CC Min 1989-05-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 6 (continued out of order) If granted, a variance for allowing development of the rear lot would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the Subject Property is located because it would allow more intensive development than said other properties enjoy and would have an effect contrary to the low- density residential zoning restrictions. Granting of the variance would be contrary to the intent of the R -1 Zoning District regulations because it would destabilize the residential character of the district by establishing density higher than that allowed, which is inconsistent with the purpose of R -1 Zoning (Zon. Ord. S5.1). 9. RCC S3.117, relating to lot design requirements of subdivisions provides, in pertinent part: "Section 30.117. All divisions shall contain the following lot design features: (f) Panhandle lots. Panhandle lots (i.e., lots for which street frontage or access width is less than the minimum required) will not be approved as part of a division unless the subdivider shows that preexisting development in the vicinity of the division or unusual topography of the division justifies a panhandle lot. Every panhandle lot which may be approved shall have frontage on either a recorded public or private street of not less than thirty -five (35) feet, ..." (emphasis added). 10. Although there are some panhandle lots in the vicinity of the Subject Property, most of them were established when the property involved was located in an unincorporated area of the County, and thus not subject to the City's subdivision regulations. There is thus no preexisting development in the vicinity of the Subject Property which justifies establishing a panhandle lot on the latter. Likewise, the topography of the Subject Property is not unusual so as to justify a panhandle lot, since the Subject Property has already been developed and the sloping portion thereof is not peculiar to the Subject Property. Access of less that 35 feet in width is not justified in view of safety requirements for driveway sight distances and emergency vehicle access. Coupled with the increased density inherent in panhandle lot development and the configuration of Canyon road, development of the Subject Property as a panhandle lot would be contrary to the public health, welfare, and safety. 11. Appellants contend that the two purportedly subdivided lots comprising the Subject Property should not be treated as a single parcel of property because of the common ownership thereof, and further appear to contend that the City has so treated the Subject Property to deprive Appellants of the use of the rear lot. Reg.Mtg. 5/15/89 Page 8 MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 Page No. 389