Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OM On ER 17, 1983 PAGE 2 <br />#761 DOUCLAS SMITH Goetten noted that the common ownership issue must be <br />dealt with before considering the variance request. <br />Goetten stated that if this lot was single separate <br />ownership that the variance request would be <br />reasonable and would not have a negative effect on the <br />existing neighborhood. <br />Callahan agreed that the lot is buildable if the common <br />ownership issue was solved. <br />Sime stated that when the owner purchased the 1.ot the <br />common ownership wasn't a problem and the owner wasn't <br />able to foresee the common ownership in the future. <br />Mabusth stated that Smith purchased the lot from <br />Tuthill in 1977 and that the common owners'.►ip was in <br />effect at the time of sale. <br />Rovegno noted that if tt - common ownership hadn't been <br />a problem that the application probably wouldn't have <br />any trouble receiving variance Fopprcval. <br />Adams moved to approve a variance request made by <br />Douglas Smith based on the 100% standards with a lot <br />area variance of 5,032 sf or 23% lct area and lot width <br />45% based on the following findings: <br />1. No available lano - lots are developed on both <br />sides. <br />2. Sewer and water are available. <br />3. <br />House and <br />improvements to be constructed <br />without <br />need for <br />additional variances. <br />4. <br />Aprl icant <br />purchased property not knowing <br />that the <br />ord -ince <br />limitations on develc pment of <br />Lot 18. <br />5. <br />Variance <br />being granted despite the <br />common <br />ownership <br />issue. <br />5. <br />By granting this variance there will <br />be no <br />negative effect on the public health, safety and <br />welfare. <br />7. By granting this variance it is consistent with <br />the development of the area. <br />8. By granting this variance there should be no need <br />for future hardcover and setback variances. <br />9. Planning Commission would like to note that the <br />garage is a non conforming structure and subject <br />to all pertinenL ordinances. <br />10. The special conditions applying tc th, structure <br />of land in question are pecul , to such property <br />or immediately adjoining property. <br />