9/16/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

W ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS In analyzing the character of the land lying east of A -1-A along this South Beach area, a number of parcels exist with narrow, 1401± frontage on A -1-A. These parcels, if platted individually, would place many accesses onto A -1-A close together so that an undesirable traffic situation would develope. The best way to plat these parcels, in the staffs' opinion, would be for two adjacent tracts to each con- tribute half of a 50' right-of-way (2S'each) and both tract owners mutually agree to subdivide with frontage on a common road. This particular method would be in concurrence with the Subdivision Ordi- nance Section 4 Article 1(h) for Half Streets. The Technical -Review Committee agrees with this approach as long as the other 25' portion of the right-of-way is given once the northern parcel is subdivided in the future. The alternatives presented by the Staff for consideration are: Alternative l: Approve the request for variance and preliminary plat approval be granted subject to requiring future dedication of the additional 25' wide portion of right-of-way if the parcel to the north is ever subdivided. The impact this alternative would have includes eliminating numerous access onto A -1-A which are not spaced in a desirable manner. Since this right-of-way is proposed as private, all lots created by future plat shall have the dedicated right to use such right-of-way. A beach access should be shown east of this plat for use by the potential owners. Included in this alternative should be provisions for a cul-de-sac at the east end of the road and dedica- tion of a 101wide non -access buffer easement along the east right-of- way line of A -1-A. Alternative 2: Deny the request for variance and require the owner to provide a SO' right-of-way. The impact this alternative would have includes possible future platting of the north parcel with an additional access onto A -1-A in close proximity to the proposed access. This is an undesirable situation. If the variance request is denied, preliminary plat approval would obviously not be recommended for this design. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING As the decision to grant a variance request lies solely vested in the Board of County Commissioners, the staff recommends alternative no. 1, thereby approving the request for variance and preliminary plat approval subject to requesting dedication of the remaining 25' wide portion of the right-of-way to the north in the future if a preliminary plat is submitteri. Also, a cul-de-sac at the east end of the proposed road as required in the Subdivision Ordinance and dedication of a 10' wide non -access buffer easement along A -1-A is recommended. Once these changes are made, one lot may*have to be deleted from the proposed plat. There are no funding considerations to be addressed by the Board for this item. P 16 1991 Boas 4 7 fuf 494 L