CC Min 1996-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I j . I . - perhaps not all information has been developed about Mr. Whitaker's lot we have heard very little about the other lots." He asked if staff had concerns about the other lots and if the City Attorney had concerns about legal problems if the Council accepted Mr. Whitaker's proposal. ~ Senior Planner Passanisi said "if you were to grant a variance here tonight or uphold the appeal, you are correct in stating that that essentially means staff would most likely have to grant variances for the other vacant lots to be consistent with the action taken.... You would be setting precedent for the remainder of the lots.... You would still need studies for the other lots, whether it be geological reports, geotechnical reports, etc. And that would be done piecemeal by every lot. It would be nice if we had a broader scope analysis of all the parcels instead of doing it piece by piece." In response to Councilman Claire's comments, Senior PIarmer Passanisi confirmed that the area was zoned RH, the requirement was a maximum lot coverage of 40%, and a formula was used to determine required lot size which took into account the degree of slope. City Attorney Schricker said, "The effect of the slope density requirement if it were to preclude development entirely would be illegal in the sense that when the property was armexed we took them as buildable lots. That is the effect of armexation, and you carmot divest an owner of his right to build. You can however, attach conditions. The context in which I made that statement many years ago (lots are grandfathered) was that slope density as now applied would simply preclude development. And my response to that was, you can't do that. Not unless you have some other good reasons.... You can '-- develop, but you have to grant variances to do it, because the present standards are much higher than they were when that property was initially subdivided. That doesn't mean you blind yourself to the effect of the slope which may indeed relate to what the size of the structure would be or what the improvements would be on the lot." In response to Council questions, Senior Planner Passanisi said the slope on Mr. Whitaker's lot was 29% and under the Zoning Ordinance a lot of 28,000 square feet would be needed to build the proposed structure. Mr. Whitaker's lot is 9, 713 square feet. Councilman Claire said granting these variances would be a very significant decision, and the Council would have to be ready to defend that position against every other property owner that had an RH substandard lot. Councilman Claire said that experience with Canyon Road and other situations demonstrated to him that it had been a mistake to armex those properties. He asked why the owners who had proposed the new road had not come together and agreed to fund an EIR. Councilman Claire said it would be about $5,000 per property owner, assuming at least ten of the owners of vacant lots would participate, for an EIR and asked if they could participate in some sort of an agreement with the City to have an ErR done. He said there had been problems with the Hatfield property and it had been a mistake to approve it. - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOGK NO. 54 SEPTEMBER 16,1996 MINUTES PAGE 15 Page No. 479