Laserfiche WebLink
^9 <br />#2563 - Sketch Plan Comments <br />March 17,2000 <br />Page 6 <br />Summary <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />The Code disallows separation (by sale) of the two substandard undeveloped lots without <br />Council approval. Council would presumably only approve such sale if 1) one of the lots <br />was intended to be sold to an abutting landowner for legal combination; or 2) if Council <br />deemed that the lots were in fact individually buildable. <br />It can be reasonably argued that the Code is intended to also disallow selling off the <br />substandard undeveloped parcels from the developed substandard parcel, because as a <br />group the parcels act as a conforming lot, but separately they do not. <br />Rearranging lot lines between and among the 1 substandard developed lot and the 2_ <br />substandard undeveloped lots, at best could result in 1 conforming developed lot and 1 <br />substandard undeveloped lot. This method should only be used if Planning Commission <br />and Council would have granted variances to one of the existing undeveloped lots absent <br />a lot line rearrangement. <br />Technically and based on past practice, this proposal to create a second buildable lot from <br />26 acres of which only 9 acres is dry buildable, will require a variance, which by <br />definition makes it a Class II subdivision requiring a plat. The code does not allow the <br />granting of density variances to new plats that create new building lots. <br />The City has varied from this policy in only three known cases since 1975. The first <br />involved a prior density contract in regards to a sewer project. The second was the result <br />of a court order in relation to a condemnation for roadway purposes. The third was the <br />result of City rezoning action to eliminate a marina use on Stubbs Bay. Each of these <br />cases was unique. The only other use of platting where lots have ended up being <br />substandard is for replatting of groups of platted developed properties where no new <br />substandard undeveloped lots are created (Scotch Pine Lane vacation/replat is a recent <br />example). <br />The City may set a negative precedent by allowing 9 acres in common ownership in the <br />5-acre zone to be rearranged to create a second building site, whereby either the existing <br />developed lot or the new undeveloped lot will be substandard in area.