02-26-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ile #1470 10, 1990 f 63utlot A was to exclude the northerlv 20’ wide sectionslVAT be consfde^ra4 ^ possibly 2, houses and serve as^iriir!j\\TlTtl for^"r\^"nrRe/ei”,o"r"s ‘pVop«°ty “f •to"-hfr>hh«^- r.V V information has been provided to -hat that property owner is willing to release his 60°1 Discussion -oted at your last meeting, the property owners to th«lary ^to^serv^ their °n"°^ access to Bayside Roadserv* their properties, and they believe thevlioatton i*“oe i-ine to Turnham Road. The Cityn™V P^°^ide access for these property ownetcrrent applicant does not propose to provide them win. Lioht®'be%«^ ^ property to the south suggests[night be feasible to subdivide that orooertv w<th uSro'f 'pV;t''ens'; ■p Ling Parpens® JLlot ““ "“'=® ipplicants have pro ravine in Lot 1, sin inage of properties tt 15' wide drainage casement '-ckage of that ravine could .« ;west. eer's Recommendation - r JLrldad to the northwest, and' shouldf upgraded to a paved standard either now or when Phe or bv LnLL* further subdivislSn ii ^i?I!^"p®rcpert?." Property, or by i Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 5 of 6The Engineer recommends a 50' wide drainage easement over the ravine due to its extreme breadth and depth. He states that a 30' easement would be the miminum width drainage easement that would be acceptable. Applicant shows a 15' easement based on discussions with staff prior to the Engineer's input. Re-iember that the area of the easement will not count as buildabie lot area for this or any future division.Also recommended by the Engineer is a provision to give the City access to the Nature Conservancy parcel via a future easement right. Apparently the Nature Conservancy has approacht*d the City to transfer its ownership to the City, with covenants for its preservation as open space. If this occurs, the City would like the abiltiy to acquire a future easement to gain access to the property.Variances Required - While the 40' outlot does not necessarily present itself as a variance to the zoning code, it does not strictly meet the intent of the City's subdivision standards due to the existence ot the Reiersgord property and easement. Lot 2 requires a variance fee lack of frontage on a public road. Technically, staff would interpret that neither Lots 1 or 2 require a lot width variance, since they both have more than 300' of frontage on a private road or private driveway outlot. Staff Recommendation - All things considered, the current proposal has merit and solves a number of concerns in this neighborhoods 1. Increases the area of the northerly parcel to a conforming acreage and provides it access via an outlot to Bayside Road. 2. Provides a dedicated access corridor to the Reiersgord property to the east which, if some day granted variances, could possibly be developed as a residential lot. The applies .ts' goal is to merely make the northerly parcel buildabie by increasing its area and providing it with legal access to Bayside Road. However, in attempting to accomplish that single reasonable purpose, the City is forced to consxder the impact of this minor -development as it affects and is affected by potential development of neighboring properties. The City's long-term goals and the developer's short-term goals do not necessarily match, and the City could potentially place extreme financial burdens on the developer in attempting to accommodate all future area development concerns. • I 4. « «• V