04-24-1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULI�R P4EEmING OF �I�E OROI10 COUNCTL, APRIL 24 , 1979 Page 10 Staff concurs that a new house on this lot could VART�CE be built without any setback or hardcover variances 2775 Shadywood Road and without any adverse impact on the neighborhood. (Continued) Sewer and water service is available. Sewer units were not assessed to vacant lots in the 63-1 project but a water unit was assessed in 1970. The area has been zoned one-acre residential since 1967. The issue remains, however, that the Planning • Commission erred in finding that no additional land is available. The lot is (and has been for 15 years) owned in common with the adjacent lot upon which the Watson home exists. In coru�on ownership, the two lots r_leet the existing zoning code requirement for minimum lot area and minirlum lot width (1. 38 acre/212 feet width) . If the cor.tmon ownership is severed, as would happen if a new home is perr.litted, the result would be two lots both of which would be substandard in lot area and lot width (72% area/78% width and 66o area/72o width) . This situation is not unique here. A 1978 study has found up to several hundred similar situations City wide. These have been r_Zapped. Staff has been approached on the average of_ once or twice a week regarding construction on lots in this circumstance_ Some would be 80o to 900 of the requirement after severance, some would be 20% of the requirement. Our answers have consistently been "no, such lot severance contrary to the zoning code intent. Variance requests would r:lost likely be denied. " I believe that sufficient legal hardships cannot be found to justify a variance when the lo�s are in cor�mon ownership. 1) The situation is not unique; 2) Substantial property rights are preserved (the applicant already has a house, has � the benefit of the land and the zoning code establishes the existing situation as proper for the area) ; 3) Granting of the variance would be contrary to the intent of the zoning code (reduction of lot below required minimum) , and 4) Any hardships would be economic and not peculiar to the land. Thus, I recomr,tend denial of the variance, but reluctantly. Again, I see no adverse impact on health, safety, welfare, etc. The intent of the Cor_mprehensive Plan would be upheld, except for density, if the hardcover standards were not. Also, a basic question of fairness exists because if the lot were in separate ownership since before 1967, a substantial property right hardship could be proven and a variance would be more forthcor_ling. � (Continued)