2020_1012_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:October 12, 2020 ItemNo.: 7.e Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Consideranordinanceamending Title 10, Zoning, andTitle 11, Subdivisions, to regulate subdivision proposals that would locate a new street adjacent to the rear boundaries of existing parcels(PROJ-0042) 1 2 B ACKGROUND 3 On September 28, the City Councilreviewed a draft of azoning and subdivision code amendment aimed 4 at clarifying what was considered a through lot, then prohibiting them, which was in response to 5 previous direction from the Council. That previous direction stemmed from concerns regardingplat 6 proposals containing new streets that would cause existing residential parcels to become through lotsor 7 have new streets too close to existing rear property boundaries.That draft ordinance, along with the draft 8 minutes of the City Council’s discussion of it,is included with this RCA as Attachment A. 9 In short, the Council supported much of the basic proposal, but expressed an interest in simplifying a 10 proposed provision in theamended definition of “through lots” specifyingthe distance a new platted 11 street could be from the rear boundaries of existing residential parcels beyond which the street would be 12 determined not to turn those existing lots into through lots. After the September 28 meeting, some 13 Councilmembers began to realize their efforts to simplify said provision actually served to reduce the 14 distance from the proposal recommended by the Planning Commissionand, thus,not accomplish what 15 was intended. Consequently,the Councilmembers who contacted staff requested this mistaketo be 16 corrected when bringing therevised ordinance back to the City Council for consideration. The confusion 17 between staff and Council centered on the language regarding a minimum distance between proposed 18 new streets and the rear boundaries of existing residential parcelsadjacent to the plat. Further, the 19 impact of such language on through lots within a plat, verses outside a plat, changedthe 20 Councilmembers’ feelings of what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable. The draft ordinance included 21 with this RCA as Attachment B attempts to address this issue.Staff is suggesting the solution to the 22 issue of how close is too close for a new street to be located relative toside or rear yards of existing, 23 adjacent residential lots is to add a provision in the Required Improvements section of the Subdivision 24 Code. That provision imposes a minimum distancea street must befrom the periphery of a plat when 25 the plat abuts existing rear and side yards of single family lots. 26 It should be noted that the difficulty in reconciling the City Council’s instructions given during the 27 September 28 meeting and the concerns that Councilmembers voicedafterwardhas caused the published 28 version of the ordinance to differslightly fromthat which is attached herein.A draft ordinance was 29 published ten days before the previous meeting,and Planning Division staff believes the current 30 ordinance is not dramatically different from what was published, and therefore the intent of the 31 publication requirementhas still been satisfied. Nevertheless, if the Council determinesthe current 32 ordinance is not similar enough to the previous draftpublished on the website,action on the current 33 ordinance could be delayed until it can be published for the requisite period of time. 7e RCA Page 1of 2