Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 9/12/1988

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 3 of 4 The 1984 Code finally came out and stated that unsewered substandard common -ownership lots could not be separated from adjacent lots if the result was a substandard lot in either case. Staff believes that Parcel 2 has been unbuildable without variances since October 12, 1959, and in fact may have never been buildable because it never met the 1 acre requirement of the 1950 Zoning Code. Staff also believes that each Zoning Code adopted since that time has supported and enhanced that position. Staff believes that Parcel 3 has been unbuildable without variances since l/l/75, but was buildable without variances prior to l/l/75. Each Zoning Code from Ordinance 22 adopted 10/12/59 up through the Zoning Code effective l/l/75 implied that commonly owned substandard unsewered lots were not to be considered for variances. The current Code effective 4/l/84 states in unquestionable terms that a substandard undeveloped unsewered common -ownership lot may not be sold off separately if such a sale results in substandard individual lots. III. Regarding the extent of Ferrell's 'loss' if he doesn't get two new building sites. Staff believes that since an ordinance passed on 10/12/59 made Parcel 2 undoubtedly not buildable due to it being less than 1 acre, he had the buildability right to only one additional building lot (Parcel 3) from 10/12/59 until 1/l/75, and from l/l/75 to the present has buildability rights only to the existing developed building site. Ferrell would have had the right to sell the two vacant parcels (but not as buildable lots) to other parties prior to 4/l/84, but he didn't sell them, and as of 4/l/84 the Code says they are definitely not buildable without variances,and can't be sold off as separate lots without Council approval. And even if he had sold them prior to 4/l/84 and applied for variances, according to Alan Olson's letter of 10/26/84, there would be no basis, hardship, or justification for granting the variances to the area requirement. Any "loss" Ferrell sustains would logically be related to a taking of rights he has always had. Staff suggests that, unless he proves that the City formally granted a lot area variance for Parcel 2 when his subdivision occurred in 1958-549, Mr. Ferrell has never had the right to 2 additional lots, from 10/12/59 to 12/31/74 has the right only to one additional lot, and from 1/1/75 to the present has had the right to only the existing developed building site.