood P'oad <br />Vatianre <br />List o-f Eidiibits: <br />E;:h] hi L <br />E):hi bi t <br />Ex li 11)1 t <br />E:; b i b 1 t <br />E:; h j I.) i t <br />E;;hi b i t <br />E;; h i b i t <br />E;{h i b i t <br />E;,hi bi t <br />M <br />b <br />C <br />D <br />E <br />f <br />G <br />H <br />1 <br />_ 7 T/12/8*1 <br />Attorney ’s Letter oF 7/26/B4 <br />Certificates of Title <br />f'lid oi Shadywood <br />oninq Administrator's Memo <br />- tJotice to Applicant b/2/BT <br />- Plaiining Commissi of. meeting 4/16/84 <br />- Notice to Applicant .''./19/S4 <br />- Council Meeting 3/12/84 <br />- F'lanrnng Commi ssi c«n Meeting 2/21/84 <br />Review of Afip 1 i ca 11 (jti - Ericson's applicatioft was accepted as a <br />variance application seeling conct-'ptual direction trom the City <br />in regard to the separation or division of legally combined <br />substandard lots 3, 4 and five feet of Lot '2, Shadywood. Similar <br />to the review conducted with the Smnley application. Gnct? the <br />common owner tilnp was resolved allowing an owner to sell a substa­ <br />ndard lot not legally combined for tax purposes, Smiley was <br />required to apply tor a lot line r ear r anqeifient subdivision <br />providing adegiiate setbaci s for existing structures - if there <br />were no t*ncroachme*nt problems, Smiley could have sold the lot <br />upon approval (>f lot area and lot width variance. <br />In tins case, staff advised E.r icson to mcrc.*ly apply for lot <br />standard variances rather tlian a subdivision and variance <br />application as the ordinance requires. Ericsori had been aware of <br />the City's lonq battle with the common ownership problem and felt <br />that now the Council would be* pr epared to deal with the divisiori <br />of his homestead property. 1 advised him that legally combined <br />lots would r«?qui*"e different review standc*rds l:>ut that since <br />Council had not specifically addressed th*? issue of legally <br />combined lots that he had every rigiil to seel conceptual <br />direction. The variance application fee is flOO.OO, the <br />subdivision feu is 125‘.».00 for conceptual direction the applicant <br />was asled to file merely the variance application. <br />Review tin- enclosed Planning Coiiimi ssi on and Council minutes <br />(Exhibit F, H •*' 1). Planning Comnassion asked for conceptual <br />direction froni Council and Council's directive to the f-’lanninq <br />Commission advised that we are dealing with a subdivision of a <br />property arid were to consider the performance standards of the <br />LR-IC eonincj district as with all subdivisions that create addi­ <br />tional r ec I il»-n 11 a 1 units.