2007_0514_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Single-Family Residential Lot Split Study Report May 14, 2007 in the code (300 feet from water bodies designated in the code). The CAG recommended that this become a zoning district and properties that are within the prescribed area would be, therefore, shown on the City's Zoning Map, and the lot standards would mirror those currendy assigned to the overlay district. The pre-May 21, 1959 "de facto" overlay district is not specifically called out as a zoning overlay district within the City Code, but is buried within the General Requirements Chapter of the Zoning Code. These regulations provide a separate set of regulations for substandard parcels created prior to the enactment of the code. To elucidate the requirements for these pre-1959 lots, the CAG recommends that the City Council should designate an overlay zoning district for single-family lots platted prior to May 21, 1959 to ensure that they remain legally nonconforming lots. The CAG discussed a variety of other issues associated with zoning district regulation. These topics included establishing lot size maximums as a method to prevent "McMansions;" amending the lot standards for the existing R-1 Single-Family Residential District, and single-family residential design standards. However, time was not available to fully discuss these issues. Hvbrid Regulation: In addition to examining the neighborhood-context and the standard zoning methods, the CAG also considered a regulatory scheme that would combine both systems into one hybrid regulation. This would include designating new zoning districts within the community and then applying the neighborhood-context methodology to determine minimum lot regulations. This concept did receive some initial support from CAG members, but ultimately consensus developed around designating several zoning district without the addition of the neighborhood-context system of regulation. Lot Shape The CAG identified three key lot shape issues—gerrymandered lot lines, flag lots, and design flexibility—and discussed them as they related to the Subdivision Ordinance. Existing code speaks to lot shape through three specific requirements: 1) Side lot lines must be "substantially at right angles" or perpendicular to the front lot line or radial in the case of a cul-de-sac; 2) the front yard must be 85 feet wide; and 3) the rear lot must be a minimum of 30 feet wide. Gerrvmandered Lot Lines: The City Council specifically requested this issue be studied in the interim ordinance creating the moratorium. As described above, the Subdivision Code requires that a side lot line be "substantially at right angles," but the word substantially is not defined within the ordinance, which leaves lot shape open to interpretation. The CAG discussed this issue, and instituting a more definitive standard was the consensus. Group members wanted to avoid property owners "zigzagging" lot lines and declaring that they were substantially perpendicular in order to meet minimum lot area and dimension standards. The CAG recommends that the City Council should amend the lot line requirement within the Subdivision Ordinance to require that lot lines are perpendicular to the front property line unless a variance is granted. Flag Lots: The only recommendation upon which the CAG could not reach consensus was that of flag lots. A flag lot is one in which two residential lots are created end to end versus side by side. Two group members wanted the City Council to expressly prohibit flag lots by ordinance, as they promote haphazard infill development The majority of the group felt that requirements within the Subdivision and Zoning Codes were sufficient, and if a property owner wanted to create a flag lot, 12