04-27-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Files #11.15 & #1116 March 11, 1987 Page 2 Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the existing interior lot line drainage and utility easement II. #1116 - LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT ISSUES A. Access to Westerly Lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway roughly parallel to and northerly of the existing paved driveway, continuing along the north lot line and arriving at the proposed residence at a relatively high elevation. He is proposing this because a driveway along the south line of the property would be very steep, or would have to cut directly across the slope immediately below the existing house, which applicants feel would be a detriment to this unique property both aesthetically and environmentally. Staff agrees that, given the applicant's inte:it to construct a new home while maintaining an undisturbed vista cf Lydiard Lake, the proposed driveway location is perhaps appropriate but bears some discussion. First, the proposed driveway must be located at least 26' from the wetland just east of the property. Secondly, staff has concerns about how the driveway will affect the developed properties to the north of Hollander Road, specifically Weinstein (259 Hollander Road) and Hill (235 Hollander Road). How will the driveway be graded into the slope, how will the downhill properties be protE::ted from the additional drainage, and what, if any, screening is proposed (not required by code but still a consideration). Thirdly, staff notes `he existing detached garage is about 30' from the north lot 1 ne; with the slope downhill from it, the applicant must protect the garage stability while not aff_.cting the downhill residences. Staff feels the northerly driveway proposal is logical and reasonable if the concerns expressed above be adequately addressed and solved. B. Lot Configuration (Related to Access). Given the proposed house location and the location of the existing house and amenities, the north -south lot line is appropriate. However, you will note the original survey shows a 30' corridor along the north end of the property, which leads nowhere. Staff suggests it is appropriate to place this corridor at the south side of the proerty instead, thus maintaining a legal access to the existing easement road for future use if the northerly driveway easement becomes a problem in the future. This creates a "flag" lot that reauires the typica 1 lot width variance as measured at the 50' setback 1 ine.