06/26/1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

AGENDA ITEM 5 C STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE June 22, 1995 TOPIC 95-19-P, Harvey Meredith, Minor Subdivision/Variance EAU= 8301 20th Avenue, Mr. Harvey Meredith owns approximately 30 (29.4 +/-) acres on the west side of 20th Avenue just south of our border with Columbus Township. He would like to subdivide the site into three building sites. The property is zoned Rural and a 10 acre minimum lot size is required with a minimum lot width of 330 feet. The zoning in Columbus Township, adjacent to this site, is also rural with a 5 acre minimum lot size. The City's Comprehensive Plan indicates this property as rural. Utilities are not available to serve the site. Mr. Meredith is proposing the following: Parcel A - 10 Acres with 374.61' of lot width on 20th Ave. Parcel B - 9.4 Acres with 343.62' of lot width on 20th Ave. Parcel C - 10 Acres with 330' of lot width on 20th Ave. Parcel D - .03 Acres physcially separated from the balance of the property by I -35W. A Variance is being request for Parcel B for .6 acres. According to the City Zoning Code, "variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance may be granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undo hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration." The City must make findings of fact that: A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Mr. Meredith has the ability to split the parcel into two lots rather than three. Therefore a reasonable use of the property exists. B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. In this case, when 135 W was constructed, Public Action was required to take a portion of this property for highway purposes. Prior to that, there was adequate acreage to make three 10+ acre parcels of property. Therefore, circumstances are unique to this property and were not created by the landowner. C. That the hardship is not due to economic consideration alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. If the hardship, in this case, is considered to be the construction of 135 W, it is not an economic consideration. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on. the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this