1/12/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN BOOK 88 PAI, F?8 ANALYSIS: eAccess Requirements -- The approved preliminary plat design provides access to the Sunset Pointe lots by a private, 20' wide, local roadway which will intersect at S.R. A -1-A, aligning with the roadway on the east side Of A -1-A, Pelican Lane. The road alignment runs through the center of the Sunset Pointe tract and then jogs north and'runs along the northern property line, terminating in a cul-de-sac (see attachment #3). The county public works department has apprWed the road layout. - In staff's opinion, its original access -related recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized by section 913.09(3)(C)e (attachment 4) of the County's land development regulations. That section states that roads: "...deemed necessary to provide access to adjacent properties shall be dedicated to the public unless adequate legal provisions can be made to guarantee access and use of the street system by area property owners." Furthermore, Section 913.09(3)(C)2 (attachment 4), provides a guideline for what roads should be "deemed necessary" to provide access for adjacent properties. That section states that the design and access characteristics of new subdivision roads must Provide what is "...necessary to ensure a coordinated street system ... to provide adequate access and circulation for future development." Given the configuration of the proposed subdivision and the surrounding properties, it is staff's position that Sunset Pointe Lane is a road that is "dewed necessary" to provide access for proper future development of the O'Haire tract. Neither the developer nor the Planning and Zoning Commission is in agreement with staff's interpretation of the subdivision ordinance access requirements. Most Planning and Zoning Commission members seemed to feel that the county should not force access rights to be granted in the subject situation, since the O'Haire tract could be developed with a new access point onto S.R. A -1-A. It is the developer's position that, because the O'Haire tract already has access and frontage on S.R. A -1-A, and because the adjacent Property owner has been unwilling to participate in a joint development, he (the developer) should not be required to provide access to the adjacent property owner. In essence, the developer's efforts to negotiate shared access rights and development costs have been unsuccessful. The staff acknowledges that a joint development proposed for both tracts- would result in the best design for the area as a whole. However, staff's opinion is that the county can require access for future development of adjacent Property via subdivision ordinance provisions. The developer is the O'Haire tract developer). His economic windfall Of compensation compensation can connection into north (or his suc concerned that requiring access to be granted for will place an unfair financial burden on him (the position is that access rights would provide an for the property owner to the north, if some type is not required. It is staff's position that be incorporated into conditions for future Sunset Point Lane by the property owner to the cessors in title). 54 M M