Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #990 <br />May 29, 1987 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />The 1984 Code finally came out and stated that unsewered substandard <br />common-ownership lots could not be separated from adjacent lots if the <br />result was a substandard lot in either case. <br />Staff believes that Parcel 2 has been unbuildable without variances <br />since October 12, 1959, and in fact may have never been buildable because <br />it never met the 1 acre requirement of- the 1950 Zoning Code. <br />Staff also believes that each Zoning Code adopted since that time has <br />supported and enhanced that position. <br />Staff believes that Parcel 3 has been unbuildable without variances <br />since 1/1/75, but was buildable without variances prior to 1/1/75. <br />Each Zoning Code from Ordinance 22 adopted 10/12/59 up through the <br />Zoning Code effective 1/1/75 implied that commonly owned substandard <br />unsewered lots were not to be considered for variances. The current Code <br />effective 4/1/84 states in unquestionable terms that a substandard <br />undeveloped unsewered common-ownership lot may not be sold off separately <br />if such a sale results in substandard individual lots. <br />III. Regarding the extent of Ferrell's "loss” if he doesn't get two new <br />building sites. <br />Staff believes that since an ordinance passed on 10/12/59 made Parcel <br />2 undoubtedly not buildable due to it being less than 1 acre, he had the <br />buildability right to only one additional building lot (Parcel 3) from <br />10/12/59 until 1/1/75, and from 1/1/75 to the present has buildability <br />rights only to the existing developed building site. <br />Ferrell would have had the right to sell the two vacant parcels (but <br />not as buildable lots) to other parties prior to 4/1/84, but he didn't sell <br />them, and as of 4/1/84 the Code says they are definitely not buildable <br />without variances,and can't be sold off as separate lots without Council <br />approval. And even if he had sold them prior to 4/1/84 and applied for <br />variances, according to Alan Olson's letter of 10/26/84, there would be no <br />basis, hardship, or justification for granting the variances to the area <br />requirement. Any "loss" Ferrell sustains would logically be related to a <br />taking of rights he has always had. Staff suggests that, unless he proves <br />that the City formally granted a lot area variance for Parcel 2 when his <br />subdivision occurred in 1958-59, Mr. Ferrell has never had the right to 2 <br />additional lots, from 10/12/59 to 12/31/74 had the right only to one <br />additional lot, and from 1/1/75 to the present has had the right to only <br />the existing developed building site.