1/7/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PNCC JAS 0 e' `fir; , must not be allowed to be divided in a manner that results in little or no road right-of-way frontage. (D) The request is inconsistent with 'the subdivision ordinance. First, the request is to "waive" a fundamental requirement of the ordinance which is to provide to newly created lots proper frontage and service and potential for future services. Second, the request is inconsistent with the traffic element of the comprehensive plan which states the following: POLICY 4.20 The county shall continue its current practice of .preserving existing and future transportation right-of-way by requiring necessary and appropriate land dedication through the plat and site plan review and approval processes in accordance with the provisions of the County's Land Development Code. Dedication for right-of-way, exceeding local road standards, shall be compensated through traffic impact fee credits, density transfers, or purchase. POLICY 5.2: The county shall review all proposed land developments in order to ensure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of this plan, and the county shall require coordination of traffic circulation plans and improvements with land use and infrastructure plans before development approval. In essence, these right-of-way and traffic circulation policies are implemented at the lot -split level of development via the subdivision ordinance road frontage requirement. In his variance application (see attachment #3), the applicant asserts the following: (1) He has attempted to arrange to plat a private road right- of-way from 45th Street directly to the ±4 acre subject parcel. However, the physical arrangement of the property is such that a 60' wide road right-of-way from the subject parcel to 45th Street would have to cross privately -owned parcels since an existing access easement (the 20' wide easement) is not wide enough to meet county standards. The applicant asserts that due to ownership patterns and ownership approval constraints in the area, establishing a road plat could be difficult if not impossible. (2) A private deed restriction has been placed upon the subject t4 acre parcel at this time which would preclude development of more than one residence on the property. Thus, the future development of the property is limited by current private restrictions. (3) A_building permit cannot be issued for a residence on the subject parcel unless a variance is granted which "accepts" in lieu of 60' dedicated road right-of-way frontage the current 60' and 20' access easements which presently connect the site to 45th Street. It is staff's* position that the current parcel configuration and ownership pattern is the result of voluntary action taken by the previous parent tract owners who are the parents of the applicant, Scott Ketchum. Thus, the current property configuration is the result of the illegal acts of the predecessors in title. It is the very difficulties now encountered by Mr. Ketchum that the ordinance right-of-way frontage requirement helps to avoid; that is, creating a new parcel which is "land -locked" from direct access to a dedicated (platted) right-of-way. The existing 60' wide and 20' wide connecting access easements (refer to attachment- #2) are insufficient to meet county width, dedication and maintenance 38