Agenda - Council - 08/10/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I August 5, 1999 Page 2 several reasons. Most importantly, their son and daughter some day hope to build their own homes on that remaining 23 acres, when that parcel is able to be subdivided pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations. If Danners are forced to sell their entire parcel - all 27 acres - in order to sell their house, their son and daughter will lose the opportunity in the future to build their homes on this family land. Moreover, in our opinion it would be economically wasteful to require the Danners to sell all 27 acres in order to sell their house. It is not likely that they would be able to obtain full value for their property unless they are able to split offtheir house and 4 acres and just sell that parcel, while retaining the remaining 23 acres for development in the future when City ordinances allow it. The Danners' request meets all current ordinance requirements. In 1983 a variance was granted to a previous owner of this land to allow one home to be built on the property with no direct public access. The Danners utilized this 1983 variance when they built their present home in 1989. Although the 1983 variance stipulated that there be no further subdivision without complying with subdivision regulations, it is our belief that the intent and spirit of that 1983 variance stipulation would not be violated if the current parcel division is approved. It seems clear that the City Council's intent in 1983 was to allow only one house to be constructed on this property without direct public road access. That is all that has been constructed on this property. The current request by Danners would not involve the construction of another house. The Danner house is already there and has been since 1989. Approving their request would not change that situation and therefore there would be no additional impact to the City. Approving their request would allow them to sell their home, receive fair value for it, retain their remaining acreage until that acreage can be economically subdivided in the future and thus afford their son and daughter the opportunity to build on that land sometime in the future after it has been subdivided according to City subdivision regulations. Constructing a public road at this time is simply economically not feasible given the limited subdivision possibilities available to this land pursuant to the City's current subdivision requirements. My clients' current request is different then the request the City Council denied in 1988 when another property owner was seeking to divide this property into three buildable lots. Certainly that request was properly denied, in that it would have violated the spirit and intent of the 1983 variance stipulation. That is not the same as my clients' current request, which would not result in any additional buildable lots. In order to assure the City that there would be no additional subdivision of the remaining 23 acres without direct public road access, should the Danners' present request be approved by the City Council they would agree to sign a covenant, which could be prepared by the City Attorney and which would prohibit them or any subsequent owners of the remaining acreage from any further subdivision thereof unless the subdivision takes place in compliance with the City's subdivision ordinance requirements. That covenant could be filed with the County Recorder and would be binding upon the Danners and any subsequent owners of the property. In that manner, the City would be assured that even if the Danners' present request is approved, there would be no additional buildable lots created unless and until a public road is constructed in the course of any further subdivision of the parcel.