Agenda - 10-16-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

44 would be a good place to put such a provision and if Collins felt there was a need for it. Collins said such a provision might be a good idea, but didn't think this was the place for it. Joyner suggested dropping the idea at this time and working on it more seriously later. Collins read the following section from an earlier draft of the proposed amendments: Any new subdivision not meeting the standards for private roads must have public access to a public road; i.e., it cannot have access through an exist- ing private road unless that road is upgraded and dedicated as a public (state - maintained) road. If it is determined that an existing private road requires improvement to public road standards, the cost of the improvement, and including right -of -way acquisition, shall be borne by the development that causes the need for improvement. He stated that the above wording was starting to get at the types of issues being discussed by the TAS. Best suggested that proposed amendment 5 be dropped altogether at this time and that the TAS or Ordinance Review Committee look into possible ordinance revisions regarding the question of stubouts, i.e., more specificity about when the County can say a stubout is needed. He said this would not have any bearing on whether the road was private or public, but when to require a stubout. In addition to stubout provisions, Best also suggested consideration of Superblock road extensions in Phase II. The TAS concurred with his recommendation. Section W- B- 3- d -1.1a of the Subdivision Regulations - Best briefly discussed the portion of the ordinance this section falls under. Joyner explained the reason for the TAS recommendation of five acres as being the University Lake lot size standard. She stated that no -one had any problem with the five acre lot size, but thought that twice this figure was excessive-. Best stated that he thought her concerns were addressed in the last sentence of Collins' proposed revision which reads: Compliance with this standard is assured when the minimum required lot size is five acres or greater. Joyner said she understood this, but would feel more comfortable if some explanatory language were included. Discussion ensued as to whether "twice the minimum lot size" was an adequate measure of significance. Consensus was that a quantifiable standard was needed and twice the minimum lot size (and up to five acres for watershed lots) was deemed appropriate. In response to a question from .Collins, Joyner stated she would still like to see some explanatory text in the ordinance regarding watershed lots. She also stated that "And /or" should be placed between #la and #lb as 7