2014_0811_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Code §1004.08C (Improvement Area) limits impervious surfaces (e.g., building footprints 89 and driveways, sidewalks, patios, or other paved areas) to 30% of the area of a residential parcel. 90 The subject property’s existing improvements which would remain on Parcel A represent about 91 17% of the current parcel area. If the proposal is approved by the City Council, the impervious 92 coverage of Parcel A, after subtracting the ROW, would add up to about 35%. 93 The city code establishes an administrative tool—the Residential Storm Water Permit 94 (ReSWP)—for accommodating excess impervious coverage on older properties in exchange for 95 installing and maintaining best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate the storm water runoff 96 generated by that excess impervious surface area. But the present act of subdividing the property 97 would make both new parcels ineligible for using the ReSWP. Prior to the establishment of the 98 ReSWP process, proposals to exceed the impervious surface limits were handled as variances 99 and such variance approvals were typically conditioned on installing the kind of BMP that the 100 current administrative process requires. In the present case, the City Council would seem to have 101 a couple of options for addressing the drainage concerns if a variance is granted to allow excess 102 impervious coverage on Parcel A. One option could be to require the installation and 103 maintenance of a BMP on Parcel A consistent with the ReSWP process. Another possibility 104 could be to limit the site as a whole to 30% impervious coverage; if the entire property (less the 105 dedicated ROW) would allow for about 7,325 square feet of impervious surface and Parcel A 106 would have about 4,700 of that amount, Parcel B could be limited to the remaining 2,625 square 107 feet of coverage. 108 RV: The Zoning Code establishes a mandate that 109 EVIEW OF ARIANCE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS the Variance Board make five specific findings about a variance request as a prerequisite for 110 approving a variance to the zoning regulations. While the City Council will be acting on the 111 variance request in this case, using the same process established for the Variance Board is 112 prudent. Planning Division staff has reviewed the application and offers the following findings. 113 a.The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan . Planning Division staff believes 114 that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the 115 proposed parcels fall within the density range established in the LR land use category and 116 a future new home represents the sort of continued investment promoted by the 117 Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies for residential areas. 118 b.The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. 119 Planning Division staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the 120 zoning ordinances because the impervious coverage limits are intended to prevent 121 adverse impacts from excessive amounts of storm water runoff, and runoff from the 122 excess impervious surface on Parcel A can be addressed by mitigating the storm EITHER 123 water within Parcel A’s boundaries by restricting the impervious surfaces on Parcel B OR 124 to equal 30% across the two parcels when combined with the impervious surface on 125 Parcel A. 126 c.The proposal puts the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. Planning Division 127 staff believes that the proposal makes reasonable use of the subject property because the 128 subdivision would create conforming parcels for one-family, detached dwellings which 129 would be consistent with the surrounding properties. 130 d.There are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the 131 landowner. The creation of the existing lot in 1954 as one of four tracts in Registered 132 Land Survey (RLS) 56, and subsequent construction of the home in 1957 precedes the 133 applicant’s ownership of the property; given the size of the lot, the double frontage on 134 PF14-017_RCA_081114.doc Page 4 of 6