01-23-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#OS-3l 68 J�tnuary 10,2006 P�ge 2 B�ckground Tlie four sm�ll lots in question have been separate tax plrcels but owned in conunon for many years. Three of the four lots contain single f�mily residence structures which have hisl:orically been rental dwelling units. Applicant is preparing to sell the properties, and wishes the ability to sell them iuto separate ownerships. There is no lalown existing doctunentation or past City action that would prohibit these from being sold and owned separately. However, because the two dwellings abutting Shoreline Drive are approximately 12'-15' higher in elevation than Shoreline Drive, vehicle access to Shoreline is poor or nonexistent. While an old very steep driveway exists along the west boundary of 3480, it is not very fitnctional, and the primary access to both 3472 and 3480 has long been froin Lyric tluough the vacant lot. Staff worked with the applicant to devise an easement scheme that would adequately serve all three residence properties from Lyric, while having minimal impact on the firture redevelopment of the tliree existing homesites. For many years there has been a nonconforniing detached garage straddling the cominon lot boundary at the center of the four lots, which is proposed to be removed at the time the properties are sold off. The easement has been located along the west boundaiy of the vacant lot to allow for a firtt�re combination of the vacant lot and 3477 Lyric, to make that a more usable building site. The vaca.nt lot with the easement would not in itself be buildable either functionally or with regards to LR-1C District standards. All three existing homes use what is essentially a single 40-50' wide curb cut (see airphoto) that exceeds the standard 20' maximtun. The parallel driveway leading to the southerly two lots separates inm�ediately from that of 3477 Lyric. The current situation and proposed easement will continue to be relatively efficient in terins of hardcover, as a shared driveway. Compliance with Zoning Code Standards Because this proper-ly is not being subdivided to create new lots, and because no lot boundaries are proposed to chauge, there are no proposed new impacts that would trigger a zoning standards review of the site. The expected result of this easement approval request is that the nonconfoiining garage and some di�iveway hardcover will ultimately be removed from the site, bttt any firture new expansion of buildiugs on the existing substandard lots would likely resuh in a zoning review process. Issue for Consideration 1. The application is to simply formalize easements over existing driveways that have served the properties for n�any years. Are there any other issues that should be discussed in relation to this straight-forward request?