2020_0928_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

121 Traffic volumes on major thoroughfares will be greater than traffic volumes on arterial or 122 collector streets, which will be greater than traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. If the 123 impacts of streets on through lots relates to the intensity of traffic on those streets, regulations of 124 through lots could recognize this context. 125 Similarly, the impacts of a private street, serving many homes, at the rear of a through lot will be 126 greater than a private street (or a shared driveway) serving few homes. 127 Through lots created within a plat could be regulated differently than through lots that are created 128 from pre-existing lots adjacent to a plat. 129 o Through lots created within a plat could have additional depth and area beyond the minimum 130 standards to allow for enhanced screening along one of the frontages without consuming an 131 undue amount of the minimum required lot depth and area. 132 o The location of a new street creating through lots from pre-existing lots adjacent to a plat 133 could be regulated relative to some characteristic of the pre-existing lots. 134 The new street could be required to be located at least 15 – 20 feet (using the examples 135 from other municipalities’ regulations) from the rear boundary of the pre-existing lots so 136 that enhanced screening can be installed. 137 The new street could be required to be located a distance from the front boundaries of the 138 pre-existing lots equal to (or greater than) twice the minimum required depth of the pre- 139 existing lots. (E.g., the minimum required depth of a standard, interior, non-shorelandlot 140 is 110 feet, and a new street could be required to be at least 220 feet from the front 141 boundary of the adjacent lot. This would ensure that the resulting through lots could be 142 subdivided in the future, as has frequently happened with through lots in the past.) 143 Requiring additional depth and area to through lots would necessarily increase the price of the 144 lots, which could be in conflict with the City’s goals related to improving affordability. 145 Draft Amendment 146 After considering the above concepts, Planning Division staff forwarded a draft ordinance (included 147 with this RCA as Attachment D)amending the zoning and subdivision code language regulating through 148 lotsto the Planning Commission for consideration.Regarding the exceptionsidentified in the draft 149 ordinance, Council should be advised all Major Plats plats are reviewed by the Planning Commission 150 and City Council, and through that review the exceptions could be considered and either be accepted or 151 rejected based upon theirreasonableness. Efforts to try and explicity state when exceptions would be 152 allowed may not be practical because it is difficult to foresee every characteristic that either would make 153 the through lot acceptable or not. 154 Public Comment 155 The duly noticed public hearing for the proposed zoning andsubdivision code amendments was held by 156 the Planning Commission on September 2, 2020. Draft minutes of the public hearing are included as 157 Attachment E. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to 158 recommend approval of the proposed amendments, and the Commissioners advised the City Council to 159 carefully consider the question of “how close is too close” as it evaluates the proposed amendments. 160 Further Consideration 161 As noted earlier in this RCA, Planning Division staff processed an amendment as expeditiously as 162 possible following the City Council’s direction and presented it at the first availablePlanning 163 Commission meeting. Because the initial issue prompting the desire for additional regulation was the 7g RCA Page 4 of 6