Laserfiche WebLink
-10- <br /> • 1 that time , Mrs . Dorumsgaard might not remind him that he had refused <br /> 2 her offer. The Commissioner reiterated his position that the variance <br /> 3 should be dealt with along withthe subdivision. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Robert E. Williams, 3124 Croft Drive, whose property abuts the Walbon <br /> 6 property on the rear stated that he wanted to go on record as opposing <br /> 7 the subdivision because it appeared to him that the two lots would <br /> 8 be very small as compared to other homes in that neighborhood and he <br /> 9 was very concerned about what the owner intended to do with the rest <br /> 10 of his property . He wanted a comprehensive plan for the entire <br /> 11 Walbon property which "would get it down to nothing but single family <br /> 12 lots" and wanted to know ".Why is he piecemealing it bit by bit-?" . <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Mr. Halva responded that Mr. Walbon "just wanted to give the property <br /> 15 to his kids" . Commissioner Jones. told Mr. Williams it's not the <br /> 16 responsibility of the Commission to plan the use for private property, <br /> 17 which Mr. Williams indicated he understood. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 When Mrs. Dorumsgaard told of years of having to maintain the tri- <br /> 20 angular parcel in front of her home , Mr. Childs- told her the City can <br /> 21 force the owner to maintain his property or the City would do it for <br /> 22 him, at rates he wouldn' t like. Mr. Childs also told the two opponents <br /> 23 of the proposal that this split would have no bearing on the City ' s <br /> 24 pursuit of the legality of the non-conforming use of -the other Walbon <br /> 25 parcel. <br /> 26 <br /> • 27 Commissioner Jones told Mrs . Dorumsgaard he perceived she would be <br /> 28 foolish to try to purchase the triangular piece of land since she <br /> 29 would have to pay the taxes on it and could be assessed for any road <br /> 30 improvements on the adjoining street <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Ron Dorumsgaard, whose address was also 3612 - 33rd Avenue N.E. , <br /> 33 thanked the Commissioners for their help and indicated he realized <br /> 34 the Commission is not responsible fo-r- resolving the differences <br /> 35 related to the triangular parcel. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 The hearing was closed at 10 : 0.5 P:.M. for Commission consideration. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Although he perceives it to be the City ' s responsibility-:to organize <br /> 40 the way in which City lots are laid out, Commissioner Bjorklund said <br /> 41 he realizes the private parties in this case would have to resolve <br /> 42 their differences before a variance can be granted. However, he <br /> 43 indicated he would be happy to approve a variance for an undersize <br /> 44 lot if the matter can be resolved. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Commissioner Jones noted the large road easement along Old Highway 8 <br /> 47 and wondered since that roadway would probably never be widened, if <br /> 48 the center line in the parcel couldn' t be moved so the non-conforming <br /> 49 lot would not be the interior lot which is required to be 75 feet <br /> 50 wide. Mr. Childs gave the reasons it might be more difficult to <br /> 51 position a house on the corner than on the smaller lot. <br /> . 52 <br /> 53 Commissioner Zawislak disagreed that creating a non-conforming lot was <br /> 54 not the Commission' s concern since he foresees there could be a problem <br /> 55 with granting a- variance later on. Commissioner Bowerman reminded <br />