2/19/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

which Mr. Chesnut has already initiated. On December 4, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners authorized Public Works to perform surveying, design, and cost -estimating work, and schedule an assessment hearing. The hearing has not yet been scheduled. During staffs review of the subject major site plan application, it was the opinion of the county attorney's office that the county could not properly require Mr. Chesnut to escrow for the future paving of 8th Street S.W. since he does not propose to access that street. It was, however, determined that the paving requirement could be applied to 12th Avenue S.W. since the project will access from that road. Subsequently, staff granted major site plan approval with a condition that prior to issuance of a C.O. for the project, 12th Avenue S.W. must be paved from Oslo Road to the project's proposed 12th Avenue S.W. driveways. Attorney Bruce Barkett, on behalf of Mr. Chesnut, has now filed an appeal of the site plan condition that 12th Avenue S.W. be paved prior to issuance of a C.O. for the subject project. Instead of the paving condition, Attorney Barkett proposes that Mr. Chesnut escrow his fairshare for the future paving of 12th Avenue S.W. without any road paving being required prior to project C.O. The Board is now to consider Attorney Barkett's appeal. ANALYSIS: • Basis for the Appeal Attorney Barkett asserts that the requirement of LDR section 952.09(5)(c)5, as applied to the Chesnut project, is unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Dolan v. City of Tigard. Staff and Attorney Barkett agree that the subject appeal is a matter for the Board to decide. - • Current Road Paving/Escrowing Standards LDR section 952.09 sets forth requirements for paving and escrowing for the future paving of roads that access and abut development projects. Such requirements are important, especially in the unincorporated area of the county where unpaved roads are still fairly common in areas where new developments are allowed and proposed. These requirements do not apply to single- family homes or minor site plan projects, but do apply to subdivisions, planned developments (PDs), and major site plan projects like Mr. Chesnut's. Under section 952.09(5), proposed projects are classified either as "small traffic attractors/generators" (less than 100 average daily trips) or "large traffic attractors/generators" (100 or more average during trips). For "large traffic" projects, the current standards require that the road accessing the project "...be paved from the project's access point(s) to a paved public road". Those standards also require that developers of large traffic projects escrov. their fairshare for the future paving of abutting unpaved roads that are not proposed for direct access. The standards for "small traffic" projects are not as stringent. Those standards generally require only fairshare escrowing for access and abutting unpaved roads. There is, however, one "cumulative effect" provision, which applies to small traffic projects that access an unpaved road that currently exceeds 200 daily trips or will exceed 200 daily trips with the addition of the project's traffic. Where such conditions exist, the developer of the small traffic project is required to pave the access road or have the access road paved prior to issuance of a C.O. for the project. This cumulative effect provision is found in LDR section 952.09(5)(c)5 and is the FEBRUARY 19, 2002 -46-