Agenda - Council - 07/12/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REO"D JUL'0 1 2005' Request to Appeal the board of adjustment ruling of june 23, 2005 on the variance requested. The hardship that is existing now, is the elimination of the easement area for cty 5 on the property from the Gross density calculation to compute the maximum number of units the property can have. In 1997, when the city commenced moratoriums for developement because of citizen actions for totally unrelated properties, the code eliminating the easement in the URBAN area, was not in place. And in fact does not now apply to land classified as RURAL at this time. Facts to consider.. The lot in question is 1.0022 acres and is paying taxes for that amount of area, and that the entire parcel of 2 lots combined have sufficient area for an 8 unit gross density if the easement for the county road is not subtracted. That the area of the property being excluded from the calculation is large enough for one single family R-1 lot at this time. That the lot in question Petitioned for and received a City Sewer and Water extension in 1994, and was assesed for and has paid for that improvement. That code at that time required dwellings of more than 4 units to go thru the PUD process, and that two(2)- 4 unit structures only required 32,000 square feet of land. .. That 1996 attempt to rearrange the property lines with an Adminstrative subdivision was discussed with the City Administrator, and it was decided because of my position on the planning commission, that other methods would have to be used. If the Adminstrative subdivision, would have happened, 2 - 4 unit buildings could have be erected without the PUD process. That the necessity of the PUD put the property in the moratoriums that were enacted, and the moratorium itself prevented any attempt to replat so that the PUD was not needed. That the rule computing the gross density was put in place after Dec 1998, and ! was unaware of this change until may of 2005, I have always believed I had the right to build an 8 unit building on the 2 parcels. That this property was unique in that It and the property ajoining on the north boundary were the only 2 multifamily zoned properties in the city with Sewer and Water installed at the time of the Moritodums. That I did approach the Council To get' relief from the moratorium in Apdl of 1998, and the moratoriums enacted in June did not provide that relief. That under the current city code and zoning, a single family structure cannot be erected on either lot. The only relief I am seeking at this time, is to the new Urban Gross Density calculation, and allow, the entire property as taxed, to be used for the calculation,.~sis property in the Rural areas, and allow one 8unit structure tQ be erected, that meets all oth~c~o,)de requirement, s..,, ,,¢ '~:'" Dated July 1, 2005. Signed B.J.Deemer~/-M"//J~ / ~..~",,~~ Attached: . enlargement of property discdption h~um Tax Statement. 2. survey showing the property. 3. City zoning that applied in 1997. 4. Five (5) paCes from Council meeting of April 28, ;1998. 5. cover sheets from the 4 of moratoriums that were applied. -247-