10-03-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

>0.5% 19.5% 12.5% 17.5% 2% 8% parcels which are e applicant. The and has a width in he area and width :he property. ed R-IC, effective ring a minimum of 1 Included within the July 10, 1950, a t size of 1 acre in 1948. ed and contained sidence located at • . .. T 7. on September 22, 1958, the City Council approved the request of Mr. Ferrell to construct a second residence on the undivided property. The request was granted subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrell was issued a building permit to construct a new residence on October 13, 1958, which residence is now known as 3405 Watertown Road. 8. SOTietime during 1958-1959, Mr. Ferrell suMivided the property so that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate 1.29 *cre 3425 Watertown Road. 9. Mr. Ferrell has retained ownership of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 since their creation as a result of the 1958-o9 subdivision. 10. On March 18, 1985, Mr. Ferrell requested City staff to accept a Atta?f•V'^rVc^i^en^^ "Submitted the application as a zoning appeal in order to be granted a timely recommendation by the Planning Commission without submitting the complete survey and soil testing information required. 11. Pursuant to the zoning appeal application, the Planning Conanission held a Public Hearing on this matter. Application No. ^ on April 15, 1985. The Planning Commission confirmed that many variances were necessary in order to build on either of Parcels 2 or 3 and the Planning Commission gave the applicant the general direction that Planning Commission would likely only recommend approval of one new house, and only if Parcels 2 and 3 were combined. two. 13. On October 9, 1985, Mr. Ferrell submitted a ^ for variances to build new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. The Plann^ing Commission held a public hearing on the matter on November 18, 1985, and tabled the application pending submittal survey and soil testing information for the existing house on Parcel 1. 14. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission again reviewed the completed application. The Planning Commission unanimously reco^ended denial of 2 new building sites but recoimended approval of 1 new building site using the combined Parcels 2 and 3. Page 4 of 9 |a T At the could wished Applic 16. T at the adopt€ Ross V compli 17. T1 such accord does 1 previc 18. 1 desigr indica reside setbac consid case < matte] housii effect