Laserfiche WebLink
clt� o� oR,oNo <br /> � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � <br /> � NO. 2637 <br /> r� _ � � <br /> The 1967 cade did not discuss common ownership properties <br /> nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots <br /> of record. However, by using the term "Single Separate <br /> Ownership", it imp lied that other types of ownership would <br /> not be granted similar consideration. Under this 1967 Code, <br /> the applicant would have been allowed to build on Parcel 3 <br /> without a variance because the lot met the standards of the <br /> , R-1C zoning district. Parcel 2 would have required a Iot <br /> area variance in order to be legally buildable. <br /> 29. The zoning code adopted January 1, 1975, which declared <br /> the property to be zoned RR-1B, 2 acre single family <br /> residential, stated as follaws regarding existing lots of <br /> record: <br /> 31.201. $xisting Lots. A Iot of record existing upon <br /> January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the zoning code) <br /> under single separate ownership in an "R" district, <br /> � which daes not meet the requirements af the Zoning Code <br /> as to area or width may be utilized for a single family <br /> detached dwel Iing purpose provided that in the judge- <br /> ment of the Council such use does not adversely affect <br /> public health or safety and the fol lowing requirements <br /> are ° met: <br /> 31.203. In "R' Districts of Greater Than One <br /> Acre. A 1ot of record in any "R" District in the <br /> City in excess of one acre, which does not meet <br /> the requirements of this zoning code as ta area ar <br /> width only, may be utilized for single family <br /> detached dwel ling purposes if the Council finds: <br /> i) it is at Ieast one acre in size, and the <br /> average width of the lot is at Ieast 100 <br /> feet; and <br /> ii ) it is either served by public sanitary <br /> sewer or meets all the septic system <br /> requirements of the City or other <br /> governmental body; and • <br /> iii) it otherwise meets the requirements of <br /> this pr other applicable ordinances. <br /> � Under this Code, the Council, at their option, could have <br /> granted a, Iot area variance for a lot of single separate <br /> " ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss <br /> any standards fpr the separation of commonly owned lots. <br /> Page 9 of 13 <br />