Laserfiche WebLink
s 1 =7- <br /> 2 <br /> 3 compensate the owners.. Commissioner -Hansen said he just wanted." to know <br /> . 4 who- had filled -out the application for a variance, filling in Mr. <br /> 5 Campbell' s name as the owner. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Mr: Cadwallader stated that, as an .agent to Mr. Campbell, he had signed. <br /> 8 both- his own and Mr. Campbell' s name on the bottom of the, document. He <br /> 9 .said he had filled in Mr..- Campbell' s name as owner because .that was what <br /> 10 "I had been told by Mr. ' Campbell and to the best of my knowledge was <br /> 11 the case. " <br /> 12 <br /> . 13 Mr.. Childs indicated he would check with the City Attorney to see. <br /> 14 whether the fact that there was an agreement to sell had any bearing in <br /> 15 view of the fact that the variance goes with the property and not the <br /> 16 owner. -He also pointed out that even an error in the hearing notice <br /> 17 would not have nullified the hearing itself. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Commissioner Werenicz suggested the City Attorney also be requested to <br /> 20 look at the probate records to see if Don Flynn was the only person who <br /> 21 could sell this property. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 When Chair Franzese asked Mr. Campbell what he intended to do about the <br /> 24 drainage on the lot, the contractor said he planned to build a split <br /> 25 level house without a full basement and would provide any swale the City . <br /> 026 believed necessary to handle the runoff. He said the company who had . <br /> 27 made a soil test of the parcel had not indicated they anticipated any <br /> 28 water problems. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Mr. Hoxmeier said if the grade of that parcel is raised, he . certainly <br /> 31 expected to have water problems. Marjorie Shaddrick stated that she had <br /> 32 a hard time understanding why the City was considering any development <br /> 33 of this lot since they had turned down a request because the lot was too <br /> 34 small in 1979. The Chair told her the lot's R-2 zoning permitted "either <br /> 35 a two or one family . dwelling to be constructed there and since the <br /> 36 -request- for a duplex had been turned down, the owner has every right to <br /> 37 seek approval for a single family residence. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Mr. Childs read the portion of the American Laws on Zoning which he had <br /> 40 included in the agenda packet which applied to "substandard" lots, . which <br /> 41 seemed to - indicate not allowing the owner to build at all would be <br /> 42 considered "taking" .of the property for which the City would have to pay <br /> 43 compensation. He said an unreasonable sized house could be regulated, <br /> 44 but since -this house would only . be' . 11 square feet less than the <br /> 45 Ordinance required, the, .Manager doubted that was :possible: in this case. <br /> 46 However,' the City can require that the driveway: come -off Roosevelt and <br /> 47 that drainage be provided .to prevent a negative impact' on the neighbors'. <br /> 48 property, he added. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 When -the- Manager- said the only - other use he :perceived for that property <br /> 5,1, would be. a park:;­Mr Shaddrick � said he thought some of the neighbors- who <br /> 02 had signed the petition against a house being built there had children <br /> 53 like himself and would welcome the -City' s picking up the property fora. <br /> 54 that, purpose: He indicated .that, in. view of the potential for a traffic <br />