HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRAZIL 2004 SUBDIVISION - PDP - 23-04 - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)Anne Aspen Re: Brazil Page 2
CC: Cameron Gloss; Jeff Hill
jAnne Aspen.T Re: Brazil _ Page 1
From:
Anne Aspen
To:
Paul Eckman; Susan Joy
Date:
8/30/04 11:57AM
Subject:
Re: Brazil
Hi all,
Just spoke with Cameron. The small project fee (not a small lot fee) is meant to prevent someone like Ed
from paying thousands of dollars just to subdivide. Cameron assures me that since Article 2 spells out the
processes we use and we no longer have a Subdivision process, that this project is by default a PDP and
must adhere to all the general standards in Article 3 and the applicable standards in Article 4. This would
include 3.3.1(13)(2) and (C)(1). The only way we can determine whether he meets the last sentence of
3.3.1(13)(2) is to require either utility plans or a stamped schematic from their engineer stating that they
can make the sewer work to Lot 2. Let's leave it up to them to prove it.
Anne
>>> Paul Eckman 08/30/04 11:35AM >>>
I agree.
>>> Susan Joy 08/30/04 11:30AM >>>
Thanks Anne. It seems like the process is the same even if the fees have been reduced and the small lot
sub should have to meet the same Land Use Code and LCUASS requirements as any other development.
If so, then we CAN require this developer to submit utility plans that WORK, right?
>>> Anne Aspen 08/30/04 11:19AM >>>
OK, I am still researching the issues, but from what I can tell thus far, it is standard practice in this office to
charge a Small Project Fee for subdivisions of fewer than 6 or so lots. The fee is $200 for a two lot subd
or $100 per lot. Otherwise the fee would be many thousands.
There is no language on the application form about what this small project fee entails (PDP or not).
However on the application, under "project description", the applicant wrote "two lot subdivision." The
applicant has told us that his intention is to sell this lot off to another commercial developer (he's in
negotiations with Oil Can Henry's) So, as a plat, it seems to me that this should conform to 3.3.1 (13)(2)
and 1.2.2(D) right?
Therefore it needs to have services and cannot create non -conformities. How else can we know that this
will be the case without utility plans?
Anne
>>> Susan Joy 08/30/04 11:OOAM >>>
Anne Aspen, the planner, is checking on your question and I'll let you know as soon as I hear. Thanks for
your help Paulll
My next question for you is - Once it became apparent that utility plans were now necessary, then doesn't
that kick it into the PDP process? Or is the Small Lot Process the same as the PDP process but with
lower fees?
>>> Paul Eckman 08/30/04 10:20AM >>>
Could that be a "Nonregulated Land Transfer"? See LUC section 1.4.7 (B).
>>> Susan Joy 08/30/04 10:17AM >>>
It came in under the Small Lot Process .... I'm trying to find out what that is. I'll let you know.