Meeting Information
-Convene
-The Pledge of Allegiance
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders;
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Appeal of Planning Director's decision to deny a Certificate of Survey for CS-R-11-22-07 for NE 1/4 of SW 1/4 of Section 10 Township 14S Range 18E (735 E 550 Road). (Mary Miller, Planner)
(3) Work Session for Road/Access policy issue discussion (Linda Finger)
(4) Other Business
(a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
(c) Miscellaneous
(d) Public Comment
(5) Adjourn
Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 with all members present
CONSENT AGENDA 03-05-08
Jones moved approval of the following Consent Agenda:
► Commission Order Nos. 08-024 (on file with the office of the Clerk);
Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
PLANNING 03-05-08
The Board considered an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny a Certificate of Survey for CS-R-11-22-07 for a property division in the rural area of Douglas County. The location of the property is the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10 Township 14S Range 18E (735 E 550 Road). Mary Miller, Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department, and Linda Finger, Planning Resource Coordinator, were present for the discussion. The Certificate of Survey was administratively denied due to the fact that the proposed residential development parcels do not conform to the following requirements of the Subdivision Regulations: 1) Lot area requirements of the County Zoning Regulations; and 2) Number of land divisions possible for properties bounded by full-maintenance roads other than local roads.
According to staff, Article 18 of the County Zoning Regulations requires that all lots, which take access from principal arterials, have a minimum area of 20 acres. If the Residential Development Parcel No. 1 maintains its access from E550 Road, 20 acres is required. If access is relocated to N750 Road, adequate area is provided. Section 20-806(d)(1) of the Subdivision Regulations contain a provision which allows properties bounded on two or more sides by existing full maintenance local roads two divisions, which would result in three Residential Development Parcels. It is Staff's interpretation that the ability to divide three RDPs d s not apply to property which is bounded by two or more sides by full maintenance roads if one or both bounding roads are a collector or arterial.
Miller stated to meet the Subdivision Regulations, the property owner could move the existing driveway from E550 Road to take access from N750 Road. They have the 1320 ft of required frontage, but do not have a full 20 acres.
Miller stated that the owner has a 20-acre parent parcel with two 5-acre parcels and one 10 acre parcel proposed. One parcel has an existing house with a driveway access to E550 Road. Miller commented that in similar situations, other applicants have changed their driveways to meet the County criteria.
Aaron Gaspers, with Peridian Group, Inc. and representing the property owners, stated the property owner's intent is to take 40 acres, divide it into two parent parcels, one with two lots and one with three lots. One issue is the existing driveway. The property owner is seeking a variance to keep the driveway where it is, taking access from E550 Road.
Jones clarified that there are two issues: 1) variance on the 20 acres; and 2) How you define the two roads on each side, a major arterial vs. a local collector. Gaspers said the main issue is the acreage. They do have 1320 feet of frontage, but lack the 20 acres. The existing house faces E550 and the driveway is more desirable where it is now. Jones stated the property owner should have to take access from N750 Road. The County should seize every opportunity to limit driveways along major arterial roads.
Johnson stated it makes sense to issue a variance because a house and driveway already exist and the driveway already meets minimum frontage requirements. The frontage is there. If they were starting from scratch, it would not qualify. McElhaney stated that staff has interpreted the information correctly the way the Board presented it, but we need to look at the existing conditions. He feels a driveway accessing N750 would be a safer option and no one is making the property owner divide the property this way.
.
Scott McCullough, Planning Director, agreed there are two issues to resolve: 1) applicant requesting a smaller parcel to access the arterial road; and 2) a local road issue that the code clarify whether they can have the three lots in the Certificate of Survey, regardless of whether there is 20 acres. He stated the Board can base the variance on the findings that the road still maintains its current access pattern, there is uniqueness to the request, the proposed development meets the frontage requirements and frontage will be maintained with proposed development pattern, and no harm will be done to the existing road network.
Johnson stated he wants to be supportive and reasonable, but not open a flood gate. In his opinion, the road frontage is the element of importance. Jones stated concern that choosing to support the frontage, but not upholding the 20-acre requirement is like "gutting the 20-acre provision." Johnson clarified that the difference is an applicant, to receive the same determination, would have to have the same type of situation, an entrance with 1320 feet of frontage on an existing road.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Board for staff to begin the process of a text amendment to address the issue of number of land divisions possible for properties bounded by full-maintenance roads other than local roads.
Jones moved that in this instance, in light of the ambiguity in terms of interpretation of the language that the Board interprets in favor of the applicant, which gives them the opportunity to make three divisions within the parent parcel. However the Board stipulates that this is not an over arching situation and will be a matter of discussion and with clarification as soon as possible, and with the condition of meeting the access to 750 for the driveway. The Board has not addressed the issue of the 20 acres, which may take a text amendment. The Board's position is the owner still needs 20 acres if they take access from the principal arterial. The property owner can consider going forward with the Certificate of Survey and later come back with a waiver for the driveway. Motion was seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously.
WORK SESSION ON ROAD/ACCESS 03-05-08
Linda Finger, Planning Resource Coordinator, lead a work session discussion with staff members and the Commissioners on Road and Access policy issues.
ACCOUNT PAYABLE 03-05-08
Jones moved to approve an accounts payable wire transfer in the amount $731,246.00 to be paid on 03/06/08. Motion was seconded by McElhaney and carried unanimously.
McElhaney moved to adjourn the meeting; Johnson seconded and the motion carried.
____________________________ ____________________________
Bob Johnson, Chairman Jere McElhaney, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Jamie Shew, County Clerk Charles Jones
Time and Date