Laserfiche WebLink
•• ■ •<?■■’?<#■ • *■' • • • '••“H PKM*:;:;.s <br />Zoning File #990 <br />Nay 29, 1987 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />C) 1925 West Farm Road - This is a single building lot containing 2.1 <br />acres of which about 0.27 acre is contained within a drainage easement <br />for a creek (the same creek that traverses 900 North Brown Road), <br />leaving 1.83 acres dry buildable. The septic system is not as shown <br />on the site plan submitted by Ferrell, but is a mound system located <br />southeast of the house, set substantially back from and at a much <br />higher elevation than the creek. This case is not at all similar to <br />Ferrell's. <br />The fact is, the City has not issued a building permit or granted a <br />lot area variance for any substandard, commonly owned lots in an unsewered <br />zone since that 1974-75 resoning. Mr. Ferrell's request, if approved, <br />would set a precedent that would suggest at least 22 other substandard lots <br />in unsewered zones could be requesting similar consideration. <br />It is staff's opinion that allowing substandard, unsewered lots to be <br />built on will not be advantageous to the City in its quest to keep sewer <br />out of the rural areas. <br />IX. Ferrell's ownership and 1958 subdivision in relation to codes <br />throughout the yearx. <br />Please review the memos of March 3, 1986 and November 13, 1985 for a <br />summary of how Ferrell's current situation came about and how changes in <br />codes have affected his properties. <br />The lots Ferrell created in 1958-59 appear to have met or nearly met <br />the standards In effect at that time. On October 12, 1959, the Council <br />adopted Ordinance #22 which allowed Council to grant variances for <br />substandard lots in single separate ownership, inferring that commonly <br />owned lots would not be automatically granted variances, and inferred that <br />in the case of common-ownership lots, enforcement of that ordinance with <br />respect to lots held in common ownership~wouId not arbitrarily deprive the <br />property owner of a valuable right. (See Exhibit 2-3 of last meeting's <br />packet.} <br />The 1967 Code said substantially the same thing, i.e. by stating that <br />it would be appropriate to consider variances for substandard size <br />separate ownership lots where health, safety and welfare concerns were <br />satisfied, it inferred that such variances were not appropriate for sub­ <br />standard common-ownership lots. <br />The 1974 Code rezoned the property to 2-acre, 200' minimum width, and <br />set up standards for the granting of variances for unsewered <br />single separate ownership lots, i.e. 1 acre, 100' width, septic OK, meets <br />all other zoning standards; again implying (but not saying) that common- <br />ownership lots could not be granted variances. <br />In 1981, the City Council effectively denied a similar application for <br />common-ownership unsewered substandard lot buildability, establishing City <br />policy clearly. <br />>/:m wm <br />j't <br />i;-. ■ • ... <br />. <br />r. > <br />1 <br />s <br />Zoning File #99 <br />May 29, 1987 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />The 1984 C <br />common-ownersh <br />result was a su <br />Staff beli <br />since October 1 <br />it never met tl" <br />Staff als< <br />supported and i <br />Staff bel <br />since 1/1/75, 1 <br />Each Zoni <br />Zoning Code e <br />unsewered lots <br />effective 4/1 <br />undeveloped ur <br />if such a sale <br />III. Regardii <br />building <br />Staff bel <br />2 undoubtedly <br />buildability <br />10/12/59 unti <br />rights only tc <br />Ferrell \ <br />not as buiIda] <br />them, and as <br />without varii <br />approva1» An <br />variances, ac <br />basis, hardsb <br />requirement. <br />taking of rig) <br />that the City <br />subdivision o <br />additional 1 <br />additional 1 <br />the existing