pf_02418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Franklin Ho, Case No. 2418 Page 2 in the R-2 District, but not in R-1. city policy, however, states that the city will consider, but not necessarily grant, a rezoning of any R-1 lot to R-2. This request is not unique: there are at least fifteen other instances in the city where there is a single R-2 zoned lot within an R-1 neighborhood. If we were to include clusters of two or three R-2 lots, there are many more similar situations. The minimum lot standards in the R-1 and R-2 Districts are identical: Minimum lot size Minimum width Minimum depth Front setback Side setback Rear setback 11,000 sq ft 85 feet 110 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet The lot in question is 64,300 square feet in area, including a portion of the pond, which is protected by a drainage easement. Because of the drainage easement, we cannot make a simple apples-to-apples comparison of this lot to the minimum lot size required by the Code. The easement for the pond (see attached drawing) encroaches further on the lot than the normal water level of the pond, leaving a buildable area outside the easement of 10,445 square feet. The drainage easement is in essentially the same place as a rear yard setback, and a typical lot is allowed to count the rear setback as part of the lot area. If we were to add 30 feet to Mr. Ho's lot beyond the drainage easement we would have a total lot area of approximately 15,500 square feet, more than the minimum required. Or looking at it the other way, if we decrease a typical lot by the area contained in the 30-foot rear setback, we would require a minimum lot size of only 8,500 square feet. The lot has 159 feet of frontage, is 113 feet deep, and the existing home meets all the setbacks. No matter how we juggle the numbers, the lot in question is more than adequate to meet the minimum size standards in the Code for both the R-1 and R-2 Districts. Related to this question of lot size and the Code standards is the attached letter from a neighbor, Ms. Katie Fournier, who opposes the rezoning, stating that this plat has "inadequate lot sizes" that required "special permission" to be developed. Our research of the city's files reveals that there was discussion in 1976 when the plat was filed about the appropriate arrangement of lots, but that the area above the pond level for each of the three lots meets the minimums in the Code. In fact, there was enough land for four lots.