12-12-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

barn on Lot 5 without the back driveway. #15-3763/16-3860 December 8, 2016 Page 3 As noted in the 9/8/16 memo, there are a number of reasons staff suggested that the back driveway should not become a permanent secondary access and should be abandoned: Parcels with frontage on more than one public road are allowed a driveway approach to only one public road per City ordinances. The code section that addresses this is Section 18-136(a), Residential driveways, approaches and turnaround, which states that "one driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the same road, provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one public road shall be allowed to have a driveway approach to one public road." By virtue of applicant's 2/3 ownership of Outlot A, staff suggested that Lots 5 and 6 functionally would have access to Stubbs Bay Road as well as to Watertown Road via Kintyre Preserve Outlot A and Kintyre Lane. However, the Developer disputes this interpretation of the code, because Lots 5 and 6 do not have actual frontage on Stubbs Bay Road or Watertown Road. Under the developer's interpretation, no variance would be required. As platted, both Lots 5 and 6 abut Outlot A. If both Lots 5 and 6 gain access from the Outlot driveway, three homes will be using a shared driveway which triggers an upgrade of that driveway to private road standards (paved, and with a cul-de-sac) and as such it would be considered as a private road. The driveway access easements and covenants for the existing driveway (Doc. #7344461) contemplate permanent access for the existing home (on new Lot 5) without any upgrades to a private road standard, but state that if Lot 2 of Tamarack Hill (which is being divided to become Lots 5 and 6) is further subdivided, the Roadway "shall in all respects conform to the requirements of the City of Orono". The concept of an upgrade to serve a third or additional lots is supported by the language of the Tamarack Hill plat approval Resolution No. 4507 (August 2000) which notes that Outlot A would remain as a driveway until "additional right-of-way would be required". 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. The Fire Department should have to approve the back driveway for access for new construction for emergency accessibility. There is concern regarding the viability of the creek crossing at the east end of the back driveway. That crossing is fairly narrow. Permanent use of the back driveway for both Lots 5 and 6 suggests that Lots 5 and 6 must be treated as `through' lots. The Developer disputes this, noting the definition of "Through lot" is "a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying this chapter." He argues that Lots 5 and 6 are not between "two substantially parallel streets" and should not be classified as through lots and should not be subject to the setback requirements for through lots.