01-24-90 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL January 24, 1990 Blesener pointed out that the road was put in while the house that existed on the northwest corner was still being occupied. As it was the road was less than 10 feet from the house. Blesener agreed that the road location was determined so that there would be a legal lot at the northwest corner of Valento Lane and LaBore Road. Fahey was concerned with the 100 foot depths that were approved for Mr. Valento's lots pointing out that such depths are difficult to work with and once developed, there is very little back yard areao Scalze pointed out that it will still be possible to build a good-sized house on a 100 foot by 100 foot lot. Collova pointed out that the proof is that the lots are the only three that are not developed in the area, Scalze pointed out that the Code says that special conditions and circumstances that must exist in order for a hardship to be determined cannot be primarily economic in nature. Fahey pointed out that it is valid to use aesthetics in determining a hardship. The Planner stated that a poorly designed neighborhood qualifies as a hardship if the variance granted will help protect the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to create the highest-quality neighborhood possible. Scalze again pointed out that the Arcilla variance was denied. Scalze pointed out the fact that the Valento lots were part of a plat created by the applicant and approved by the Council. Fahey pointed out that it was the City that required Valento Lane to go through to LaBore Road. Scalze pointed out that the City did nothing to encourage lot design, that was done by the applicant. Scalze also pointed out that the Council voted to deny the variance in July of 1989, pointing out that nothing has changed since that time. Blesener pointed out that Mr. Valento was not present at the other meeting, and this is the first time the Council has heard his rational for requesting the variance, Page 7