10/28/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 66 PnF 217 platted subdivision lot split requests to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the Board of County Commis- sioners. Staff has now drafted such an amendment, as well as seven other minor amendment proposals that would codify dxisting county policies and alleviate some existing and potential problems. At their regular meeting of September 25, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the subdivision ordinance amendments as attached to this report. ANALYSIS The following is a description and analysis of each amendment section. 1. Section 1 This section would require public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of County Commissioners for proposals to split lots in existing subdivisions where the split would result in lots smaller than the surrounding lots in the subdivision. The Board cited the need for such a requirement because of the neighborhood and planning issues involved in a single lot split and subsequent similar splits. The proposed amendment also sets forth criteria that mint be satisfied prior to final approval of a lot split. 2. Section 2 Traffic impact analyses are presently required for site plan projects generating more than 1,000 average daily trips. However, no such requirement exists for large subdivisions. Although no large subdivisions have been proposed in recent years, a large non -DRI subdivision could generate up to 5,000 trips per day and would not, under current regulations, be required to provide a full-scale traffic impact analysis. The amendment would require a full-scale traffic impact analysis, as specified in the site plan ordinance, for all subdivisions that would generate over 1,000 trips per day. 3. Section 3 It has been County policy to require subdivision developers to provide improvements to existing roads where the proposed subdivision would utilize existing unpaved roads. Such provisions for improvements have usually been accomplished through the petition paving process, as was the case with the Oslo Ridge subdivision located on 11th Lane S.W. The pro- posed amendment gives the County the authority to deny a subdivision proposal that does not provide for adequate connections to the existing street network, including up- grading of existing deficient roads that are to be utilized. 4. Section 4 At the time the current subdivision ordinance was adopted (July, 1983), no land clearing permit process existed. Consequently, under the subdivision ordinance, no clearing of property to be subdivided was permitted prior to receiving a land development permit (approved engineering/construction drawings). However, land clearing permits can now be issued prior to receiving a land development permit, pursuant.to the land -clearing and tree protection ordinance. This amendment would allow land clearing upon issuance of a valid land clearing permit, and would bring the subdivision ordinance in line with the land clearing and tree removal protection ordinance requirements. 28