Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Merger Simultaneously Improved Lots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates rule requiring replatting of simultaneously improved lots; staff to research floodplain and lending implications
Summary
Commissioners discussed a proposed amendment requiring replatting of "simultaneously improved" lots on Sept. 18 and asked staff to investigate floodplain, lending and access consequences before returning with revisions.
The commission discussed a proposed amendment on merging "simultaneously improved" lots — situations where a primary residential lot is paired with an adjacent back lot the owner also holds (for example, lots backing to a waterway or slope).
Staff presented examples: many newer properties adjacent to a waterway have a slender secondary lot behind the primary parcel; historically the city sometimes allowed these to remain separate because the back lot is functionally unbuildable. Commissioners raised concerns that forcing replatting could unintentionally place more of a property into a mapped floodplain, possibly triggering lender requirements for flood insurance and complicating financing. Commissioners suggested possible exemptions for parcels where the back lot is entirely in a flood zone or where replatting would create access problems.
Other points: the county's role and deed restrictions are not always visible to staff (city staff noted they typically do not have access to deed records). Several commissioners said that in many cases owners would not build on the back lot if it is within the floodplain, so mandatory replatting could create hardships. Staff and commissioners suggested alternatives: leave the city practice as an exception in certain cases, require a variance for specific improvements that implicate both lots, or impose conditions on variances (for example, restrict sale of the back lot or require flood-insurance disclosures). Staff also noted that if an improvement would materially rely on the back lot (for example, an addition that needs extra lot area), merging may be required.
Commissioners asked staff to consult city engineering and floodplain administration (Tammy and Brian were named) and to return with clarified ordinance language and consequences, including how platting interacts with floodplain mapping and lending. No ordinance change was adopted at the meeting; staff will bring refined language and examples back to a future meeting.
