2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A on 101 subdivision variance requests through the same process as zoning variances. Individual minor 102 subdivision applications of existing parcels in suburban subdivisions (that typically are not laid 103 out in a rectangular grid) have proven to be increasingly challenging to process as a result of 104 these amendments to an outdated Subdivision Code that regulates all subdivisions as though they 105 are large plats of open land. 106 What follow are some observations and comments about internal conflicts or unintended 107 consequences of the lot split study recommendations and the subsequent code amendments. 108 Having adopted stricter requirements for how new lots are shaped, fewer subdivision 109 proposals will be able to meet those standards. Planning Division staff posits that if 110 -family residential lots to be subdivided or split if 111 oseville should either adopt standards that are more easily 112 met by a variety of parcels or formalize the fact that adhering to the stricter lot-shape 113 standards is more important to the community than facilitating subdivisions and creating 114 new parcels that meet or exceed the size and area standards. Planning Division staff 115 believes, though, that it is inappropriate to maintain strict requirements and encourage 116 subdividers to seek variances from them. 117 The variance remains an important tool in certain circumstances, but the existing code 118 provisions separate the decision-making responsibilities between two bodies. If a minor 119 subdivision application were submitted for approval of a new parcel that, for some 120 reason, had a new side lot line that was not quite radial to the street line, a variance would 121 be required. The existing Subdivision Code makes the Variance Board responsible for 122 deciding whether to approve the variance request, but the City Council retains the 123 authority to approve or deny the proposed subdivision. If the Variance Board were to find 124 that the hypothetical proposal did not meet the test for approving the variance for a non- 125 radial side lot line and denied the variance, that decision would be final. In cases like this, 126 approved 127 applications. 128 Flag lots are not prohibited, per se a 129 de facto study 130 calls it) necessary to create a flag lot. Planning Division staff suggests that if flag lots are 131 not supported, the subdivision code should be clear about that, especially since 132 a 133 variance to create a flag lot where a more conventional subdivision is not possible. 134 In light of the problematic Subdivision Code language discussed above and the large number of 135 subdivision applications that could be submitted before a comprehensive revision to the code can 136 be completed, Planning Division staff recommends an amendment that substantially relaxes the 137 requirement so that reasonable subdivisions of irregular parcels can be 138 considered and evaluated by staff, the public, and the City Council for whether the proposals 139 conform to the purpose and intent of the provisions governing the shapes of new parcels. Staff 140 recommends the following amendment: 141 F.Side lines of lots shall be at right angles or radial to the street line. The shapes of new lots shall be 142 appropriate for their location and suitable for residential development. Lots with simple, regular shapes are 143 considered most appropriate and suitable for residential development because the locations of the 144 boundaries of such lots are easier to understand than the boundaries of lots with complex, irregular shapes, 145 and because they ensure greater flexibility in situating and designing homes for the new lots. 146 PROJ0001_Lot lines and sizes(20160504) Page4of5 Page4of 10