Laserfiche WebLink
Case File: 'LC 07-03 <br />Page 2 <br />Location: 518 Jackson Avenue <br />Zoning: R2(a) Land Use: OT -Old Town <br />Adjacent N - R2(a) Adjacent N - OT <br />Zoning: E - R1c Land Use: E - OT <br /> S - R2(a) S - OT <br /> W - PUD W - OT <br />60 Day Rule: Action must be taken on this request by February 20 , 2007 <br />Overview <br />The applicant's property is a result of a previous lot line adjustment It was at one time two <br />individual lots that were the same size as the neighboring properties. In the past the lot line between <br />the properties was removed and the two lots were combined into one. The applicant's desire is to <br />subdivide it back to two lots to be able to create a buildable lot. <br />Analysis <br />The applicant has submitted a zone change request that must have action by the City Council by <br />March 20, 2007. <br />The property is currently zoned R2(a) with a frontage requirement of 80-feet. The property is <br />approximately 130-feet in width and in order to meet the current zoning requirements, each <br />individual lot must meet the 80-feet of frontage. The lot is not wide enough to create the two lots <br />with the current zoning, but if it were zoned R2b which has frontage requirement of 60-feet, the <br />property could be divided. <br />The only difference, other than the lot width, between the two zoning districts is that the R2b <br />district allows townhouses and multifamily dwellings (four units per structure maximum). <br />Rezoning the parcel to R2b raises issues regarding the practice of spot zoning, which is typically not <br />supported by staff or the Council and is inconsistent with the purpose of zoning. <br />There are 20 properties north of 5th Street to School Street, of which only three meet the minimum <br />lot widths. Two of the three (including subject property) are wider than 120-feet. These lots appear <br />to have been combined in the past. Seventeen of the properties are non-conforming lots with the <br />current lot dimension requirements. Staff believes a better alternative would be an ordinance <br />amendment reducing the lot width to 60-feet for the R2a district. <br />The request was brought before the City Council on February 20, 2007 for direction. The council <br />questioned if the request was premature, given the possibility of redevelopment in the area. The <br />council wanted feedback from the HRA in regards to the request. <br />S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2007\"ZC\ZC 07-03_Beaudry\ZC 07-03_HRA.doc <br />