|
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Public Hearing for Variance Only |
PC Staff Report
11/13/06
ITEM NO. 4A: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAPLE LANE ADDITION NO. 2; 1423 & 1445 MAPLE LANE (JCR)
PP-09-14-06: Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2. This proposed two lot subdivision contains approximately .477 acres. The property is located at 1423-25 and 1445-47 Maple Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Michael and Penny Harrell, property owners of record.
|
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to Section 21-607.3 of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to the required minimum right-of-way width for local streets.
|
|
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Add a note to the face of the plat that states that Public Improvement Plans showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 will be submitted for review prior to final plat approval.
|
ITEM NO. 4B: FINAL PLAT FOR MAPLE LANE ADDITION NO. 2; 1423 & 1445 MAPLE LANE (JCR)
PF-09-29-06: Final Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2. This proposed two lot subdivision contains approximately .477 acres. The property is located at 1423-25 and 1445-47 Maple Lane. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, PA, for Michael and Penny Harrell, property owners of record.
|
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance request and approval of the Final Plat for Maple Lane Addition No. 2 and forwarding it to the City Commission for acceptance of easements and right-of-way, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of a revised Master Street Tree Plan graphic that shows the 15’ public utility, pedestrian and roadway access easement. 2. Provision of a Public Improvement Plan showing sanitary sewer service for Lots 1 and 2 if the City Commission does not grant a waiver to Chapter 19, Section 214 of the City Code. 3. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for future street and sidewalk improvements. 4. Provision of the following fees and documentation: a. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and b. A Temporary Utility Agreement
|
|
Reason for Request: |
To create two platted lots for the construction of an additional duplex unit.
|
|
SUBDIVISION CITATIONS TO CONSIDER
|
|
|
ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED · PF-09-29-06 Maple Lane Addition No. 2 final plat · Acceptance of easements and right-of-way by City Commission · Submission of a Public Improvement Plan showing sanitary sewer service to both lots. |
|
|
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING
|
|
|
GENERAL INFORMATION Current Zoning and Land Use: RM12D (Multi-Dwelling Residential District – Duplex;); Lot 1 is currently developed with a duplex unit, Lot 2 is undeveloped at this time.
|
|
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential District) to the north and east; residential dwellings.
RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential District) to the south and west; undeveloped lot to the south, East Heights school to the west.
|
Site Summary
Number of Lots: 2
Gross Area: .477 acres
Right-Of-Way: .0 acres
Net Lot Area: .477 acres
Minimum Lot Size: .227 acres
Maximum Lot Size: .250 acres
Average Lot Size: .239 acres
STAFF REVIEW
The subject property is located at 1423 and 1445 Maple Lane, just northwest of the intersection of Maple Lane and E. 15th Street. The property is immediately east of the East Heights school site. A final plat application (PF-09-29-06) has been submitted for concurrent review with this application.
Zoning and Land Use
Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned RMD and according to building permit records, a permit to construct the existing duplex on the north half of the lot (shown as Lot 1 on the plat) was issued on November 21, 2005. Typically a building permit application for construction on an unplatted lot would trigger a requirement to plat the property in order to obtain the permit, however this was not requested of the applicant at that time because the lot on which it is located met the definition of an “existing lot of record”. A building permit to construct a second duplex on the same unplatted lot was requested on April 22 at which time the applicant was prompted to plat to create a second lot for the second duplex. The RM12D District permits duplex development at a density not exceeding 12 units per acre. Each lot created by this plat will contain slightly less than ¼ of an acre and each lot would permit one duplex consisting of two dwelling units, which is less than the maximum density permitted.
The proposed lots are consistent with the all applicable Density and Dimensional Standards.
Street Right-of-Way
Maple Lane is provided 45’ of right-of-way along the length of the street between 13th and 15th Streets in this neighborhood. According to the Subdivision Regulations, a minimum of 60’ of right-of-way is required for local streets, the intent being to provide adequate right-of-way width for future street improvements. Two other properties fronting Maple Lane have been platted in the recent past. In both cases, there was no precedent established in which the properties were required to provide an additional 15’ of right-of-way to create 60’ total. In the case of Hines Subdivision No. 2, located at 1339 Maple Lane, Staff recommended that the property owner be required to provide 15’ of right-of-way, however the Planning Commission voted to strike that condition and thus only 45’ of right-of-way exists in this location. In the case of Maple Lane Addition at the southwest corner of 13th & Maple Lane, the applicant was also requested to provide 15’ of right-of-way, but could not do so without causing the structure to be non-conforming due to a sub-standard setback. This is because the site plan for the multi-family development on the site was approved with an “Agreement to Plat” and construction commenced prior to issuance of a building permit. The foundation for the structures was set and was located as such that if 15 additional feet of right-of-way would have been required it would have resulted in a non-conforming structure along the Maple Lane frontage. As a result, 7.5’ of right-of-way was granted, and an additional 7.5’ public easement was dedicated for a total of 15’.
