Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lot Split topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues lot‑split petition for Redwood/Enclave; requests deed restriction language and lender documentation
Summary
A proposed lot split of Redwood/Enclave property to convey 2.1 acres to an adjacent neighbor was continued to October. Planning staff and commissioners raised floodway/riparian setbacks, lender (Fannie Mae) approval and possible deed restrictions to prevent creation of a buildable lot.
The Planning Commission on Sept. 15 continued a request to split a portion of property owned by a Redwood development entity (referred to in the record as "Redwood/Enclave") after planners and commissioners said additional documentation and protections are needed.
The applicant, who identified himself as vice president of acquisitions for the Redwood entity, said a neighbor north of the parcel expressed interest in purchasing about 2.1 acres to expand a backyard. He said the parcel is subject to lender collateral restrictions (a loan with Fannie Mae) and the transfer would need lender sign‑off. Planning staff and commissioners flagged several outstanding issues: the split's effect on the development's approved density and open‑space requirements, whether the area is in a floodway and riparian setback that restricts new construction, the absence of written confirmation from the neighbor expressing intent to buy, and the potential that creating a separate parcel could be used later to justify variances to build within protected setbacks.
Planning staff recommended that, if the commission were to approve a split, the record should include either a deed restriction on the new parcel or clear documentation that the neighbor intends to combine the parcel with an existing lot so the city does not create a separate nonconforming lot that could later be the basis for a variance. Staff also asked for a copy of the original development plat and confirmation of lot coverage and density calculations under the judgment entry that governed the original development.
Commissioners voted to continue the application to the October meeting and asked the applicant to return with lender approval or a plan for meeting the 30‑day recording requirement, a written statement or signature from the neighboring property owner indicating intent, the original approved development plat, and draft deed‑restriction language if the parcel is to remain separate.
