8521 HOLLY DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

, ,,y�y . �� _ , ., , , ., s�� .��: _._. - � . . _ . . � P�� ..,,_.1,,� -�'�.dr . � �fitsw.�:'�"^"Zr:hL�.i«- .u. .. _' _ s � �nnrtn<ion_ The conclusion that the potential for five lc�s �� exists is based on the assumption that the existing carper= and detached garage vould be removed. The City has in �4e past processed numerous short subdivisions in vhich exis::nc � accessory structures have been required to be removed i❑ ' ' order to accommodate an �lpplicant's proposed 1c: � coniiquration. Such a requirement is not unusual and is consistent r+ith Subsectiun 79-o20.A of the Zoninq Code, � which requires that aceessory structures be estabLished on the same lot as the prineipal structure. In this case the Applicant is not being required to remove the existing accessory buildings because they will remain cr. the same lot as the principal structure. It is important co � note that the Applicant is not being required to revise the lot confiquration under the conditions of Preliainazy �pproval. It vas the Applicant's discretion to propose less than the maximum lot yield of five lots. ; �y'rion 1 co�ent�: � pjndina: The City staff held pre-application discussions � vith Hr. Yerger prior to subm,ittal of Short Subdivision � application /2-92• The City rasponded to prelimina..ry lot layouts shoving four and five ' Lots. These prelininary - sketches vere rejected on the basis that they did not neet ' zoninq and subdivision requ�rements. These sketches . representsd tuo of many possible lot confiqurations that � potentially eould be conceived. Because the ciravings vere � preliminary in nature, there was insufficient detail to adequately address the issue of maximum lot yield. c'onc��tion: It vas only vhen the additional detail vas provided with the Short Subdivision application that the . � City Was able to determine that the maximum :ot yield could be five lots. It is not the City's policy to design i possible lot configurations, but to respond on the basis of � information provided by the t�pplicant. �'I pindinat: At the time of application, it vas City staff's � understanding that Hr. Yerqer vas th= owner of an additional � lot located south of and contiguous vith the subject �� property (i.e. , Lot 1, Cascade Mountain Vlev Tracts Div. No. � 3), tihen the application for Short Subdivision vas filed, � it vas City staff's understanding that this lot vas in �� escrov pendinq an imminent sale. �: EHC Subsection 18.04.050 states: v ' All contiguous parcels of land ... that are to be subdivided . sball constitute a single subdivision action. Hultiple applzcations . . . shall not be � utilized as a substitute for comprehensive subdividing. Under this subsection, all contiquous parcels under conmor, ' ownership may ba required to be addressed in a single Short � Subdivision application. If the subject lot wes sold prior to an applieation beinq received, the City r+ould not have authority to require comprehensive subdivision. . ron -�� It is City staff's understar.dinq that the lot ' in question is still under the ownership of Hr. Yerger. ' Thie constitutas neW information regarding the subject - appli�ation because it Was anticipated that sale of t=ovalt vould hnve closed prior to issuance oL Preliminary App, If Lot 1 ot Cascade Hountain Vieu tracts is included in the Short Subdivision application, than the maximum davelopment ' potential could be as high as six lots. The threshold for raquiring street iaprovements under this scenario clearly is exceeded. EXHIBIT #_.6__ � ,;. �S2 FAGE,��F� ,I ', , j� �t I';;lf. �i i t'1 ��Il �� �,::p 4 �i '^