Laserfiche WebLink
,:::: _ _ <br />_ <br />_ . .. .. ;.: , , <br />- _ _._ __ , - <br />liZourecis `Iiev� Planatin� Com�is�ion Apri121, 1999 <br />�e�ular 1VIee��xe� Pa�� 12 - <br />Corrunissioner I�aden asked if the hardship was created by whoever platied the loi and <br />constructed the twinhome. Ericson stated the original design of this subdivision may not have <br />been fully thought out to allow for the construction of garages or any future expansion. He noted <br />the Codes at the time of construction may have been different. From staff's persp� ��e, they �'elt <br />the situatian and circumstance was not created by the property owner lun���elf b�;,��athar, the <br />person who platted and designed the twinhomes. Ericson not � d the des��z�'����w �y�inhomes <br />utilize the land much betCer and provide for living space an�����ling ar� �._ . <br />Co�nmissioner Miller asked if fihere wiil be future problE <br />Ericson stated this is one of the criteria that needs to he <br />would apply to. He staied �his row of iwinhomes iace ; <br />considera.tion being raised and felt whether a precedent <br />request r�vould be looked at in the same way. <br />Commissioner Braathen asked if this is creating a <br />want a rrurror caevelopmeni. Ericson stated he dci <br />� :.� ;;: <br />adjozrung property s ability to expand. I�e n. ��d'� <br />south side of the lot. <br />Chafr Feterson reviewed ihe cc <br />presenied. He agreed with Eri <br />design oithe units. Chair Pete <br />result in a. be�efit to the Ci�v:�t <br />Commis�to <br />Plannirzg �� <br />they may na <br />support for <br />Nliller <br />they <br />cier� � . ow mar� " "`: <br />. y p�rc��e��.��s t�'is <br />, :_; <br />�� si�uation but siafE�r�igl��ci�ihat <br />��r�;;"s�i or not, a simiiar var�ance <br />for the <br />nk ii w <br />;��operty should they <br />�ct ar limit the <br />have a garage on the <br />�n of th��rnit on th ot and noied ihe great limitation <br />the h���hip occ d with the original piatting and <br />ed th���''ommis�' must consider whether tI�is request will <br />�ghb��i�c�d � k� <br />,. ,,., � . <br />ilus wii� be� an improvement to the praperty and, as a <br />�rt the redevelopment of older buildings. He cammented <br />�ype of situation arising in the future. He stated his <br />criteria were not deveioped by the Ci#y. <br />ussioner Berke no��" � i�iai this property was planned in the 1950s and 1960s and ihe Ci#y is <br />to impose today'.`� tandards. He stated you need to make some allowances and not place a <br />i� on owners . o want to improve their property. <br />��l��� P�t���t�xa ���ed that a variance, by it's very definition, addresses u�xique situations so he <br />�;�e����,�, "t;���. i;ssue as weli, He stated he a�rees �rith commenis made that with a redevelopment <br />situ�,tiori o�'l�ss than ideal conditions, it need5 to be cor�sidered while assuring a precedent is not <br />set that will cause fiature problems. �ie suggested that ihe praposed r�solution mention the <br />uniqueness oi this particula� loi. <br />Ericson stated if a. similar app(�cation as �ade and it becomes ar� issue where more variance <br />requests ar� being made, then rn�ybe the Code should be reviewed to s�e if it should be �hanged <br />