Laserfiche WebLink
FF-- 7 <br />mK 93 7 <br />6. Maintenance is apparently performed by residents. However, no <br />formal, enforceable maintenance agreement exists, and no <br />single entity is accountable for future maintenance. <br />7. Common access easements are established by deed, apparently <br />for all lot owners. <br />8. Future improvement for paving would be difficult; however, <br />county- water lines were recently installed in a utility <br />easement running within or along the road easement. <br />Although staff does not support the Barkett proposal, staff has <br />prepared an alternative amendment that would allow lot splits off <br />of roads such as Hedden Place (see attachment #8). <br />*Determining Alternatives <br />There are a variety of alternatives regarding lot split access. <br />These alternatives include: <br />1. Public road right-of-way <br />2. Private subdivision platted road right-of-way <br />3. Publicly -maintained roadway <br />4. Private, platted road right-of-way <br />5. Easement with roadway <br />6. Private roadway without easement <br />7. Land -locked parcel <br />Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are already available via the road <br />frontage requirements contained in the existing LDRs. . Thus, no LDR <br />changes are needed to allow any of these 4 alternatives. <br />Alternative 5 is not allowed under the existing LDRs but could be <br />developed as an LDR amendment. Such an "Alternative 5" amendment <br />would allow an easement (rather than a platted right-of-way) to be <br />established that: <br />a. meets existing county right-of-way alignment and dimensional <br />standards, and <br />b. is subject to and cannot be altered without county approval, <br />and <br />C. includes an enforceable maintenance agreement that identifies <br />a maintenance entity and guarantees current and future <br />maintenance, and <br />d. encompasses a roadway that is comparable in construction and <br />integrity to unpaved, county -maintained local roadways. <br />Such an alternative could adequately address the 8 criteria <br />previously referenced in this report. However, because the. review <br />process would so closely parallel the preliminary and final plat <br />processes already in place for private road plats (Alternative 4), <br />neither staff nor the PSAC believe there is any reason or advantage <br />to establishing such a similar, "parallel" process. <br />Neither Alternative 6 nor Alternative 7 would ensure access or <br />satisfy any of the 8 previously referenced criteria. Therefore, <br />neither of these alternatives should be seriously considered. <br />In the opinion of staff, the PSAC, and the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission, the existing LDR road frontage requirements reflected <br />in the April 5th emergency ordinance wording changes should be <br />retained. <br />22 <br />August 15, 1994 <br />