Laserfiche WebLink
CItyofOROIVOmtOiUTION OFTNiaTVeOlMCII.•'" "z 3^-'• ^ “''44 .• r^’ii <br />iM^wiilHPHi^M''iMiibln«d M that^' <br />emblned knt «««ts th« raquirmants of th« <br />:nre the iota e^n be built upon* <br />JrlT.C <br />tlen of a 4 iMfith City wide review eC the <br />Ip Issue, on Ooeenber/19« 199.1, the City <br />osed anendaent ef the Municipal code that <br />1 substandard undeveloped lota within the <br />f the City reqardleas of the omershlp of <br />same standards for review. <br />;y Is ia,74R square feet or 77% of the <br />The property !s consistent In area with 7 <br />lots within a total Jeveleped neighborhood <br />y measures feet fn lot width and is <br />feet short of the narrowest lets in the 33 <br />>* neighborhood at 90 feet. <br />Planning Commission reviewed this <br />October 14, 1983, and a majority of Its <br />ided approval of the variances as proposed <br />Eollowing findlnqsr <br />land - lots are developed on both sides of <br />is served with sewer and water. <br />ouse and Improvements can be constructed <br />for additional variances. <br />hised property net knowing the erlstlng <br />Lions on development of the property. <br />ng granted despite the current ordinance <br />Planning Commission anticipates resolu- <br />it of the ordinance. <br />his variance there will be no negative <br />>ile health, safety and trelfare. <br />hir. vartanoe It is consistent with the <br />e area. <br />-lb A.&.S;v;►a •r** riXi'-•f r.^e...Jrrt'I•&V wmif *• ».• a.a*.- * • j •- V't • o ii I % •«.r r«t*v vr »»•CUyorpRONOfSe* * • $•* ( «. . S. * < OhI *.v ' . ^MWiwnoN.MVMieiTveeiMaLno..JSia a t.• »%-> eVdiI * K ' ., f - ViO n rt <br />' V‘-Vv> <br />Fj.> •_< <br />uld be no nood for <br />i> The special conditions applying to the structure of land <br />in question are peculiar to such preparty ei Immadlataly <br />adjoining property. <br />• r ,- i -i j) The conditions do not apply ganarally to other land e. <br />structures in the district In which said land Is locstad. <br />k) The granting of the application Is necessary for the <br />preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right <br />of the applicant. <br />1) The granting of the proposed variances will net in anyway <br />impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or In any ether <br />respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Cede. <br />m) That the granting of such variances will net merely serve <br />as a convenience to the applieent, but is necessary to <br />alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. <br />18. The minority opinion of the Planning Commission in <br />their recommendation stated tha*- .ney would hsve no problem <br />in recommer'*approval of the proposed variance <br />application * common ownership issue was resolved by <br />the City ar ' ' necessary amendment of the ordinance <br />approved. <br />11. The City Council has considered this application <br />including the findings and recommendations of the Planning <br />Commission, repor ts by Cl ty staff , comments by the owner end <br />the effect of the proposed variance o.n the health, safety <br />and welfare of the community. <br />1?. The Ci ty Coune11 f inds that the eonditioni* existing on <br />this property are pccul tar to i t and do not aoply generally <br />to other property in thin zoning district: that granting <br />the variances would not adversely effect traffic <br />conditions, light, air nor pose a fire h.izard or ether <br />danger to neighboring property} would not merely serve as a <br />convenience to the owr«*r, but ts necessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hard<:bip or difficulty} Is necessary to <br />preserve a siibntantl.ai property right of the owner} and <br />would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning <br />code and conpi chensiv*» plan of the City. <br />A.. <br />V ' *■