Viewpoint:
Hearings Official REJECTS 2006 application for lot partition for
933 W. 13th Ave.
Hearings Official REJECTS 2006 application for lot partition for
933 W. 13th Ave.
by Paul Conte
==============
*** Latest News on 2006 Appeal *** December 18, 2006
JWN WINS Appeal! Read the Hearing's Official decision.
The full story
On July 28th, JWN received a notice that a developer had applied to partition the lot at 933
W. 13th Ave into two lots. A small lot in the front will have the current rental house, while a
separate lot in the rear is intended for a four-plex with access only from W. 12th Alley.
View notice: Page 1 Page 2. View drawing of proposed lot.
The rear lot has a narrow 13.9' neck that runs along the east property line connecting the
required 20' street frontage to the main part of the lot in the rear. Despite the clear intent
of R-2 zoning code to require a minimum lot width of 20 feet, at least from the street to the
main portion of the lot, Planning Division staff failed to reject the request based on lot
frontage and minimum lot width standards.
By approving this lot partition the Planning Director apparently has decided to allow
hundreds of R-2 lots in our neighborhoods to be cut in two pieces with large apartments
and parking built on the rear lot with only alley access. Such development will have major
negative impacts on adjacent and nearby property owners and will likely result in
substantial reduction in property values of some surrounding properties.
Using the Planning staff's interpretation of the zoning code, a developer could partition a
lot to create a new lot with a one-inch deep, 20-foot wide "frontage", connected by a
one-inch wide neck to the main part of the new lot that abuts an alley. See a drawing of an
example lot. Planning Staff was provided this drawing; and after they considered it at a
staff meeting, they could cite no basis -- using their interpretation of the code (which we
believe is wrong) -- to prohibit this hypothetical lot because of its one-inch segments.
That means developers could use this misinterpretation of the code to carve out
alley-access-only lots from most street-to-alley lots in the JWN.
In October 2000, City Council expressly prohibited alley-access-only lots (read the
Council motion on page 3 of the minutes), and this type of "gerrymandered" lot is
pure-and-simple an attempt to exploit a misreading of the zoning code to circumvent
Council's intent. Yet the effect of the Planning Director's action is to unilaterally void
Council's action and usurp the Council's legislative authority in prohibiting such lots.
On August 1, the JWN Executive Board voted unanimously to oppose the partition. (Read
the JWN board motion.)
Both the JWN and I, along with a large number of residents, submitted testimony in
opposition, You can read the main legal arguments here.
On September 12, the Planning Director, Steve Nystrom, approved the lot partition. In his
"Findings and Decision" Nystrom showed utter disregard for the arguments presented by
the JWN and residents:
==============
*** Latest News on 2006 Appeal *** December 18, 2006
JWN WINS Appeal! Read the Hearing's Official decision.
The full story
On July 28th, JWN received a notice that a developer had applied to partition the lot at 933
W. 13th Ave into two lots. A small lot in the front will have the current rental house, while a
separate lot in the rear is intended for a four-plex with access only from W. 12th Alley.
View notice: Page 1 Page 2. View drawing of proposed lot.
The rear lot has a narrow 13.9' neck that runs along the east property line connecting the
required 20' street frontage to the main part of the lot in the rear. Despite the clear intent
of R-2 zoning code to require a minimum lot width of 20 feet, at least from the street to the
main portion of the lot, Planning Division staff failed to reject the request based on lot
frontage and minimum lot width standards.
By approving this lot partition the Planning Director apparently has decided to allow
hundreds of R-2 lots in our neighborhoods to be cut in two pieces with large apartments
and parking built on the rear lot with only alley access. Such development will have major
negative impacts on adjacent and nearby property owners and will likely result in
substantial reduction in property values of some surrounding properties.
Using the Planning staff's interpretation of the zoning code, a developer could partition a
lot to create a new lot with a one-inch deep, 20-foot wide "frontage", connected by a
one-inch wide neck to the main part of the new lot that abuts an alley. See a drawing of an
example lot. Planning Staff was provided this drawing; and after they considered it at a
staff meeting, they could cite no basis -- using their interpretation of the code (which we
believe is wrong) -- to prohibit this hypothetical lot because of its one-inch segments.
That means developers could use this misinterpretation of the code to carve out
alley-access-only lots from most street-to-alley lots in the JWN.
In October 2000, City Council expressly prohibited alley-access-only lots (read the
Council motion on page 3 of the minutes), and this type of "gerrymandered" lot is
pure-and-simple an attempt to exploit a misreading of the zoning code to circumvent
Council's intent. Yet the effect of the Planning Director's action is to unilaterally void
Council's action and usurp the Council's legislative authority in prohibiting such lots.
On August 1, the JWN Executive Board voted unanimously to oppose the partition. (Read
the JWN board motion.)
Both the JWN and I, along with a large number of residents, submitted testimony in
opposition, You can read the main legal arguments here.
On September 12, the Planning Director, Steve Nystrom, approved the lot partition. In his
"Findings and Decision" Nystrom showed utter disregard for the arguments presented by
the JWN and residents:
 | Allowed applicants' supplemental testimony, but disallowed residents. (page 1) | |
| Measured "lot width" as shown in Attachment E of opposing testimony (the absurd | |
| diagonal line from the east side line to a point on the E-W line paralleling the street). (page 3) | ||
| Also ignored all arguments that the appropriate legal criteria was "minimum width of | |
| the lot must exceed 20 feet", rather than " 'lot width' must exceed 20 feet" (as staff used). | ||
| Improperly substituted "front lot line" for the minimum "frontage" requirement. Frontage | |
| is defined in the code as the area in the front of a lot, not the property line. | ||
| Completely ignored the obvious conflict with City Council's motion, relying only on | |
| definition of "Alley access lot" as having street frontage, despite applicants' own admission they could never have street access. (page 3) | ||
| Based on Public Works Department comments, (page 3) claims Parcel 2 doesn't need | |
| to be directly connected to abutting street. (page 5) | ||
| Disregarded the proposed 4-plex entirely, despite applicants own reliance on this as | |
| part of their proposal. And then found that the lot partition by itslef doesn't conflict with the Westside Neighborhood Refinement Plan. (top of page 9, page 10) |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Jefferson Westside Neighbors
