PL MINUTES 06161987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 1 -6- 2 3 Commissioner Hansen interjected at this point that he perceived before 4 any further discussions were held, the ownership of the lot should be 5 established. Mr. Campbell told him he did not yet own the lot but the 6 owner' s brother had told him after Elton' s death that "it' s your lot for 7 the same price agreed upon by Elton and we' ll draw up the papers to that 8 effect as soon as you get the variance." 9 10 Move to Table Ruled Out of Order 11 12 Commissioner Hansen then moved and Commissioner Madden seconded his 13 motion that the matter be tabled until staff had established legal 14 ownership for the property. 15 16 Before the motion was voted on it was noted that the hearing had not yet 17 been closed. 18 19 When the Chair asked Mr. Childs whether it was vital that only the 20 owner apply for the variance, the Manager told her he recalled there had 21 been cases in the past where an option to buy had been contingent on a 22 variance being granted. Mr. Hansen pointed out that the application had 23 indicated Mr. Campbell was the owner and it now appeared that statement 24 had been disputed by Mr. Hoxmeier. Commissioner Werenicz agreed that it 25 might take a long time for the estate to be settled and the ownership of 4o26 the lot established. 27 28 The Chair ruled that those persons who were present to provide input to 29 the discussion should be allowed to speak before the hearing was closed. 30 31 Mr. Shaddrick continued his testimony as follows: 32 33 -said he perceived a house so close to 37th Avenue would 34 cut down his vision of traffic coming from the west; 35 36 -indicated that if now were piled at the intersection as 37 it had been in years past, that vision would be further 38 impaired which could "endanger my life and my young 39 son' s" ; 40 41 -reported he had paid an outside service to remove the 42 snow piles in front of this lot in the past; 43 44 -agreed that a house on the lot would only increase the 45 water buildup problems his neighbors experience,- 46 xperience;46 47 -commented that it would be "a major expense for the 48 City to move that house if 37th Avenue were widened" . 49 50 The Chair responded that, although the City had turned down a request 51 for a duplex on this property in 1979, there had been some doubt •52 whether a court case would have supported that action and case law since 53 then seemed to indicate that prohibiting development altogether might be 54 considered to be "taking" the property for which the City would have to