Agenda - Council - 07/12/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Below is a table showing a breakdown of sizes of the parcels and a calculation of density: Metes and Bounds-Subject to Road Easement Metes and Bounds-Not Subject to Road Easement Metes and Bounds Total Outlot E, WoOd PondHills Total; excluding area ~ubject to road'easement. ' - i Totals, including area subject: to road easement. 10,178 sq. ft. 33,390 sq. ft. 43,568 sq. ft : -- 6,942 sq. ft · - .40,332sq:..ft - : :. : 0.23 0.76 Total parcel' excluding area [ 40,332'sq. ft. ' - subject to road easement I Total Parcel, including area }0,510 sq. ~'~ subject to road easement 6.46 units per acre 8.11 units per acre The Applicant has stated that he believes the gross density calculation should be allowed. Staff has raised concerns that perhaps the area subject to th.e road easement should be excluded from any calculations in order to be consistent with how net density is calculated. The Applicant's reason for why the gross density calculation should be used are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) Under previous zoning regulations he was allowed a greater density on this land that would allow him to develop at least eight units on that property. That the Applicant was not aware'that the City uses net density calculations in determining maximum allowable density in urban areas. This land was under a developme, nt moratorium .in .the late 905-that prevented the Applicant from developing the land. The property could be developed without any need of a subdivision and dedication of the Nowthen Blvd. right-of-way, and thus the Applicant will still retain fee title to the area subject to the road easement. From Staff's perspective, while the Subject Property had higher development fights in the past, there are no grandfather rights to higher density that carry through to present day. In regards to density calculations, the City has excluded major road fight-of-ways for at least 10 years, if not longer. Previous codes have only allowed gross density calculations in rural areas. While it is true that the Subject Property was under a development moratorium in the 905, Staff is unsure how it affects the justification of granting a variance. The Applicant is correct that Subject Property could develop without a subdivision and right-of-way dedication, and therefore, he could still retain fee title to the area subject to the road easement. -230-