Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1010 <br />April 7, 1986 <br />Page 6 of 6 <br />Mr. Hall's application involves the creation of a new division line - <br />lot 27 was divided in the past - 15 feet divided off and combined with lo'_s <br />26 to the north. True each lot would satisfy the 80% area standa;_C and l.ot <br />A the 80% width standard but lot B meets only 65.5% of the width s,tandaxd. <br />Lot A has an 8% excess of hardcover. No matter how we amend review pro,:e- <br />dures for legally combined lot: - the proposed application is a subdivision <br />proposing a new line in order to create a new building site. Variances <br />granted to single separate lots/commonly owned lots - or lot "ine <br />rearrangements required by such variance approvals are not comparable: and <br />have separate review standards. <br />Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recomendation of denial and <br />would add the following findings: <br />1 - establish a negative precedent in the review of future <br />subdivision applications. <br />2 - original plat was divided prior to City wide platting and zoning <br />ordinances - existing unit satisfies current code. <br />3 - applicant has not submitted supportive facts or findings that <br />would demonstrate acceptable hardships. <br />4 - the applicant has enjoyed a reasonable use of his property. <br />Council Act . - <br />To givL conceptual direction to staff to draft a resolution of denial <br />or approval for act -'on at your meeting of Apri 1 28th. <br />