Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2272 <br />July 16, 1997 <br />Page 4 <br />Issues for Consideration <br />I. Is the conceptually proposed vacation appropriate? Under what parameters? <br />Is the lot reconfiguaration conceptually appropriate, including the vacation of right-of- <br />ways and park, and rededication of new right-of-way? <br />3.Will the northerly lot ultimately require a hardcover variance someday when it is <br />expanded or rebuilt? If so, does that affect your view of this lot line reconfiguration? <br />Should the two lots be more equal in area? <br />4.When will the northerly lot be provided its own driveway access to Loma Linda (it's <br />alreadv addressed as 1220 Loma Linda); at the time it is sold? <br />5.Is Planning Commission comfortable with the magnitude of the hardcover variance <br />proposed? Is there sufficient hardship shown? Is this consistent with other hardcover <br />variances granted for similarly sized lakeshore lots? <br />6.Given that each lot has been separately assessed for sewer and each connected to it, and <br />given the historical ure as two separate dwelling units, does Planning Commission have <br />any concerns about the lot area and width variances? Will the resulting lots be <br />consistent with others in the neighborhood? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />1. The vacation of unused (and likely to remain unused) park and right-of-way, in <br />conjunction with a concurrent rededication of right-of-way over used (and potentially to be <br />used) private property', is conceptually a win-win situation for the City and the property owner, <br />but should be subject to: <br />a. Granting/retaining of any necessary sewer, drainage, utility or access <br />easements over the remaining private land or over the public land to be <br />vacated. <br />The City retaining adequate existing dedicated right-of-way on the north <br />side of Spruce Place (Comprehensive Plan indicates 50’ r.o.w. needed for <br />local streets; Spruce r.o.w. at this location is 40' wide, actual traveled <br />road is centered on the south boundary' of the r.o.w.; City Engineer and <br />Public Works Department will be asked to determine r.o.w. needs). <br />b. <br />2. Vacation of the park area :is conceptually proposed may result in certain questions of <br />ownership, since property' owners to the west and south might have a legitimate claim to <br />i <br />i <br />.t~r. • ••