HomeMy WebLinkAbout00070970STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Jessica Jimmerson Date: 5-9-01
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat, with lot
width variance requests, for the College Hills Estates Subdivision for Lots 1 R,
2R-1 and 2R-2 consisting of 1.23 acres located at the intersection of Nunn St.
and Lincoln Ave. (01-109)
Applicant: Richard Coselli
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial of the variance and the final
plat. The proposed plat does not meet the Subdivision Regulations, specifically
the recently adopted Section 18-A.2, which requires that a newly created lot must
meet or exceed the average lot width of the lots in that block.
Item Summary: The applicant is requesting permission to subdivide two existing
residential lots into three residential lots. State statute requires that under certain
conditions, if a property presented for replatting is zoned for single family
residential use, then a public hearing must be held. The public hearing is to allow
parties in interest and citizens to have an opportunity to be heard by the
municipal authority responsible for approving plats. This plat does qualify under
that section of the statute.
The subject property is in the area covered by the newly adopted Section 18 of
the City's Subdivision Regulations. Section 18 ensures that any existing lots in
the former moratorium area, which are requested to be further subdivided, meet
two qualifications. The first is that the new lots are a minimum of 8,500 sf, and
the second is that the width of the lot is equal to or greater than the average
width of the lots in the block.
This proposal meets the lot area requirement. The applicant is requesting three
lot width requirement variances. Generally lot width requirements are found in
the Zoning Ordinance and, variance requests to the Zoning Ordinance are heard
by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. However, in this instance, the lot width
requirement is a subdivision regulation and as such, the Commission has
authority to grant the variance.
Section 5 of the Subdivision Regulations discusses the criteria for granting a
variance.
55=A The Commission may authorize a v
when, in their opinion, undue hardsh
strict compliance. In granting a vari
prescribe only conditions that it deems
interest. In making the findings
ariance from the regulation
ip will result from requiring
ance, the Commission shall
not prejudicial to the public
hereinbefore required, the
J:\PZTEXT\PZ04803.DOC Page 1 of 4
Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use
of the land involved, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the
number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed
subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the
probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon
public health, convenience, and welfare of the vicinity. No variance
shall be granted unless the Commission finds:
5-A.1 That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this
chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land;
5-A.2 That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant;
5-A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the
area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and
5-A.4 That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of pre-
venting the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
55=B Such findings of the Commission, together with the specific facts
upon which such findings are based, shall be incorporated into the
official minutes of the meetings at which such variance is granted.
Variances may be granted only when in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of this chapter so that public health, safety, and
welfare may be secured and substantial justice done.
Granting a variance to the width requirement in this instance would undermine
the intent of the ordinance, which is to protect these neighborhoods from
development that would change the character of the neighborhood and/or
incompatibly increase the density of the area. According to the applicant this
block is has an average width of 226.16 feet. They are requesting variances of
45.16 feet for Lot 1 R frontage on Lincoln, 98.80 feet for Lot 1 R frontage on Nunn,
and 106.6 feet for Lot 2R-1 frontage on Nunn, which equates to variances of
19.9%, 43.68% and 47.13% respectively. These are all significant variances.
At the previous Commission meeting there was extensive discussion reqarding
the use of the word "block" in Section 18. Please review the attachments that
demonstrate the definition of block that was used during the presentation to
Council for adoption of Section 18, as well as, the definitions of block found in
Blacks Law Dictionary, A Glossary of Zoning, Development and Planning Terms
and Webster's Dictionary.
J:\PZTEXT\PZ04803.DOC Page 2 of 4
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area as
Low Density Residential, with a corresponding density of 1/3 to 2 dwelling units
per acre. However, the current zoning of the property is R-1, Single Family
Residential, which has a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Until
such time as the subject property is presented for rezoning, the existing zoning
requirements will be the determining factor. The proposed replat does meet the
zoning ordinance requirements with an approximate density of 2.4 dwelling units
per acre.
Item Background: This subject property is in one of the older neighborhoods in
the City and appears to have been platted in the late 30's and early 40's.
Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the final
plat. The options regarding the final plat are:
■ Approval with conditions;
■ Approval as submitted;
■ Denial;
■ Defer action only at applicant's request; or,
■ Table only at applicant's request.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Application
3. Infrastructure and Facilities
4. Copy of Final Plat
5. Letter from the applicant 4-16-01
6. Letter from the applicant 4-30-01
7. Letter in opposition
8. Standard definitions of "block"
9. P&Z Minutes from 4-19-01 Meeting
10. Council Minutes from 2-8-01 Meeting
11. Transcript of 2-8-01 Council Meeting (will be forwarded to the Commission)
12. Memo from Jim Callaway (will be forwarded to the Commission)
J:\PZTEXT\PZ04803.DOC Page 3 of 4
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: Service will need to be provided to each lot.
Sewer: Service will need to be provided to each lot.
Streets: Access to the lots will not be allowed off of Lincoln Ave., which
is a Major Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant has
provided an access easement enabling Lot 2R-2 to take access off of
Nunn St.
Drainage: Will be required to comply with the Drainage Ordinance.
Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication and development fees will
need to be paid before the final plat will be filed.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 5-2-01
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 5-17-01
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 27
Response Received: Staff has received multiple calls of inquiry and
several calls expressing opposition to the plat.
J:\PZTEXT\PZ04803.DOC Page 4 of 4