04-20-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1V-- . i':- ;'V’i-.‘: it.'-: '■ v;;,: Zoning File #1729 April 16, 1992 Page 3 One of the recommended conditions of approval was that the properties would all be legally combined as it was the staff opinion that the alterations involved all four parcels owned by Mr. Rood and that the pillars being constructed or Lots 54, 55 and 56 and Rood's homestead parcel were accessory structures and needed the credit of the residence on the homestead parcel. It was also noted that there may be difficulties in the filing of the Conservation and Flowage Easement over the protected wetland area if the properties were not to be legally combined at that point. As the Council minutes note. Exhibit G, Council did not reguire the legal combination based on the finding that if the pillars were to meet 3 1/2* height, there would not be an encroachment and therefore not considered an accessory structure based on the intent of the code. In staff's review of the current files, it is not clear whether the Conservation and Flowage Easement was ever filed in its original format. Based on the final resolve of this subdivision, the City will ask that Mr. Rood be required to work with staff to complete the appropriate amendment of the Conservation and Flowage Easement so that documents can be filed against the Chain of Title of the properties. The original resolution approving variances and condtional use permit was not filed against the Chain of Title because it was torrens property. In light of a recent problem involving torrens property and a lot line rearrangement that the City was asked to help resolve, applicant will be responsible for preparing the appropriate Certificates of Title and deeds for the newly created parcels so that both the subdivision resolution and the Conservation and Flowage Easement can be filed against these properties. Impact of Proposed Subdivision on Total Properties Review Exhibits H and K. Mr. Rood's letter provides his plan for the comprehensive development of his property. Rood proposes the development of Lots 54 and 55 as one building site and the remaining parcel, Lot 56, as a future building site. Based on staff's approximations of the areas as already noted, the proposed lot line rearrangement must be adjusted to provide additional dry land area to Lots 54 and 55 to compensate for the wetlands within the building envelope. The dry contiguous parcel of Lot 56 to the immediate east of the proposed building site does not appear to contain 1/2 acre dry contiguous area. The area has been approximated at 21,700 s.f. and with the exclusion of the 15' wide drainage area at approximately 1,275 s.f. results in 20,425 s.f. of dry contiguous area. The applicant would have to apply for a lot area variance to build on the property. .7 4 -viv:>;• • ■TrttrfrfMiiir