Laserfiche WebLink
itrator <br />Road - Variances <br />-^j£,U6: TO ^ <br />f!T‘ <br />J^T-^ Jir. ^ <^^*W ^ ptzK^^i-r I <br />houser east lot <br />Dt <br />1 5/28/85; <br />ing Commission 2/18/86 <br />n property# 1900 <br />ay, 1985 as a zoning <br />lirection that perhaps <br />at that 2 additional <br />Please review Exhibit <br />parcels. Applicant <br />the two vacant lots <br />ea and width based on <br />y and currently affect <br />)f this property into <br />.ot size. <br />>ad, requests to build <br />. Ferrell presumably <br />I a second house would <br />ince allowed only one <br />. 10/12/59 - Adoption <br />of 1 acre, min. lot <br />nearly meet, b) also <br />substandard lots held <br />substandard common — <br />msmmm <br />1 <br />Zoning File #990 March 3# 1986 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 singleElUIL/O UdllVAOIJL va Ak W W o ^ ^ --------------------- ^ <br />separate ownership could be granted building permits if the Council <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 code set specific standards for use of substandard single <br />separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.: <br />“ must be at least 1 acre, 109* width <br />2) must meet all septic requirements or be sewered <br />3) meets all other applicable standards <br />But again, the 1974 code specifically did not discuss common ownership <br />lots. <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 <br />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 />Note 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 />variance under all previous zoning codes, and both vacant parcels would <br />have required variances since the 1974 zoning code. <br />Finally, please review the exhibits, especially the memo's of li/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 />site (see exhibit 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 />swimming pools, no tennis courts). <br />Staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting reflecting Council's <br />direction. <br />•r'fr , ei . .<Wi* <br />I <br />m <br />WMm <br />h' <br />r- • ■ " <br />..f <br />•'it <br />• Jf <br />h <br />fo:Prcns <br />Date: <br />Subject <br />Note: <br />List of <br />I. Re; <br />lots wo <br />Th <br />the on! <br />(p.2.). <br />II. <br />previoi; <br />separat <br />of at ] <br />so whic