10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff has told the applicant on numerous occasions over recent years that it is unlikely the City would allow building permits for his adjacent parcels. A similar application by Alden Anderson at 1900 Shoreline Drive resulted in Council voting 4-0 to deny separation of adjacent 1.4 acre and 1.8 acre commonly owned parcels from each other^ based on 1} lack of demonstrated hardship; 2) no sanitary sewer available; 3) insufficient area; 4) insufficient width. I have included the draft resolution from this application, which should h»lp to clarify the City's past position on applications of thi& yp® (note that the Anderson resolution was never adopted because he withdrew his application after Council voted to have staff draft a denial resolution). 1 have included the tax history for 1974-1985 on the properties (see Exhibit J). It is noteworthy that the valuation of the parcel in question (P.I.D. 0007) was reduced starting in 1983, and the parcel was assessed incrementally as compared to the parcel with the house; i.e. the adjacent parcels appear to be valued as part of the main lot, not as separate building sites. Because Mr. Ferrell insisted on bringing this application to you even though he was told of the slim chances for approval, staff accepted the application on an appeal/interpretation basis. Does the Planning Commission find any hardship or circumstance that would suggest the standards should not apply to this property? :.. ^ I j ^ ‘t- T" w 1 Tot Frews Dates Sul) ject I Xdst of Ext- Exl* Ext* EX^ Ex) Ex) Ex) Ex) Ex) Ex) Exl Th zoning and sep totalin acres r permit In cant, i the req was eff Alden I grant a the apt varianc denied, zoning PI the Pla inf orm< the apE Lots 7 house c PI grantin code.