Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988

Home Browse Search

zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 4 of 5 Staff's interpretation of the current code is that the applicant would be prohibited from separating his four adjacent lots, since separation of either of the westerly lots from the main property would result in the creating of building sites less than two acres in area. The applicant appeared before you in April 1985 on an appeal basis rather than a full variance application at staff's urging because a similar application had been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant to get general direction from the Planning Commission and Council prior to spending large dollar amounts in developing plans, septic testing, surveys, application fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to the applicant was that it is unlikely they would aprove two new houses, and perhaps wo-iid allow one new house resulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total property. Applicant now appears before you requAsting t.,at both westerly parcelc be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and hay provided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each .Lot could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield system (mounds at all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future encroachments. Theme applicant has not provided a survey of the property with the existing house, nor has he provided septic testing to prove that the property has en� alternate site for a drainfield. These items were specifically requested in \\, the "notice of Council action" sent to the applicant on 5/31/85. Applicant refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to build on the two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing devel3ped lot (see notice of 5/31/851. Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have *fie capability to permanently support a house, septic system, wz_ " and the other appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered zone? The ramifications of Item 2 are significant. As %,any ap 28 vacant lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned wits adi:.cent parcels ar.d are 1,/2 , 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request. The same benefit of buildability. Many more such lots have been legally combined, which presumably denies them any status unless re -subdivided. We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferreils adjacent parcels were lowered ds of 1983, which gives the appearance that the separated lots were then given "accosso ry lot" value and not Lui_lding site value, since the main lot land value increase,? markedly at the same time. Perhaps this was a result of the assessor realizing that the two westerly lots were not buildable without variances. 1t would appear that perhaps up until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much the same as the main lot. Ferre-1 oLviously felt he was paying taxes on these 1; separate building sites.