Laserfiche WebLink
■i <br />f. -’-u, <br />Zoning File #1m04 July 17, 1991 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />One of the main reasons for this is to limit development on <br />•untended" properties which may suffer from lack of maintenance. <br />This probably is not the case with Rood's property since he lives <br />adjacent. However, should Rood sell his homestead lot separately <br />from the pond property, it could 1-ave the pond and retaining <br />walls an'rattractive nuisance" under the control (or non-control) <br />of an absentee owner. <br />The api icants' homestead parcel contains enough acreage to <br />meet th« LR-IC zone requirements so minimum acreage is not a <br />basis for requiring a combination. The applicant purchased Lots <br />54-50-56 separately from his homestead parcel, and at a later <br />date. The issue of combination was brought up by staff late in <br />the review process, and was not specifically addressed by the <br />Planning Cemonission. <br />OptioBs/Ramiflcatlone Re: Ik>t Combination - <br />The following are possible options regarding the <br />combination, and the ramifications of each for the applicant: <br />A. Combine all four lots. A future subdivision would be <br />needed to create another building site at the southwest <br />corner of the property. <br />B. Combine only Lots 54-55-56. In this case, a new house <br />could be built on this combination without the need for a <br />subdivision; but any issue of "accessory use without a <br />principal residence" is not resolved until the new house is <br />built. <br />C. Combine large Lot 56 and homestead parcel. In this <br />case, a subdivision would still be needed to create a new <br />building site, because Lots 54-55 in combination don't meet <br />the minimum lot size; and because a portion of the re^’slnlng <br />walls are in Lots 54-55, any "accessory use" issue is not <br />resolved. <br />D, Require no combination. This leaves applicants' future <br />options wide open, but doesn't resolve any "accessory use <br />without a principal residence" issue. <br />itaff <br />Referring to the staff recommendation of the July 2nd memo, <br />•taff recosmiends approval per the attached resolution. If <br />Council determines that the issue of "accessory use without a <br />principal residence" is pertinent, then the combination of all <br />four parcels should be required. If Council determines that the <br />*Acoeaoory use* issue is not an issue, then omitting the <br />tinatiem requirMent might Be justified.