8/15/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M *Options to Current Road Frontage Requirements The primary option to the existing road frontage requirements is to allow frontage on private access easements to satisfy frontage requirements. Staff's research indicates that many recommended standards assume road paving and improvement standards in excess of the county's current subdivision local road standards. However, staff's research indicates that there are some recommended "alternative" standards for using roadway easements and unpaved roads to serve lot splits (see attachment #5; summary). However, these alternative standards are recommended in rural areas where a few lots (up to 4) or large lots (2 or more acres in size) are served by such roadways. Also, it should be noted that these alternative standards address only a few of the 8 criteria previously described. Furthermore, in Indian River County, most lot splits are proposed or occur under different circumstances. In fact, the case that precipitated this re -review, Hedden Place (located on the south side of S.R. 60, just west of 60 Oaks), would not qualify for any of these alternative standards since Hedden Place involves well over 4 lots and involves parcels well under 2 acres in size. •Barkett/Hedden Place Proposal Attorney Bruce Barkett has proposed an alternative frontage requirement based upon a "grandfathering -in" and general adequacy test for certain private roadways, such as Hedden Place, which are located within private access easements (see attachment #6). It is Mr. Barkett's opinion that such "historical" roads have stood the test of time and have proven their adequacy over time. Such an option would involve a staff review, via an administrative approval review, to determine if an existing private roadway qualifies to be used to satisfy road frontage requirements. Under such a proposal, roadways, such as Hedden Place, that have historically served unplatted "subdivisions" should..be accorded a special status. Staff's position is that Mr. Barkett's alternative is based upon a faulty assumption. What has worked in the past for Hedden Place is not guaranteed to work in the future, especially as more lots are created and roadway use increases. It is also staff's position that Mr. Barkett's alternative, as well as any other alternative, must adequately address all 8 of the previously referenced criteria. Staff's analysis is that Hedden Place adequately addresses some but not all of the criteria, as follows: 1. Roadway alignment pattern is set and spaced at a normal #330' separation from adjacent roadways. No paved apron of adequate width is in place, with the result that cars must slow significantly prior to turning off of S.R. 60 onto Hedden Place at S.R. 60. 2. Roadbed measures 20' - 22' in width. Easement width is only 30' - 40'. 3. Roadbed is stable and compacted but serves 18-22 lots. 4. Roadbed width seems adequate for emergency services but no cul-de-sac turnaround exists. 5. There appear to be no known drainage problems. 21 August 15, 1994 eooK 93 f -t1 r- 76