Subdivision Review Committee

Packet Page 1 of 5 Agenda Planning Commission - Subdivision Review Committee City and Borough of Juneau Paul Voelckers, Chairman July 22, 2015 Marine View Buidling 230 S. Franklin Street, 4th Floor Conference Room 5:00 PM I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. AGENDA TOPICS A. Memorandum regarding shared driveways and private easements IV. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS V. ADJOURNMENT  UGH Packet Page 2 of 5 ,.._ Community Development - *ALASKA'S CAPITAL City & Borough of Juneau • Community Development 155 S. Seward Street • Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 586‐0715 Phone • (907) 586‐4529 Fax DATE: July 21, 2015 TO: Subdivision Review Committee of the Planning Commission FROM: Laura A. Boyce, AICP, Planner Community Development Department SUBJECT: Consideration of shared access driveways/private roads in easements. The proposed subdivision ordinance does not include the option for shared access driveways or private roads in private easements for subdivisions. The current draft does include an option for a private access road to be constructed in a public right‐of‐way in certain cases. If the common practice of allowing subdivisions that provides shared access through a private easement to continue, the proposed subdivision ordinance should be amended to provide this additional access option. Attached is a draft of private access concepts from the Law Department for consideration. We will discuss these concepts during the meeting. Background Recently, a proposed subdivision along North Douglas Highway highlighted the fact that some subdivisions are approved when the physical access to the proposed lots is from a shared driveway easement rather than by a dedicated and constructed street. These subdivisions meet the requirement for lots to provide a minimum of 30 feet of frontage on a dedicated right‐of‐ way, but instead of each lot directly accessing the dedicated right‐of‐way, access is through a shared easement to that right‐of‐way. Current Title 49 subdivision requirements include that each lot must be designed to provide a minimum of 30 feet of frontage on a dedicated right‐of‐way and that each lot must abut and be physically accessed from a street. The Community Development Department’s practice has been to consider and sometimes approve subdivisions when practical access can’t be met from the proposed lots. While the minimum frontage requirements on a dedicated right‐of‐way are met for the proposed lots, and the lots abut a street, the physical access from the lots to the street might be through an easement. In some subdivision cases, the “practical access” to the maintained right‐of‐way is not the most direct. While the lot design requirement for frontage on a dedicated right‐of‐way may be met with a proposed subdivision, direct access from those  Packet Page 3 of 5 Subdivision Review Committee July 21, 2015 Page 2 of 3 lots to the right‐of‐way may not be practical, due to topography, for instance. The practical access to the right‐of‐way may be through a shared easement instead. In some subdivision scenarios, shared access is required. Panhandle subdivisions are examples of this requirement. The rear lot in the panhandle subdivision is required to have a minimum of 30 feet of frontage on the street and the resulting two lots are required to share access to that street, thereby limiting the access points onto the roadway. Subdivisions along arterials are also required to share access. Rather than dedicate right‐of‐way and construct streets, subdivisions have been approved that provide a shared driveway for the lots to physically access the street while meeting the lot design requirements in the Code. Some recent examples of these “shared access” subdivisions include Ferry Heights Subdivision, a five‐lot subdivision across from the ferry terminal, and the Andsoh industrial subdivision along Sherwood Lane. In the Ferry Heights Subdivision, practical access for that site was through a shared driveway easement, due to the topography of the site. The Fire and Engineering Departments approved the driveway design. Conditions were included in the subdivision approval for creation of a homeowner’s association that would provide ongoing maintenance of the shared drive and provide for continued safe access. When shared access is proposed as part of a subdivision, CDD requires at a minimum that a shared access and maintenance agreement to be filed along with the easement being shown on the final plat. In some cases, a homeowner’s association is required by staff or the Planning Commission in order to ensure safe access to the lots along the shared driveway from the right‐ of‐way. Allowing these types of subdivisions