8/19/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,w A U G 191991 soot 47 'PACE 289 TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: August 12, 1981 FILE: Board of County Commissioners . . SUBJECT: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Kingslake Unit II Subdivision FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: County Administrator Description and Conditions During the August S, 1981, meeting of the members of the Board of County Commissioners, the decision to take action for approval of Kingslake Unit II Subdivision was postponed at the request of Mr. S.P. Musick, the Owners Agent, to allow the County Staff to research past policy on requesting both the dedication of additional right-of-way and paving of a half road along Pecan Road. Mr. Musick's claim was that it is not equitable for his client to be requested to give property for right-of-way and pay the cost of paving a half road when the property owner south of the existing canal only has to pay for the half road paving. In an effort to determine past County policy, the County Engineering Depart- ment epartment researched the Subdivision Ordinance and past subdivision projects approved in the last few years which front on unpaved roads. A copy of the Engineering . Division memo is attached. It is evident that, where possible, half or partial right-of-way has by policy been requested for all subdivisions reviewed. The County -has dot been consistant on requesting paving of adjoining half roads -`.or is 'uF31iT ove-r-oacds,=end-has = never -requested property comers south of the existing*-sublateral canals provide for the paving of a half road. Analysis and Alternatives In analyzing the current Subdivision Ordinance, the staff interprets that all roads are to be paved and where "half" or "partial" roads are existing, the other part of the street shall be dedicated within such tract. Pecan Road, in this case, may be considered to be a "partial" road and additional right-of- way should be requested. As to requiring the paving, it is the staff's position that Pecan Road should be paved based on the Subdivision Ordinance requirement that "the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall be such as to facil- itate and coordinate with the desirable future platting of adjoining unplatted property ... and to provide for local circulation and convenient access to neighborhood facilities", and that all streets shall be paved. Based upon the above, two alternatives are presented for the Board's consideration. Alternative # 1 Request dedication of the property for Pecan Road right-of-way.and the paving of a half road along Pecan Road. This alternative can only be equit- able if the County sets the policy that that subdivider south of the canal shall also be requested to pave the other half, regardless of whether he connects or not. The developer to the south must bear the cost of culverting the canal in leiu of providing right-of-way so a certain equity is present if the County requires the o�mer south of the canal to connect to Pecan Road thereby providing for local circulation. Alternative # 2 Request dedication of the property for Pecan Road right-of-way and funding of paving to be provided as directed by the Board when necessary under the provisions of the Special Assessment Ordinance and based upon benefitted area. This alternative would place the road paving burden on all of the benefitted residents. The disadvantage of this, alternative includes requesting a property owner with a large tract (10 acres or so) to share in the cost when he does not wish to do so.