Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2016 07 14

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016 Page 3 of 30 o Lot 1 would allow 2,588 SF coverage and 3,019 SF floor area. Lot 2 o 6,375 SF and 42.5' wide. o Noncompliant with minimum lot size, received variances for lot size and lot width. o Lot 2 would allow 2,250 SF coverage and 2,699 SF floor area. Residential Low Density zone district requires minimum lot size of 7,000 SF and minimum lot width of 70'. Old Town Overlay District allows on existing 15,000 SF property one unit with 4,500 SF coverage and 5,250 SF of total enclosed space. Existing lot could have been divided in half for 7,500 SF lots, but the dividing line would have gone through the existing house. Staff looked at existing lots in subdivision and it is the larg- Dividing it will create two lots smaller than the average in the subdivision, but ould not be the smallest subdivision. Typical lot size for Old Town and similar to I, 'ng Roosevelt Avenue. Given similarity in size to the rest of Old Town, Staff feels it c ies with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and variance approval means it now com • with the zoning regulations in Title 17. Subdivision regulations in Title 16 of the Lo. le Municipal Code (LMC) that it needs to meet. It does not meet two. Title 16.16.060 requires 50 foot frontage and maximum I-ngth/width ra .5 o Lot 1 would be 57.5 feet with 2.61 o Lot 2 would be 42.5 feet with 3.53 ra Section of LMC allows modifica 'ons for hards Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends Planning Commissio recommending approval of a replat to sub the Residential Low (RL) zone district, loca vacated alley, Block 4, Johnson's First Addit 5, Series 2016, a resolution lot into two separate lots in venue, Lots 15-17 & 10' no con. ns. Commission Questions of Staff:: Moline asks about the hardship portion of the variance. Robinson says when an application goes before the BOA for a variance, there are six criteria that have to be met, and the BOA must find all six criteria are met. Criterion #1 says "That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the affect property."The BOA decided the lot was large enough to be divided into two lots. It is unusually long at 150' whereas most lots are 125' or shorter. This made the lot unusual. Rice says on page 6 of the Staff Report, there is data presented about other parcels in this block. The new Lot 2, which is 6,375 SF, would only have two other lots in the survey area that are smaller. The new Lot 1, which is 8,625 SF, would leave four parcels smaller. Looking at this together, this would create two of the five smallest lots in the study area. There are small lots in this study area, but this action would create even more. Robinson says these lots would be small compared with the other properties in the Johnson's First Addition. Looking at broader Old Town, they would be similar in size to the average lot. Rice says the lot width of 42.5 feet; is it even feasible to build on? What are the side setbacks? Robinson says there are lots in Old Town that are more narrow than that. We have some that are 25' in width. Setbacks would be 5' on each side. Rice says we are talking about 32.5' of buildable space. My other question is about the BOA. If you are going through this process, is it necessary to go to the BOA first? Robinson says if you need a variance from the requirements of Title 17 such as lot width and lot area, you go to the BOA. Rice asks if the BOA is simply a recommendation. Is it a final determination on the issue?