with access through shared driveways/easements in certain instances has been common practice. Available “flat” land is scarce and the remaining properties that can be developed have topographical issues or other constraints that make traditional development less practical. Do we want to continue the practice of allowing alternate subdivision scenarios that are practical for that site? If so, the current subdivision ordinance draft needs to be amended to include the option of subdivision through shared driveway easements. In the proposed ordinance, other than for panhandle subdivisions, streets must be constructed for subdivision to occur when the right‐of‐way can’t be physically accessed from the proposed lots. For reference, below is a partial list of subdivisions that have been approved with shared access instead of dedication and construction of a street. Examples include:  Andsoh Subdivision – 9 total lots, 8 of which are accessed through shared easements. All lots provide the minimum amount of frontage on a maintained street. (Plat No. 2015‐ 04).  Packet Page 4 of 5 Subdivision Review Committee July 21, 2015 Page 3 of 3  Glacier’s Edge Subdivision – 3 total lots sharing an access easement (two bungalow lots and one regular lot). (Plat No. 2014‐28).  Auke Lake Ridge Subdivision – 6 residential lots sharing a 60 foot shared access, utilities, and drainage easement. (Plat No. 2013‐29)  Ferry Heights Subdivision No. 3 – 5 residential lots sharing access from Glacier Highway. (Plat No. 2013‐29)  Mansfield Crossing Subdivision – 5 residential lots, 3 of the lots share an access driveway, and the other two share one as well. (Plat No. 2010‐34)  Point Lena View Subdivision No. 4 – A four‐lot subdivision, three of the lots share a driveway from Island View Drive. (Plat No. 2010‐11)  Atwater Estates – Four common wall lots accessed through a shared easement on the adjacent property.(Plat No. 2007‐63)  Belleview Subdivision –Common wall lots accessed through an easement on the adjacent property. (Plat No. 97‐64) (Plat No. 99‐42)  Forest Edge Condos – a 32‐unit condo development (not a subdivision) that the entire development is accessed through another property  North Douglas PUD – the entire 12‐unit development is accessed through another property. A two‐lot subdivision created the PUD parcel as well as the adjacent parcel through which the PUD has access to North Douglas Highway.  Packet Page 5 of 5 Private Access Ideas Concept: Allow small developments to be accessed by a private street in a private easement. Possible Names: Private street, private access, shared access, shared driveway Policies: Expand privately maintained access (49.15.430-435), encourage consolidation of driveways, encourage development of housing in difficult terrain, eliminate unnecessary panhandles, protect air quality and prohibit no new unpaved streets in Mendenhall Valley Application/triggers (49.15.430-435): Minor subdivisions process (x≤13 lots) Connectivity: Private access not allowed (1) if abutting parcels have dedicated ROW to connect to this property or (2) if a landlocked parcel would be created. Future development: Private access not allowed if the Director determines that foreseeable future development requires a ROW or if this development would prohibit the practical placement of a necessary and foreseeable ROW. Development Requirements (49.15.430-435): Legal access: Creation of private easement for access and utilities, if necessary. 49.15.424 Easement width: 50’ easement that can be reduced to 30’. 49.35.240(a-b) Street standards: 49.35.240 Table Avg. Adopted Sidewalks Travel Street lights Easem Paved Publicly Daily traffic way ent Roadway maintained Trips impact width Widthii Required (ADT) analysis required 0 to No Not 20 ft.i At ROW 50 ft. Noiii No 250 required Construction standards: pave xxx’ approach to ROW, Maximum grade(s)?, drainage requirements determined by Engineering. 49.35.240 Individual Access: On double frontage lots, prohibit property from accessing ROW Maintenance Agreement: Owners would be required to sign a maintenance agreement. Parking: Additional parking at the ROW may be required for steeper private streets Frontage requirement: Allow parcels to only have frontage on private access. 49.15.424 Panhandle lots: Can keep panhandle provision but no longer require ROW frontage. 49.15.423 “Street” names: CDD assigns street names anytime three or more properties share access. Fire Code:  Sprinkles may be required if the access grade is greater than 10% or if a dwelling unit is more than 150’ from a fire accessible road. 503.1.1  A fire hydrant may be required if the access grade is greater than 10%. D103.2  A turnaround is likely required if the private access is greater than 150’ long. 503.1.1