Laserfiche WebLink
ir- <br />D <br />#811 - John Ericson <br />April 12, 1984 <br />Page 2 <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />41 • <br />3 . <br />To approve lot area and lot width variances concurrent with sub­ <br />division application would establish a negative precedent <br />The applicant has received tax benefits from the legal combination <br />of Lots 3 & 4 over the years since the 1940's <br />The total property has been used as one single residential unit based <br />on location of :he garage, access drive and sower line that serves <br />existing house <br />between Coffee and Hendrickson bridges along North Shore Drive and <br />Shacyvood Road frontir.g on Crystal Bay, 16 properties that are legally <br />comtinod on two or more lots could seek the same division with variances <br />if this application is approved, resulting in 16 new residences on <br />Crystal Bay <br />A very preliminary review of the ownership patterns of the LR-lC <br />district above Navarre area (see Exhibits E, F, & G) shows 16% or <br />43 properties offer the potential of divisions if this application is <br />approved <br />6. Review Section 10.08, Subdivision 3A <br />a) The property in question has been used as a residential unit <br />receiving tax benefits for a minimum of 30 years. The undeveloped <br />Lot 3 is taxed on an incremental basis, not as a buildable lot <br />b) The granting of such variances would change the character of the <br />irunediate surrounding neighborhood <br />Approval of this variance and subdivision application would be in <br />conflict with the intent of the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan <br />of the City <br />t I