Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File ##990 March 3, 1986 Page 2 ownership lots would not be granted building permits, and established that the Council coul I allow variances to this section at Council's discretion. 1967 Zoning Code - Property still zoned 1 acre, 140' width, no substantial changes from 1959 Ordinance #k22, but did s'.-dte that substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single separate ownership could be granted building permits i f the Counc 1 finds they would not adversely affect public health or safety. Did not specifically discu3s common ownership lots, but by omission inferred again they would not be granted permits. 1974 Zoning Code - Property rezoned to 2-acre, 200` minimum width. This code set specific standards for use of substandard single separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.: 1) must be at lease 1 acre, 100' widt�i 2) must meet Ell septic requirements or he sewered 3) meets all other applicable standards But again, the 1974 code specif i r— 1 ly did not discuss common o�.;ner. ship lots. The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at 1900 Shoreline Drive waL denied in 1981 based on lack of the required 2 acre lot area, setting a precedent fut denial of situations such as Ferrell's. 1984 Zoning Code - requires Council approval --u separate (read "sell") adjacent undev Sloped non-confoi .'ng commonly cwi ed lots if the resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the Ferrell case, Council approve s required in order to ser..arate the conforming 2.9 acro group of pa 1s into substandard parcels. Note that the 0.85 acre center L , which would only be approximately 0.97 acro ven if read right-ot-way was included, would likely have required a var. =,nce under "L l previous zoning codes, and b-th vacant parcels would have required ariances since the 1974 zoning ccc-3. F'i. ally, please review the exhibits, especially the mo's of 11/13 ind 2, :/8G. Planning Cc-nmission reviewed this applics _io.. c;i 2/18/6 _ nd recomrnerd-d denim of 2 additiona 1 our lding sites, but recommended approval of 1 L� anal s*.te for a density of appr( -°mately 1.5 acres per building site :gee erihibit D). Ap};rova1 of even 1 new site will. set a precedent in comp 1, t, reversal of the Alden Anderson denial in ? 9b!. Weigh this against r_.ie tact th-.t appl. -, .t has shown that the proposed building si' -s uoth can mi-e, th- septic code requirements if _vel )pnient of the property is minimal no swimming pools, no t,2nnis courts). Staff will draf'- a resc.ut.ion .`oi your n^Yt meeting ref it-ting Courcil's direction.