Disposition Summary

1) Approve variances 1-3 because the access drive inside the private right-of-way is existing.
2) Approve variance 4 because the private right-of-way replaces a previously platted access easement, which was recorded at 25 ft wide. This plat adds 1 additional lot to be serviced by the access drive, and Engineering and Public Works supports the request.
3) Approve variance 5 because the access drive connects two roads, negating the need for a turnaround for fire trucks to exit the property.
4) Approve variance 6 because Planning finds a maintenance agreement adequate to address maintenance responsibilities due to the fact that the access drive is existing, already has a maintenance agreement, and only serves one additional lot.
5) Approve the subdivision plat because it is otherwise in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations.

---

Staff Recommendation

1) Approve variances 1-3 because the access drive inside the private right-of-way is existing.
2) Approve variance 4 because the private right-of-way replaces a previously platted access easement, which was recorded at 25 ft wide. This plat adds 1 additional lot to be serviced by the access drive, and Engineering and Public Works supports the request.
3) Approve variance 5 because the access drive connects two roads, negating the need for a turnaround for fire trucks to exit the property.
4) Approve variance 6 because Planning finds a maintenance agreement adequate to address maintenance responsibilities due to the fact that the access drive is existing, already has a maintenance agreement, and only serves one additional lot.
5) Approve the subdivision plat because it is otherwise in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations.

---

1) The purpose of this plat is to subdivide a new lot off of a larger tract. This property is part of a group of properties using the same driveway for access.
2) Historical aerials show the driveway originally serviced 2 houses on the parent tract. The driveway provided access off of two roads, Zachary Taylor Road in the south, and Mourfield Road in the northeast.
3) Surrounding properties were subdivided off the same parent tract in 2014 (see the plat in Exhibit A, 2014 Plat). In that plat, lots 2, 3 and 4 were platted as flag lots, and lot 1 had road frontage. The plat created a Permanent Easement across the existing driveway in the north to service lot 5 and a Permanent Easement across the existing driveway in the south to service lot 6.
4) The flag stems of lots 5 and 6 were platted over steep topography that do not meet access standards so that, once these properties were developed, they utilized the existing driveway for access instead of the flag stem portions of their lots. This created a situation in which a shared driveway provided access to 5 lots, which does not meet Subdivision Regulations.
5) Lots 1 and 2 were later combined via plat (See Exhibit B, 2018 Plat). Because that plat comprised more than 5 acres, it was platted as an exempt plat and therefore did not come through Planning for review. However, the plat did not meet the standards of an exempt plat, as it was the result of combining lots that were smaller than 5 acres [Subdivision Regulations, Section 2.11.A.5], so the plat should have been submitted for review by Planning.
6) In situations where conditions are existing, if a plat creates a new lot off of an existing access easement, that easement is required to be brought up to standards if it is noncompliant. In this case, this means of access already services 5 lots, so this subdivision would create a 6th lot using the shared driveway, which is the threshold at which an access easement is required to become a private right-of-way.
7) This situation is further complicated by the fact that the proposed new lot is in the middle of the length of the shared driveway gaining access from the south. The lots to the north of the proposed new lot are not included in the proposed subdivision. Since these other properties utilizing the driveway are not part of the plat, they are not required to come into compliance at this time since the proposed plat is not creating the condition. However, if the other properties within the original platted parent tract subdivide further (lots 2R, 3, 4, 5, and/or 6), they would have to come into compliance at that time. Therefore, only the southern part of the driveway is required to come into compliance.