04-14-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1.010 April 7, 1986 Page 4 of 6 without lot standards. In 1958, the City amendeJ Ordinance 7, the City's first subdivision ordinance approved in 1955, requiring "relatively large lots to minimize septic problems and in areas where there was exiting development of lots le:>s than 25,000 square feet in area, all new lots were to be not less than 25,000 square feet in area nor less than 120 feet in width at the building line. (exhibit I`. The house on the subject property was built in 1955. It was between the mica and late 50's tl�aL the City developed review policies to control densities. Finally, ill 1959, the City adopted a minimum lot size ordinance requiring approval by the City before a building perwit could be issued for any lot less than 1 acre in area and 140 at the building line. The Pattern of Development is as follows: a) lot widths 50'-59' 60'-79' 80'-99' 100'-150' 5orl58 16or48_ lor3% llor33% 11 of the 33 units batisfy current lot width star..srds. 12 of the 33 units would satisfy the 80% stp.ndard. 9 of the 11 units ranked at the 100'-150' widths are legally combined lots the same as the subject property. b) lot area 7,000-10,000sf 8 or 24% 18,000-22,000sf 4 or 12% 10,000-18,000sf 16 or 48% 22,001-40,000sf 5 or 15% 27% or 9 units satisfy the 80% area standards all six of he units that rank at the 22-40,000 sf contain 34,000 sf to 39,000 sf in area and are all legally combined as is the subject property. The two neighbors to the south of the subject property and the imme- diate neighbors to the north have submitted letters in opposition to the proposal (exhibits E & F & G). The Gustafsons own one of the six units that: contain over 35,000 sf in area with a total of 150 feet of lot width.(lots 29 & 30) Staff has recieved no written comments in support of the Hall application. An inspection of the property reveals a low area within lot 28 that maybe a drainageway or collection area for a small watershed. The area is not designated on the of f ica 1 maps as a wetland. Elevations may be re- quired. The Planning Commission was asked to consider the following issues: 1 - Will the applicant be deprived of a "resonable use" of his property if denied the additional residental unit? Can you make findings that would (not.) support that applicant has enjoyed a reasonable use of his property under the current ordinance.