1996-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes October 8, 1996 Page 3 Public Hearing - PL-230 Stepanchak Lot Split However, it was discovered that Tract B was miscalculated and exceeded the 40 % Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 6%. In an effort to make this unit and lot conform to the zoning ordinance, Community Development Director Kevin Locke and City Attorney Charlie LeFevere worked with the applicant to determine an alternative. That alternative eliminates a portion of the current center property line, and extends the center line lying north of Mississippi St. The proposed lot split would reshape the lots to add more land to Tract B. This arrangement would bring the unit on Tract B into compliance with the 40% FAR. The unit on Tract A continues to comply with the 40% FAR. Benke understands the history of this parcel, but feels the proposed easement is somewhat unusual and asked if it is workable. Mattila agrees this is an odd configuration, but according to the City Attorney it would alleviate the FAR violation. In past practices, other proposals were allowed to exceed FAR by 100 sq. ft., and this proposal falls into that category. The City Attorney did not feel this would set a precedence for odd configured lot approvals. Mattila noted the common wall and zero lot line situation of the proposal. Benke confirmed that the Tract B owner would take ownership of the boulevard area in front of Tract A. Williams asked if the Tract B owner would maintain that boulevard area. Mattila felt that would be the case. Darrell Swanson, 2225 and 2227 Mississippi St., previously brought to staff's attention that construction was underway before the building permit was pulled, and was told the units would be built to fit the property. He noted that City Manager Matthew Fulton did stop construction momentarily because of FAR concerns, and asked why the units' garage setbacks are only 25 ft. when other units on Mississippi St. are 30 ft. He feels serious damage has been done to his property values, and the City is allowing too large of buildings to be constructed on adjacent parcels. These units were constructed with an east/west lot line, but the original plat showed a north/south lot line. Mattila confirmed that staff met with Swanson regarding the setbacks. This area was developed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD), and any structure in a PRD is allowed a 25 ft. setback. However, other developers may have chosen to setback further than 25 ft. Mattila acknowledged that an oversight caused the FAR miscalculation for Unit B due to new staff in the Building Department. If both units' FAR were combined and compared to the entire lot area, the FAR would be exceeded by 70 sq. ft. That amount is less than previously approved proposals in R-1 and R-2 Districts. Swanson asked why these problems were not corrected before the permit was issued. Mattila said the builder and owner proposed to combine the lots so that the FAR would be exceeded by only 70 sq. ft. The permit was then issued and construction began. However, the owner was notified of financing issues relating to a condominium classification and the joining of the lots. At that point, LeFevere and Locke met with the owner and developed this lot configuration to assist in the execution of a certificate of occupancy and zoning code compliance. Benke questioned that if the lot configuration was determined unacceptable or unwise, then what are the alternatives. Acting City Attorney Jim Thomson said one option would be to allow the property to continue as a non-conforming use. Williams asked the effect to the homeowner. Thomson said the homeowner would be restricted against any type of expansion, required to comply with non-conforming use provisions, and in event of a fire the unit would be constructed at a reduced FAR. Public Hearing PL-230 Lot Split Report 96-225