05-22-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

April 4. 1995 Page 2 HiUside Place/Dahl Request for Wallace Avenue Access 4.From a topographic standpoint, I question the applicant’s position that Wallace Avenue is a more suitable driveway. There is an 8 ’ drop in 55’ (15% slope) downhill within that right-of-way about two-thirds of the way back from Bay view. Much fill or cutting would be needed to make that into a suitable driveway. This would likelv require the use of retaining walls. Access off Hillside Place, on the other hand, appears to be relatively level. The drainageway of concern is not a wetland nor is it protected by easement, and might be moved to allow driveway construction from Hillside Place... The potential impact on the property adjacent to Wallace Avenue is extreme. It places a driveway directly adjacent to the existing residence, and through its back yard. This is conceptually identical to the impact Planning Commission intended to avoid when it adopted the "back lot o»finance in 1993. That ordinance required (for any new back lots created) that the house on the front lot be located to meet the side street yard setback requirement from the outlot corridor. Relating this to the Matson’s situation, the house would have to be 15 ’ from the right-of-way. According to the survey it is ordy 9.5’ from the right-of-way. While the Dahl lot is Qot technically a back lot, it has the same impact as a back lot simation would, but doesn’t meet the minimum standards established by tlie City for mitigating that impact. The agreement between the City, Segner and Marinos (Segner representing the Dahl interest) establishing limitations on the use of Hillside Place, contemplated the potential for approval of an alternate access for Dahl’s property, and made provisions for revising the agreement if that occurs. The agreement would have to be amended, and can be amended, if the Wallace Avenue access is ultimately approved. Regarding the question as to why this access issue "was not addressed at the time of the subdivision", I would offer the following: • In discussions prior to August, 1994, staff had considered the access for this property to be from Hillside Place. The City has sewer lines in Hillside Place, and the corridor was driveable and essentially clear of obstructions. Ms. Segner had concepmally agreed to the use of Hillside Place to serve the rear lots and the need lO eliminate access to her two existing houses using the Hillside right-of-way. • No mention of a proposal to access via Wallace Avenue appeared in Jeanne Mabusth’s memo to the Planning Commission on August 9, 1994. However, at the August 15 Pla.’*n:ng Commission meeting, Segner asked about access for the northerly parcel via Wallace Avenue. I indicated that