8/8/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

proliferation inevitably puts more wear on unpaved roads and either degrades the roadway or requires more maintenance. *Paving 62nd Avenue The subject property and all other parcels on the east side of 62nd Avenue have benefitted from the public road right-of-way established by the Sunniland Homesites plat. Over the years, grandfathered -in and lot split homesites along 62nd Avenue have been allowed to be developed. Now, a subdivision is proposed and a variance has been requested, raising this central question: should 62nd Avenue be paved? If 62nd Avenue is never to be paved, then the county's subdivision paving requirement makes sense by limiting the number of homesites and residents using the roadway so that road degradation and maintenance costs are minimized. The county's subdivision paving requirements also make sense if the road is to be paved at some point in the future, since the requirement causes the subdividers to initiate either a petition paving or a forced assessment. Because the site is located at the end of 62nd Avenue, about 1,200' of the road would need to be paved to provide paved access from the Ferguson's proposed lots to 33rd Street. Based upon county engineering's rough estimates for petition paving projects, paving the road to county standards would cost $40 - $50 per linear foot. Therefore, paving a 1,200' segment could cost $48,000 - $60,000. Using the general petition paving formula, where the county pays 25% of the cost and property owners on each side of the road split the remaining 75%, the petition paving cost for a property owner could run $1,500 - $1,875 per 100' of frontage. As previously described, there are generally 3 alternatives for funding the paving of 62nd Avenue: (1) The developer or a group of developers pays for the paving cost. (2) A petition paving program is initiated and approved by the county. (3) An involuntary paving assessment is approved by the county. In the past, some subdivision developers have used the petition paving process to help pay for paving roads in existing subdivisions. The Fergusons' primary contention is that the entire cost of the required road paving is not feasible for them*to bear for their proposed 2 lot subdivision. Staff agrees. However, the subdivision should not be approved without a mechanism in place (such as an approved petition paving project or approved involuntary paving assessment) to guarantee the paving and commit the developers to paying their fairshare for the paving. *Variance Review and Consideration Section 913.11 of the subdivision ordinance gives the Board clear guidance in its review and consideration of a variance request. According to Section 913.11, the Board shall not approve a variance unless it finds all of the following: (A) The particular physical conditions, shape, or topography of the specific property involved would cause an undue hardship to the applicant if the strict letter of the land development regulation is carried out; _ 19 August 8, 1995iri