Laserfiche WebLink
:ator <br />>ad * Variances <br />£.U€ TO ^ “ Si» <br />"z." <br />mser east lot <br />1/28/85; <br />r Commission 2/18/86 <br />property, 1900 <br />1985 as a zoning <br />rection that perhaps <br />that 2 additional <br />ease review Exhibit <br />arcels. Applicant <br />he two vacant lots <br />and width based on <br />nd currently affect <br />bhis property into <br />size. <br />t requests to build <br />Ferrell presumably <br />second house would <br />:e allowed only one <br />10/12/59 - Adoption <br />>f 1 acre, min. lot <br />larly meet, b) also <br />bstandard lots held <br />labstandard common- <br />IK -'■-m <br />• l-r <br />m f :w r>Zoning File #990 March 3, 1986 <br />Page 2 <br />ownership lots would not be granted building permits, and established <br />that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's <br />discretion. <br />1967 Zoning Code - Property still zoned 1 acre, 140* width, no <br />substantial changes from 1959 Ordinance #22, but did state that <br />substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single <br />o^nershxp could be granted building permits if the CouncxT* <br />finds they would not adversely affect public health or safety. Did <br />not specifically discuss common ownership lots, but by omission <br />inferred again they would not be granted permits. <br />1974 Zoning Code - Property rezoned to 2-acre, 200* minimum width. <br />This cov.e set specific standards for use of substandard single <br />separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.; <br />1) must be at least 1 acre, 100* width <br />2) must meet all septic requirements or be sewered <br />3) meets all other applicable standards <br />the 1974 code specifically did not discuss common ownership <br />The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at <br />1900 Shoreline Drive was denied in 1981 based on lack of the required <br />2 acre lot area, setting a precedent for denial of situations such as Ferrell's. <br />1984 Zoning Code - requires Council approval to separate (read **sell'*) <br />adjacent undeveloped non-conforming commonly owned lots if the <br />resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the <br />Ferrell case. Council approval is required in order to separate the <br />conforming 2.9 acre group of parcels into substandard parcels. <br />Mote that the 0.85 acre center lot, which would only be approximately 0.97 <br />acre even if road right-of-way was included, would likely have required a <br />varxance ^nc^er previous zoning codes, and both vacant parcels would <br />please review the exhibits, especially the memo*s of 11/13/85 and <br />2/6/86. Planning Commission reviewed this application on 2/18/86 and <br />recommended denial of 2 additional building sites, but recommended approval <br />of 1 additional site for a density of approximately 1.5 acres per building <br />sxte (see exhxbit D). <br />Approval of even 1 new site will set a precedent in complete reversal of <br />the Alden Anderson denial in 1981. Weigh this against the fact that <br />applicant has shown that the 2 proposed building sites both can meet the <br />septic code requirements if development of the property is “minimal (no <br />swxmmxng pools, no tennis courts). <br />Staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting reflecting Council's direction. <br />« .MbWr |f<!, i. ,««r <br />■ ...... <br />Hote: <br />List o£ 1: <br />I. Re: F€ <br />lots woul( <br />The I <br />the only <br />(p.2.). <br />Do Cl <br />I ha <br />previous i <br />separate f <br />of at lea: <br />so which h