Laserfiche WebLink
3.The deferred assessment of $1,345.09 must be paid prior to recording the <br />lot split. <br />Chairperson Wietecki asked for details of lot widths to east and west of this site. <br /> To the east, lots with a width of 65 feet would have to be combined to allow <br />buildable sites (3 lots combined to create two lots). <br />John Michels concurred with the staff report and reported the widths of the <br />adjoining lots. With a lot having 47' in the rear yard, the rear lot lines would <br />align. In 1993 DeFlorian paid an assessment for sewer and water extension to <br />the site. <br />Comments: <br />Jim Danner, 958 W Cty Rd B, owns the lots to the east, opposes the subdivision <br />of the lot. In 1975 a variance on the DeFlorian site was denied. <br />Brian Fitzgerald, lives on the lot to the west of the DeFlorian site, opposes the lot <br />split, recommending that there should be open space to the east. The value of <br />their property would be decreased by another house. <br />Colleen Danner, 958 W. County Road B, stated in 1975 that the Council assured <br />the neighbors no variance would be granted. She opposed the variance. <br />No further comments were offered; Chairperson Wietecki closed the hearing. <br />Chairperson Wietecki asked for details on the lot split denied at Dale and Alta <br />Vista. A general discussion ensued. <br />Member Mulder stated he would support the proposal if only one variance was <br />requested. There is no unique need to grant a variance. <br />Motion: <br /> Member Mulder moved, Member Rhody seconded, to recommend <br />denial of the subdivision and variance request based on the following amended <br />findings offered by Member Mulder: <br />1)The proposed variance from the lot area and width requirements is <br />not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City’s <br />Comprehensive Plan and Title 10 of the City Code (Zoning). <br />Variances from both the minimum lot width and the minimum lot <br />area would be needed, and the resulting lot would not be <br />compatible with the neighborhood. <br />2)The proposed variance from the lot area and width requirements, if <br />granted, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or <br />12 <br />