SU0012777 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Analysis Background The applicant previously submitted a Minor Subdivision application, MS-00-30, to subdivide the subject property in the configuration shown on the site plan included in this staff report. The Minor Subdivision was approved under the Density Bonus provision contained in the Development Title. This provision, Section 9- 315, permits the creation of parcels that do not meet the minimum standards for lots in residential zones in exchange for continued affordability of all lower income density bonus units. A Continued Affordability Agreement is required as a condition of the approved Minor Subdivision. If this Variance is approved, the applicant will apply for a Revisions of Approved Actions application to remove the Continued Affordability Agreement. If the Variance is denied, the applicant may record a parcel map with the Continued Affordability Agreement in place. The applicant states that the Continued Affordability Agreement creates an undue burden on the developer and buyer because potential lenders consider the Agreement a "cloud" on the title. The Density Bonus provisions were established to create a burden to ensure lower income continued affordability. As an alternative, the applicant may subdivide the subject parcel by meeting the minimum zoning requirements to create fewer, larger lots and avoid the Continued Affordability Agreement "cloud" on the title. Variance The Community Development Department is recommending denial due to the inability to make all of the required findings in the affirmative. Specifically, there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, and the.granting of this Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges. The applicant states that the property cannot be enlarged and that there are approximately 77 non- conforming parcels within a one-mile radius of the project site. Existing non-conforming parcels were created consistent with requirements that where in effect at that time. The creation of parcels under previous zoning ordinances is not justification for future variances. Approval of this Variance would grant a special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on other properties in the R-E.zone. The fact that the parcel cannot be enlarged is not considered a special circumstance. This parcel was previously subdivided to create the two parcels to the south of the project site. San Joaquin County VR-04-41Cove y Community Development Page 3