Minutes - 05-01-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

complex part of the motion. He said that, in private road subdivisions, we are requesting that they be twice the required lot size. Most of the discussion about item six was to reduce the provision of requiring twice the lot size when there is 50°~ or more open space in the subdivision. The staff is recommending that the lot size be lowered from 80,000 square feet {almost two acres) to 60,000 square feet (1.38 acres), if at least 50°~ open space is provided. In a typical 12-lot subdivision the amount of open space is 33°~ or 11 acres. If the lots are 60,000 square feet, there would be 50°~ open space, or 16.5 acres. He said that he believes that there was enough discussion during the public hearing process that the County Commissioners could adopt the provision of having a 60,000- square foot lot in a private road subdivision with at least 50°!° open space. It would not have to go to public hearing. Commissioner Gordon made some changes to the charts, which were so noted by Craig Benedict. By consensus the County Commissioners agreed to take the chart on page 11 and separate the templates for three ar fewer lots and 4-12 lots. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page four and the statement, "A private road shall be deemed justified far a minor subdivision resulting in no more than three lots. In such subdivisions a private access easement may be granted to allow an adjacent lot to access the private road in order to reduce the number of access points on a public road." She questioned whether or not the rest of the paragraph could be removed regarding the intent of the provision. She said that she listened to the tape of the meeting and when the motion was listed out, it did not specifically request that this be deleted. She asked if it was the intent of the Board to leave this in. She thinks it should be sent to hearing for deletion. Geoffrey Gledhill said that the only way to get clarity on this issue was to send it back to public hearing and look at it again. By consensus the County Commissioners agreed that this ("the intent of this provision..." on page four) would be placed on the quarterly public hearing agenda on May 29tH Commissioner Brown verified that there would be no increase in density as a result of the sliding scale down to a 60,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be cleaner to take the sliding scale to public hearing because page five includes what was adopted and page 15 is in conflict with that. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would feel comfortable in not going back to public hearing if the County Attorney so recommends. He feels that this is a good way to achieve more open space with the same amount of density and encourage some developers to provide more open space. Geoffrey Gledhill said that his feeling was that at the public hearing on October 10t", the Board did not adopt the sliding scale ar anything like it. However, the public hearing that was held was broad enough to include it. Therefore, it is available to be adopted if the public hearing has already been accomplished. He said that it would also be okay to take it back to public hearing. Technically, the County Commissioners could adopt this tonight. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to take the sliding scale issue back to public hearing on May 29tH VOTE: UNANIMOUS At this time, the Board agreed to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. and then adjourn into closed session. e. Legal Advertisement for May 29, 2001 Quarterly Public Hearincl The Board considered authorizing a legal advertisement for the scheduled May 29, 2001 quarterly public hearing. Craig Benedict summarized the agenda items for the quarterly public hearing as stated in the agenda abstract. Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict to give the County Commissioners the background information on the text amendments at the same time the public hearing notice is presented.