Staff recommends that a 15’ wide public utility, pedestrian and roadway easement be dedicated along the frontage of Lots 1 and 2 of this subdivision. This easement would provide the necessary access for utilities and sidewalks that right-of-way would. In Staff’s opinion it is inconsistent to require 15’ of right-of-way in this location because it has not been required in the past and because it would create a non-conforming structure in regards to the front-yard setback of the existing duplex on Lot 1. Maple Lane is not currently constructed with curb and gutter. According to the City Engineer, there are no plans to further improve Maple Lane in the near future. At which time improvements are initiated, the area provided by the 15’ wide easement will be sufficient area to complete the improvements.
Variance Request
The applicant has formally requested a variance to the Subdivision Regulations Section 21-607.3, Minimum Right-of-Way Width. Staff supports this request based upon the condition that a 15’ wide public utility, pedestrian and roadway access easement be provided. It is important to note that the subdivider was granted a building permit for the existing duplex because the property met the definition of an “existing lot of record” and was legally able to obtain a building permit at that time. The subdivider was required to plat only when attempting to obtain a building permit to construct a second duplex on the same unplatted lot. The existing duplex was constructed approximately 35’ set back from the right-of-way, a distance that if required to provide 15’ of right-of-way would result in this duplex being classified as a non-conforming structure.
According to Article 8 of the Subdivision Regulations, a variance shall not be granted unless all of the following apply:
1) Strict application of these regulations will create an unnecessary hardship upon the subdivider.
Strict application of the regulations will require the subdivider to dedicate 15’ of right-of-way, thus creating a front yard setback of only 10’ abutting Lot 1. This would be in violation of the minimum setback requirement of 25’ and would cause the structure to be classified as non-conforming. The duplex, which currently exists on Lot 1 was issued a building permit without being required to plat.
2) The proposed variance is in harmony with the intended purposes of these regulations.
The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the subdivision of land is in the public’s interest and for the general welfare. The proposed variance would leave the right-of-way width at 45’, which is consistent with and symmetrical to the right-of-way elsewhere along the length of Maple Lane between 13th and 15th Streets. While 45’ is substandard, the additional condition requiring a 15’ roadway, utility and pedestrian easement will permit the necessary access for the utilities and sidewalks. In Staff’s opinion, the requested variance is appropriate due to the unique circumstances and the precedent that has been set on this block. The provision of a 15’ wide easement will aide in promoting the public’s interest and general welfare.
3) The public health, safety and welfare will be protected.
The public’s health, safety and welfare may be protected if this variance request is granted. The subdivider has agreed to grant the easement that may be used for public access for pedestrians, future road improvements and utilities.
Infrastructure
The Utilities Department has requested that the applicant provide Public Improvement Plans showing sanitary sewer service for each of the two lots. The applicant has not provided Public Improvement Plans on the basis that homes once existed on both lots and thus sewer service already exists for both lots.
Chapter 19, Section 214 of the City Code, adopted by the City Commission February 3, 2004 and effective March 1, 2004, requires that private sanitary sewer lines not be located such that they would cross a public right-of-way or drainage easement for a distance greater than fifteen feet. This standard would require the subdivider/owner to provide Public Improvement Plans showing an extension of the public sanitary sewer main from the existing main currently located east of Maple Lane centerline to the property line. Because the distance from the existing public sanitary sewer main to the property line is in excess of fifteen feet this code section would require that the extended sanitary sewer main be public rather than private. The intent of this code section is to prevent private service lines that cross public right-of-way to limit public liability and disruption of public use of the right-of-way in the event that the private utility needed repair.
This code section contains a provision for waiving the requirement upon a finding that the requirements of this Section create a hardship on the property owner or that the characteristics of the property are unique in comparison of other properties in the general area. This waiver may only be considered and granted by the City Commission. Should the applicant choose to proceed with this option, they must submit a formal request to the City Commission in the form of a written letter requesting the City Commission consider waiving the requirements of Chapter 19, Section 214 of the City Code. If the City Commission denies such a waiver request the applicant would be required to submit the Public Improvement Plans showing public sanitary sewer mains prior to recording of the final plat.
Easements
A 10’ wide utility easement is being provided along the rear lot line of Lots 1 and 2 in this subdivision. Additionally, a 15’ wide public utility, pedestrian and roadway easement is being provided along the frontage of Lots 1 and 2 in replacement of 15’ of additional right-of-way.
Conformance
The lot in this proposed plat meets the Density and Dimensional Standards of the RM12D District as well as the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations with approval of the variance request.