12-10-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY The proposal requesting you to allow Lot 21 as a buildable site would appear to meet ?11 performance standards and criteria except lot area, lot width, and side setback for the existing house on Lot 22. The properties have been kept as separate tax parcels by the owners, and the assessment records indicate the vacant lot has been taxed as a separate building site. Lot 21 by itself would be equivalent to or larger in size than 44 percent of the lots in the neighborhood, as would I.ot 22. The question to the Council is, what minimum lot size do you consi:ler acceptable in the 1/2 acre sewered zone, presuming the land is vacant and no other land is available? In the one acre zoning district, you seem to feel that 0.40 acre, or 40 percent of the required area, is acceptable. Is a smaller acreage acceptable in the 1/2 acre zone, given that, essentially all the hardcover and setback performance standards are met? Is therea certain limiting minimum area that should not realistically be surpassed? Staff has calculated that a 50' lakeshore lot in the 1/2 acre zoning district will need a minimum of 12-13,000 sf in a- ea in order to build a minimal home and garage meeting all the setback and hardcover standards. A 100' lakeshore lot in the 1/2 acre zoning district would realistically need to be at least 16,000 sf in order to satisfy the standards. Based or, these numbers, staff would suggest that minimum realistic lakeshore lot sizes in LR-lC range from 55% to 75% of 1/2 acre. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended denial by a5-1 voate, for the following reasons: 1. A variance to side setback for the existing house would be necessary. 2. Although the lot was assessed footage for sewer, City maps indicate no stub was every placed and the plant charge was never paid. 3. The lot areas proposed are signif icantly less than the aver.,cae lot area in the neighborhood. 4. Approval of this application would set a precedent since the proposed lot sizes are less than those approved in previous similar applications. 5. The lots have been historically used as a single building site, indicated by the locations of the driveway and garage. Staff feels on the other hand, that the reasons for denial are far outweighed by the following justifications for approval: 1. The proposal ran meet all hardcover requirements of the LR-IC zoning district. 2. All setback requirements for the new lot can be met. 3. From the tax record it appears that the lot has been valued and assessed as a separate lot, not incrementally as part of the adjacent property.