11-16-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I lip' i'T IV' Zoning File 11778 November 9, 1992 Page 3 Discttssion Staff advised 'applicant's agents that the proposed subdivision and variance would best be initially addressed as a sketch plan. Further» it was staff's recommendation that applicant and City proceed with a request to rezone the entire Bluffs neighborhood so that the lot area variance question could be avoided. Applicant chose to make a preliminary plat application and variance request without benefit of a sketch plan review. Adding complexity to the request is the City Engineer's recommendation for dedication of additional right-of-way» which would leave less than 3 acres in the main body of the property. Potentiallyr this results in one or both new lots being less than a 1 acre or 2 acre standard. Please review the documentation of dlscussionsr letters^ etc. surrounding Resolution No. 1178. Although I was Involved in drafting that resolution. City Planner Alan Olson and City Manager Dick Benson were main parties involved in the discussions, and their letters and memos may shed some light on the City's intent. Painfully lacking in any of the documentation is discussion of either the terms "variance" or "rezoning". In staff's opinion. Resolution No. 1178 ard the subsequent MUSA alignment leave absolutely up in the air the question as to which direction such a subdivision would proceed in the future. Staff believes that the City actions of 1980 and 1981 anticipated a rezoning of the newly sewered Bluffs area to 1 acre standards, which has never occurred. Only one subdivision occurring after adoption of the 1975 zoning code has been found in which the creation of substandard lots within a new subdivision was allowed. That case is the 1979 conversion of the Stubbs Bay Marina property, which had previously been zoned B-2, to three residential units zoned LR- lA, with variances to allow 3 half-acre lots and a half —acre outlot in a 2-acre zone. This was basically a contract downzoning, and variances were necessary to protect the investment of the property owner and avoid the issue of a "taking" as a result of the rezonlng. The Stubbs Bay Marina situation clearly is a distinct and unique case within the LR-IA 2 acre zoning district. There are no other properties with the identical situation as Goetten's, i.e. in a 2 acre zone, split by the MUSA boundary, and having a resolution on file that sets up a future 1 acre sewered/2 acre unsewered lot split. However, it might be interpreted that the effect of granting this variance is to set a