08-17-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1056 June 2, 1987 Page 2 of 2 Discussion: Since this item was tabled on 9/8/86» Mr. Golden has passed away, however, Mrs. Golden at our last discussion was still opposed to the variances and still contests the lot line. Planning Commission on 8/18/86, had voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the variance, finding that the vehicle maneuvering hardship does not justify the variances requested. The additional hardship of disturbed soils has not been addressed by the Planning Commission. Applicant seems to have a legitimate reason to request additional review, in that if Council will not grant his variance even if he prevails in a lot-line dispute, then it's probably not worth the expense of litigating the lot line which would be a financial burden on both Hanson and Mrs. Golden. Considering that the degree of variance depends on the location of the lot line, staff suggests that the request be considered based on the worst- case situation for Hanson, i.e. presume Hanson loses and the 3'10" and 6'5" NW and NE setbacks are proposed. Staff Recommendation: If Council finds that it would be prudent and fair to applicant and neighbor to reconsider the variance and take action without the lot line being resolved, staff recommends that the application be referred to the Planning Commission for review of the soils hardship, and staff suggests that applicant retain an engineer to give an opinion on whether the disturbed soils in question will or will not support the proposed garage. If, on the other hand. Council does not wish to reconsider the tabling action of 9/8/86, the Council may table it again until such time that the neighbors no longer dispute the location of the lot line. / r 'u '—