10-12-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 5 ♦ Wf Regan Access Issue September 25, 1998 Page 2 During the review of Render's subdivision staff was unaware that Regan's old garage was being accessed via Render's driveway; it was not obvious to staff that this use even existed. However, Regan indicates it is accessed regularly and often from Render's driveway, Regan currently cannot use the North Shore Drive driveway to access the back of his property because of a deck existing in the 15' space between his house and the e.ist lot Hue. A new driveway proposed to serve Regan's propi>..r.d attached garage would access to the 16' "easement for roadway purposes" centered on the common lot line between the Regan and Render properties. Public Services Director Greg Gappa and I concluded that Regan's proposed new driveway would functionally be a second curb cut, which requires City approval. Greg and I also concluded that the curb cut should be denied because it would make use of Render's private driveway which was approved by Council at a substandard paved width of 16' on the basis that it would serve just 3 homes. Adding Regan's new use as the primary access for a 4th home suggests the potential need to make Render’s driveway more substantial than 16'. It is also apparent now that the property owner west of Regan has historically had a secondary driveway access from this old easement. Render was unaware that Regan intended to make this change in use, and it appears that Rende-’^'s road is designed such that Regan would have to travel outside the old 16' easement, trespassing on Render's property, to make use of Render's new road. A few additional points: • Regan feels he has a right to access to Tonkawa via the 16' easement, and that Render should not be allowed to build a road that would deprive Regan of this access. • Render was apparently not anticipating Regan being a 4th primary user of Render's new private road; this begs the question of who should bear the costs of upgrading it to a standard acceptable to the City for 4 (or more?) units. • Staff is concerned that the Council approved Render's road at 16' without knowing that there would be a 4th user (or more users if additional neighbors make use of the easement). If Council had had this knowledge, the approval might well have had different conditions, such as a wider road, or making it a public road, or requiring the cul-de-sac, Oi? It is unfortunate that these issues were not uncovered during the subdivision review process. TTie extent of the neighbcrhood's historic use of the 16' easement was not at all obvious to staff or to Render, and the survey work as well as City topo maps used during the review did not suggest such use. Staff had no information suggesting that Putnam had maintained the driveway for use by his neighbors. The area in front of Regan's garage is maintained as grass lawn, and the driveway leading to his westerly neighbor is overgrown.