10-10-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

15-3763/1.6-3860 September 8, 2016 Page 2 many times the ultimate loss of said tree during or shortly after construction. Perhaps the stronger justification would be that the `wobble' in the road will have a traffic calming erect, which addresses speeding concerns voiced by the neighbors during the preliminary plat review. Does the Council find sufficient justification to grant the horizontal curve variances? 2. Road Construction Process. Condition 8 of the preliminary plat resolution (Exhibit G, page 7) is a requirement that road construction equipment gain access via Stubbs Bay Road through Outlot A, to avoid traffic on Kintyre Lane, both from the standpoint of safety and to minimize damage to the existing private road. Applicants note that their road contractor has advised that the paving process (including asphalt hauling) must use existing Kintyre for access to avoid damage to concrete curbing that will be installed prior to paving. The southerly 250' of the new road will have curb and gutter, while the northerly 450' will be a rural section with ditches. Is the use of Kintyre Iane for paving access acceptable? If so, staff would recommend that the existing condition of Kintyre Lane be carefully documented prior to road construction and any damage due to that construction be repaired by the developer. I£ Kintyre Lane cannot be used, the paving contractor will have to find an alternative access route through Outlot A (or from the driveway serving 350 Stubbs Bay Road...) Does Council find sufficient justification to allow paving access through existing Kintyre Lane? 3. Future Use of Driveway in Outlot A, Tamarack Hill. Applicants have requested that the gravel driveway currently serving the existing homes at 300 and 350 Stubbs Bay Road North be allowed as access for Lots 5 and/or 6 for some indeterminate amount of time, potentially related to construction of homes on either lot prior to completion of the new road and cul-de-sac from the south, or potentially in perpetuity. Code Section 18136(a); 'lesiderdial driveways, kvpr5aches and microand' states that "one driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of lanai to the same road, provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and driveway approach. Parcels having,fronLqge on more than one public road shall be allowed to have a drivewqE approach to one public road." Lots 5 and 6 cannot have accesses to both the north and south based on this code requirement. Additional issues for consideration include: If both Lots 5 and 6 gain access from the Outlot driveway, that is a total of three homes using a shared driveway, which is not allowed and which triggers an upgrade of that driveway to private road standards (paved, and with a cul-de-sac). Temporary use of the existing 600' + long gravel driveway for new construction on a new lot should at a minimum be subject to review by the Fire Department for emergency accessibility. There is concern regarding the creek crossing at the east end of that driveway which is fairly narrow. Any permanent use of that driveway as access suggests that Lots 5 and 6 must be treated as `through' lots, abutting roads at opposite lot boundaries, which affects setback requirements for accessory structures.