Ordinance No. 19772 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 9, 1991 To: Pat Langan Les Lyle From: Paul Klope Subject: 7th and Washington A11ey--Assessment of 754 Washington, MU zone The owner of this property has contested the criteria used to calculate the assessment for this lot. The zoning for the lot is MU and is not listed with a "factor" in the alley assessment section of l.ll5. ~t falls under the category of "other", and the factor must be determined case by case. initially, we~had calculated the assessment based on the surrounding residential zoning. However, shortly before the original assessment hearing date last month, we learned that on floor of the house is used by a telemarketing firm. The hearing was postponed and the assessment recalculated. The owner has since notified us that the square footage of the residential use is greater than the commercial, so there was a question about which usage should govern the, selection of the assessment factor. Yesterday, I talked to Mike Newman, City Attorney's office, regarding how to interpret the code pertaining to calculating alley assessments for properties with zonings not listed in the code. He said that the code directs you to first determine what the most intensive use .of the property is; second, to determine in which zonings from the list in 7.115 that this use would be permitted; and finally, to select the lowest factor from the zonings in which the .use is permitted to calculate the assessment. Mike said that the "intensity" of use is not determined by the square footage of the building in that use, but by the type of use and the potential impact of that use on the property and surrounding streets and other public facili- ties. In general, commercial would be amore intensive use than mast residen- tial uses. A11en Lowe, planning, said that for MU zones which have residential and commercial combined, the equivalent zoning for the residential is determined by either the surrounding zoning or by the concentration of units per acre existing on the lot. Depending on the combination of the actual commercial use and the actual residential use on the parcel, it is passible that there could be circumstances where the residential could be considered the most intensive use. The surrounding residential zoning around this parcel is low density residential, which would be equivalent to R=1, according to Allen. Since on this parcel the commercial use i s telemarketing, and also because i t employs ~2 people, A11en considers this commercial use more intensive than the 2300 square feet of low density residential use also existing on the parcel. He said that telemarketing use is allowed only in GD, C-2, and C-3 zones. Since according to 7.75, the zoning designations G0, C-2, and C-3 all use a factor of ~0, the revised assessment calculated using the i0 factor appears to be consistent with code. E~~3i~6T `! P~sGE ! 04~ ~