11-28-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the small barn on Lot 5 without the back driveway. #15-3763/16-3860 November 22, 2016 Page 3 From staff's perspective, and as noted in the 9/8/16 staff memo, there are a number of basic reasons that the back driveway should not become permanent and should be abandoned, summarized as follows: - Parcels with frontage on more than one public road are allowed a driveway approach to only one public road per City ordinances. By virtue of part ownership of Outlot A, applicant functionally would have access to Stubbs Bay Road as well as Watertown Road via Outlot A and Kintyre Lane. - If both Lots 5 and 6 gain access from the Outlot driveway, three homes using a shared driveway triggers an upgrade of that driveway to private road standards (paved, and with a cul-de-sac). As platted, both Lots 5 and 6 abut Outlot A. - City standard for new subdivisions is that no building permits can be issued until the road has at least one lift of asphalt. New construction on Lots 5 or 6 should not be allowed until the new road and cul-de-sac reach that level of completion. If the back driveway is to be used for construction of new homes on Lots 5 or 6, then arguably the back driveway should be held to the same standard of paving. - Fire Department should have to approve the back driveway for access for new construction for emergency accessibility. - There is concern regarding the creek viability of the creek crossing at the east end of the back driveway which is fairly narrow. - Permanent use of the back driveway suggests that Lots 5 and 6 must be treated as `through' lots. - The driveway access easements and covenants should be reviewed by the applicants, given that if Lots 5 and 6 abandon access to the driveway in favor of the new cul-de-sac, they might still be responsible for maintenance of a driveway they aren't using. - If the driveway is abandoned, it should be revegetated to eliminate unnecessary hardcover. - Applicant's concern about the back driveway being the only viable access to the existing small barn on Lot 5 is questionable. A new driveway could be established without needing the back driveway. - The owner of 300 Stubbs Bay Road, Tom Fleming, who is 1/3 owner of Outlot A, stated that he does not want to see the back driveway expanded and would prefer that it not be permanent, and that it be eliminated once the new road and cul-de-sac are available. Based on the above, staff would offer the following scenario: 1. In the event that a new home is proposed on Lot 5 or Lot 6 prior to completion of the new road & cul-de-sac to a Usable Status (road base and first lift of asphalt), a building permit can be issued for Lot 5 or Lot 6 using the back driveway for access until such time that Usable Status of the road & cul-de-sac is reached. 2. In the event that such a building permit is approved for Lot 5 or Lot 6, a permit for construction on the opposite lot will not be issued, the intent being that no more than one