Laserfiche WebLink
rr <br />Zoning File #1759 <br />September 10, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation <br />Planning Commission members questioned whether there was a need <br />to address a variance with the proposed subdivision application since <br />the lot line rearrangement would result in a substandard lot being <br />reduced further in area. The Planning Commission concurred that it <br />would be appropriate in this review to address the need for an area <br />variance. The applicant's attorney, Robert Mitchell, was asked to <br />provide the hardships. Mr. Mitchell noted the following findings and <br />lardships: <br />1.The property to be divided from the Wells parcel is <br />approximately .259 acres. More than half of it is wetland <br />area. The City does not include wetlands area in the dry <br />buildable calculation. <br />2.Because of the location of the wetlands, the dry buildable <br />portion of the property to be divided from the Wells <br />homestead is not suitable for septic development. <br />3.Based on the location of the existing houses and <br />improvements, the subject property appears to belong more <br />with the Proft property than with the Wells homestead <br />parcel. <br />4.A hardship is also created by of the unusal shape of the lot <br />and the location of the wetland. <br />Mr. Mitchell also commented on the septic capabilities of the <br />Wells property as the on-site evaluator has confirmed that there is no <br />other area suitable for the development of an alternate site. <br />Mitchell advised that the evaluator has determined that there is <br />enough room on the Wells property to repair the present system ii the* <br />system had to be expanded in its current location at some time in the <br />future. He also noted that this condition was common with other <br />developed lots within the Myrtlewood Subdivision of similar size. <br />Planning Conmlssion Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed lot <br />line rearrangement subject to the conditions set forth by staff. The <br />minority opinion of one felt that a substandard lot should not be <br />reduced any further in area. <br />The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the <br />Planning Commissions approval recommendation. <br />J