Laserfiche WebLink
•f^t- •.'■ <br />leered substandard <br />cent lots if the <br />without variances <br />buildable because <br />le. <br />nee that tima has <br />without variances <br />> 1/1/75, <br />59 up through the <br />twned substandard <br />The current Code <br />at a substandard <br />)ld off separately <br />>esn't get two new <br />/12/59 made Parcel <br />1 acre, he had the <br />5t (Parcel 3) from <br />has buildability <br />racant parcels (but <br />but he didn’t sell <br />ely not buildable <br />Kg without Council <br />34 and appliea ror <br />, there would be no <br />iances to the area <br />.ly be related to a <br />unless he proves <br />c Parcel 2 when his <br />had the right to 2 <br />right only to one <br />i the right to only <br />rz <br />fll <br />•-V <br />i <br />Mi <br />m^m-m <br />zoning Pile 1990 <br />Itoy 29, 1987 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />staff has been able to locate no tv2n?^rirwtd"Si"^"bd“i^^o^^”Th^"cltr.s:pt:r/p^ <br />the road right-of-way as part of his lot areas. <br />Staff Se I r—endatiop - <br />Attached is a resolution for <br />Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. <br />The Council’s procedural options are as follows; <br />1 »*. «.ka <4An-iAi resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell». ~">5 «“ <br />if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. <br />2 Table the application indefinitely. This would be 2^ <br />iti^‘;;c?fe^ri"sUTo"p^r“es“ent!“iS!s^^^^^^ <br />and applicant presented no new relevant evidence when the item <br />reheard in May 1987. <br />3 Allow the Ipplicant to revise his application to a 1-additional- <br />building-site request, if he wishes, which some “?”‘»®” <br />have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case, <br />eSuncif could either cease action on the denial <br />revised denial resolution which denies the _2 <br />hut finds that the revised request is a change of conditio ..k—4 - <br />l?S%retrg^ h^c ‘e^^ <br />t//iV’tTditU*’/! “fSt^^?:^u^“stf° It <br />SoSTd rtcon^end that if'^appliclnt does wish to revise hi® '®^®/‘- <br />Application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further <br />review. <br />staff would suggest the following languap incorporated into the <br />resolution as finding #41 if you <=ho°se ^tion 1 at»ve: applicant was <br />advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial <br />evidence to submit; or b) to revise his <br />additional lot on the 2.9 acre P®>^°®\.,^"®head °f 2-additi^^^^^ ^ <br />c) choose neither and waive any right to further review or u <br />application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive -urth <br />Council review of the application. <br />* %• <br />; t