Laserfiche WebLink
1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average <br />width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and <br />2) t is either served by public sanitary sewer or <br />meets all the septic system requirements of the City or <br />other governmental body; and <br />3) it otherwise meets the requireme. <br />other applicable ordinances. <br />' of this or <br />Under this Code, the Council, at their option, granted a <br />lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, <br />again did not specifically discuss any standards for the separation of <br />commonly owned lots. <br />22 City policy regarding the separation of unsewered, <br />substandard, contiguous lots in common ownership was clearly defined <br />bfan actloi of the" City Council in.l981, in «hich the separation of a <br />developed 1.4 acre lot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 toot <br />wide vacant lot in the LR-IA 2-acre, 200 foot “"®®''®^®^^*?er <br />was denied. (Application No. 635, Council action to <br />26? 1981, basil on: a) lack of demonstrated ha^ship; b) no <br />sanitary sewer available; c) insufficient area; d) insufficient <br />width. <br />23 The 1984 Zoning Code amendments included the addition of Section <br />10 03 Subdivision 6 (C), which prohibited the "transfer or sale of <br />noA-cinfo^ing, undeveloped lots^^not served <br />aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided ® <br />road or road easement and under same or common <br />specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting <br />lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. No <br />5l^fo?manle standards for approval of such transfers appear in the <br />code. <br />24 At least 13 properties or groups of properties in a situation <br />?e~nc"e the’^ VlB district from 1/1^5 <br />rebuild on a |®bstandard ®®f/®oVonTin cLsistently denied <br />pllmits for^lbstand^^^^^^ lots ownid in common with adjacent developed <br />lots in the RR-IB district. <br />Parre 7 of 9