PL MINUTES 12151992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Planning Commission Meeting • 2 December 15, 1992 3 Page Four 4 5 6 7 Mr. Tanner said Mr. Hamer had informed him about the hardships lie would have to 8 demonstrate to get his proposal approved. He admitted the only hardship he could cite was 9 the opportunity to increase the economic value of his property and to decrease the costs of 10 maintaining such a large lot. However, he wondered whether the fact that St. Anthony would 11 derive more taxes from the single family home might make a difference. 12 _ 13 Commissioner Gondorchin agreed with Commissioner Murphy that it would be helpful to 14 know the potential for redevelopment of 65 foot lots in St. Anthony before snaking any 15 decision on the proposed 65 foot lot resulting from the proposed lot split. He said lie had to 16 agree with Mr. Tanner's assessment-of the kind of hardship involved in this proposal because 17 he perceived there had been no demonstration that this land couldn't be put to reasonable use 18 without splitting. Coirunnissioner Madden told the Tanners lie envied their having such a 19 large, beautiful lot. He also agreed that the requirement to demonstrate hardship could 20 probably not be satisfied with their proposal. 21 22 Commissioner Madden told the Tanners he envied their having such a large beautiful lot. He 23 also agreed that the requirement to demonstrate hardship would probably not be satisfied with 24 their proposal. 25 26 Connmissioner Werenicz said he perceived that by splitting their property the Tanners would 27 only be creating two substandard lots. He said he wasn't bothered by a single family • 28 residence on an interior lot as much as the fact that the resultant corner lot with a duplex on it 29 would be so undersized as compared to the corner lots in St. Anthony which are built to code. 30 The Commissioner concluded by saying if the proposal came before the Commission in the 31 form of a formal application, he would have no choice but to oppose it. 32 33 Commissioner Thompson said the Tanners appeared to him to be good property owners for 34 the City and said he didn't see too much wrong with he proposal himself unless it could be a 35 case of setting a bad precedent. He said he would only sympathize with Mr. Tanner trying to 36 maintain a corner lot because he had one like it himself. 37 38 Chair Faust indicated there were good reasons vnvolving health, welfare and safety for 39 requiring 14,000 square feet for a comer lot with a duplex which he perceived had been 40 validated many times over the years. He also said he would not be in favor of the split should 41 it ever come before the Commission as an application because he couldn't see how the three 42 statutory requirements for variances could be satisfied by the proposal before the 43 Commissioners that evening. The Chair complimented the Tanners on the manner in which 44 they had maintained their property assuming that they were aware it was only good business 45 to do so. Chair Faust concluded by saying he perceived this was another example of where 46 having concept reviews precede formal applications had proved to be the best policy. 47