Agenda - 05-03-1993 - III-C - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6 Thisis to be _ erpected, since the cost of road ilaprovements tends to be the single most costly item for developments in Orance County . klso to be expected is a continuation of requests for orHvate roads in situations where tney are not adequately 7usti'ied, regardless of any chances to the 'Iustification a which may be approved . Nonetheless , recognition of cost and other issues which have ar' sen in recent months prompts a rev' = "" n7 of the existing criteria , The subdivisions in which road issues are especially problematic tend to be relatively small , and the roads relatively short. Based on the historical lac): of any known problems with the maintenance or negative impacts of private roads in such subd' visions , the potential for future problems with maintenance is considered by the planning staff to be negligible. The "developer" in many cases is the property owner , who typically has fewer resources at hand to apply to the development of the property , and the cost difference between a public and private road is great enough to prohibit subdividing altogether . The proposed amendment seeks to expand the private road justification criteria where the potential present and future physical impacts of a private road remain within acceptable limits. Cost issues are recognized as an underlying concern, but it is not recommended that private roads be allowed strictly cm the basis of affordability of lots , as is sometimes sugoested. Even if affordability could be guaranteed through contracts or other means , such a criteria would have the overall effect of providing a lower quality of development for lower-income home- buyers , with little connection to the physical impacts of the road itself . Restriction of Further Subdivision Another problematic aspect of the current regulations is the prohibition against further subdivision of lots approved with private road access . Cf the 100 minor subdivisions approved in 1992 , 91 were submitted by "citizen" subdividers as opposed to "developers" . Some of these subdivisions included larce lots which cannot be further subdivided based on this restriction, even when further subdivision could occur which would very clearly meet private road justification criteria. In fact, the "no further subdivision" restriction does not allow for these lots to be further subdivided, even if a public road is constructed, without ti •.pproval of all of the lot owners within the original This is because the subdivision restriction is put on record, and can only be changed with approval of those who bought lots with that understanding. This effect seems contrary to the desire to encourage public roads , in that the creation of additional lots , it allowed, may require an upgrade to public standards. Another effect of this provision is that it places a greater emphasis on timing and Process than on final result.