11-03-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOVEMBER 3, 1982 -10- 9. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED: RECESS: 9:05-9:15 MIS/ Eder/Morgan to grant Elizabeth Orchard a Simple Lot Division with a variance from the 1 1/2A minimum requirement, provided that each lot contain 1 acre of land and two drainfield sites. Discussion: --Fraser - feels this action would create the same situation the City was in when it was forced to approve a building site on a questionable lot and compel approval of additional variations for the newly created lot. Would not favor the motion. Also, this action would set a precedent for others to come and expect the same consideration as well as those who have been required to comply,,- would. -,be allowing someone to do something that we have not allowed others to do. --Eder - with 5 or 10 acres can come up with different variations with 2 acres there is the question of reasonabiness.: between the requirements relating to the available right of the property owner to develop and still meet the capability in an isolated situation. --Fraser - statement is correct judgement is made at what point do you stick to the norm, in this instance 1.5A, and at what point do you allow some leeway. Always wind up with some people being in the fringe and suffering as a result. Would make the call here at sticking to the 1.5A. --Mottaz - agreed with Fraser. Can predict that the Council will be faced with a similar situation on property in Lanes Demontreville Country Club where an individual has a little more property than he feels he needs and is going to ask to subdivide. Where do you draw the line - at some point have to say the Ordinance is good and we are going to stick by it; or, going to say the Ordinance is not good and will consider changing it. If grant this, going to have a difficult time in saying to the next person, even though he has a little less property, that he cannot divide his. Opposes the motion. --Morgan - reason for seconding the motion is that if divided into two lA parcels would meet both the requirements of more than 100% of the average of the area and 60% of the minimum lot size for the area. --Novak - agreed with Mottaz and Fraser. The intent and specifics of the Ordinance are clear - does not provide for: -variance to split a lot into two non -conforming lots that are owned by the same person. Motion failed 2-3. Fraser, Mottaz and Novak opposed. --Dave Spencer - asked for a full determination on the whole application. --Fraser - do not have the information to go further. --Ray Marshall - the Council action is the final determination. This action is preliminary to the other requests. --Eder - on the advice of the City Attorney, Ray Marshall, nothing further will take place.