Laserfiche WebLink
NEW BRIGHTON .PLANNING COMMISSION <br />BOARD OF REVIEW <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES <br />VN-196, CARLSON <br />NOVEMBER 21, 1978 <br />Chairman Brown commented that the application for a variance has <br />been pending„for some time due to several concerns brought up by <br />the City Council., Board of Review and neighbors.. <br />Williams asked the ,applicant, Carlson,. if he would restate the <br />unique circumstances and hardships that would warrant his request <br />for a variance. <br />Carlson stated that he requested a variance because an excessive <br />amount of land for one single family home is held under the current <br />plotting. The property is unique in that it is considerably longer <br />than it is wide. After .the subdivision one lot would have an area <br />of 27,206 square feet and 26,227 square feet,. which would be well <br />within the minimum area requirement.. He pointed out that his <br />subdivision creating lots of 70.3 feet and 67.77 feet in width. is <br />not inconsistent with other lots 'to-the south: Some lots are only <br />50 to 55 feet in width. .The subdivision would make the most <br />efficient use of the land, having only one house on that .large lot <br />is a wasteful .land usage. <br />Williams asked if the applicant owned-the land. The applicant <br />replied that he had contract for the purchase of the parcel. After <br />the subdivision, Carlson stated that he would probably fix up the <br />house presently on the property and sell it and build a new house. <br />on the second lot. <br />Medved asked the applicant what the buildable or dry land area <br />would be of each lot after subdivision. Carlson commented that <br />the southern lot would be 13,.554 square feet .and the northern <br />dry land area would be .14,060 square feet. These figures include <br />the 8 foot easement for the road. <br />Lang inquired ,about what type of house-could be built. on such a <br />long. narrow lot. Carlson commented that he ,.proposed a double <br />walkout which was recommended to him by a building contractor. <br />Chairman Brown. asked the staff to report on their investigation <br />concerning the interests of the adjacent neighbors. It was <br />reported that the property owner to the north could not attend the <br />meeting, however, he strongly opposes the proposal because. of <br />possible-road problems and he also felt that the subdivision would <br />