CCP 06032024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

80 replacement trees, the ordinance offers one alternative, which is to make a cash-in-lieu payment of $500 81 per un-planted tree or an amount not to exceed 10% of the assessed value of the land (i.e., $115,000 x 82 10% = $11,500), whichever is less. 83 84 Park Dedication 85 Although the subject parcel includes seven platted residential lots, each of these existing lots has too 86 little width to be considered a legally buildable lot by itself. Therefore, since the proposed three-lot plat of 87 the existing parcel would represent a net increase of 2 developable lots, the City could accept a 88 dedication of up to approximately 0.1 acres of park land (pursuant to the requirement to dedicate up to 89 10% of the land of the 1-acre development site) or a dedication of cash in lieu of land, or an equivalent 90 combination of land and cash. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposal at its 91 meeting of May 7, 2024, and recommended a dedication of $8,500 in lieu of land, based on the 2024 92 park dedication fee of $4,250 per net residential unit, to satisfy the park dedication requirement. 93 94 Subdivision Variance Analysis 95 The proposed plat includes two lots that are 80 feet in width. Because this is below the minimum 85-foot 96 width established in §1004.09.B of the City Code, the proposed plat relies on the approval of a 97 subdivision variance as noted earlier in this RCA. Section 1102.02.C of the City Code establishes a 98 mandate that the City make four specific findings about a subdivision variance request as a prerequisite 99 for approving the variance pertaining to the nonconforming width of proposed Lots 1 and 2. Planning 100 Division staff have reviewed the application and offers the following draft findings. 101 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division staff believe that the 102 proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the resulting four- 103 dwelling-per-acre density lies in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan’s range of 1.5 to 8.0 104 dwellings per acre in low density residential areas. 105 2. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning and subdivision 106 ordinances. The purposes and intent of the standard minimum lot width is to ensure there is 107 adequate space for a home on a given lot and to create a uniform distribution of homes along a 108 street frontage. Planning Division staff finds that the proposal is in harmony with these purposes 109 of the zoning ordinance because the preliminary site plans clearly show the 80-foot lots can 110 easily accommodate new homes, and because it would continue a uniform building pattern since 111 many of the homes to the west along Grandview Avenue were built on parcels of the same 112 width. 113 3. An unusual hardship on the land exists. With a density of about one dwelling per acre, the 114 existing parcel is slightly below the minimum density of 1.5 dwellings per acre and far below the 115 average density of 4.75 dwellings per acre promoted by the Comprehensive Plan in areas 116 guided for low density residential development, like the subject site. Of course, the guidance of 117 the Comprehensive Plan does not obligate the property owner to subdivide the existing parcel 118 but, despite the large area of the subject site, there is a tension between the minimum width 119 requirement of the zoning code and the greater density promoted by the Comprehensive Plan. 120 Planning Division staff believes this tension between the advocacy of the Comprehensive Plan 121 and the constraint of the standard zoning provisions constitutes an unusual hardship, which the 122 subdivision variance process is intended to relieve. 123 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the requested 124 subdivision variance is approved, Planning Division staff finds the approval will not alter the 125 essential character of the locality because, as noted previously, this area is characterized by 80- 126 foot wide lots like the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2. 127 128 Public Comment 129 As of the time this RCA was drafted, Planning Division staff had not received any communication from 130 the public. 131 132 133 Policy Objectives Page 3 of 5 Qbhf!21!pg!357