03-10-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #990 Novemb#� r 13, 1985 Page 4 of 5 Staffs interpretation of the current code is that the applicant would be prohibiters 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 urqing 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 would allow one new house resultinct in a 1.5 acre density on the total property. Applicant now appears before you requesting that both westerly parcels i be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has 14 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. The? 4 a j-vi i cant has not provided a survey of the properly with the existingL house, nor has he provided septic testing to prove that the property has an� alternate site for a dr.ainfi.eld. These items were specifically requested in the "nc:tice 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 developed lot (see notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the capability to permanently support a house, septic system, well, 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 many as 28 vacant lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned with adjacent parcel, and are 1/2 - 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request the save benefit of buildabili.ty. 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 parcels were lowered as of 1983, which separated lots were then given "accessory value, since the main lot. land value inc Perhaps this was a result of the assesso i of t; were not buildable without var. i anef unt i 1 1979 and perhaps ar, late as 1982, t..... same as the main lot. Ferrell obviously felt separate building sites. )ns on Ferrells adjacent he appearance that the ue and not: building site irkedly at the same time. ng that the two westerly �a appear that perhaps up loos were valued much the ne was paying taxes on these :a,