Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />November 13, 1986 <br />Neamy Timmons pointed out that Mrs. Neamy could go ahead and request that <br />Property Lot 3 be divided as it meets Code and does not require a variance. <br />Divisior <br />(Cont.) Moore reported that the lot line of Lot 3 may need to be adjusted <br />depending on what happens with Lot A. Moore reported that they <br />already have a buyer for Lot F3 with an FHA mortgage approved. Moore <br />felt that the lot line could not be adjusted at this point without <br />effecting the mortgage approval. <br />Timmons disagreed and felt that there would be no effect on the mortgage <br />as there is no legal description currently existing for Lot B. <br />Mr. Herkenhoff asked if there are situations similar to this one <br />that the City has acted on in the past. <br />The Planner reported that he researched the records and cannot find <br />a similar situation to the Neany proposal where a variance was granted. <br />Mr. Moore reported that Mrs. Neamy will only divide her property as <br />they are proposing, and will not proceed with the division as proposed <br />by the City Planner. <br />DeLonais pointed out that there is no hardship. Her'<enhoff pointed <br />out that the City would he setting a precedent if the division was <br />approved as proposed by Nearly. <br />The Planner again stated that he could not recommend that the variance <br />be granted and pointed out that the City has been requiring 6 foot <br />drainane easements along lot lines. <br />Timmons pointed out that if Neamy went along with the property division <br />as proposed by the Planner, she could have a restrictive convenant <br />placed on Lot A that a hone could not be build back further than <br />a certain point on the lot. <br />Neamy again pointed out that under the Planner's proposal the lot <br />line for Lot 3 would have to be roved over. Moore again stated <br />that this would effect the mortc:aye approval for this property. <br />Mrs. Timons disagreed. <br />Davison suggested that the City wait and approve any property division <br />for this property as a package rather than acting on Lot 3 at this <br />time. <br />Mrs. iNeamy did not want to lose her bac'kyard as proposed in the <br />Planner's recommendation. <br />Timmons pointed out that then Mrs. Neany had the option of going <br />ahead with the division of Lot 3 and retaining the rest of the <br />property. Timmons pointed out that the loss of Mrs. Neany's backyard <br />would be a trade -off for the ability to split the property into three <br />lots and sell two of the lots. <br />Page -11- <br />