Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chair deems Geyser Road lot‑line adjustment 'substantive'; board debates access restrictions and whether to require public hearing
Summary
Planning Board determined a proposed Geyser Road lot‑line adjustment is "substantive" under the UDO, prompting debate over whether to require subdivision procedures, public notice and limits on curb cuts to protect neighborhood access; the board asked the applicant to return with revised drawings or rationale.
The Planning Board reviewed a proposed lot‑line adjustment affecting two parcels along Geyser Road and the Chair reported that, after consulting planning staff, he had determined the application to be "substantive" under Section 14 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), which triggers subdivision procedures and public‑notice requirements.
Board members and the applicant’s attorney debated the proper procedural path. The applicant’s attorney said the city routinely accepts a form called a lot‑line adjustment and asked whether conditioning the approval to bar any new curb cuts on Geyser Road would allow the project to be handled administratively rather than as a subdivision requiring full notice and County referral. Several board members said their main concern was preventing additional direct access onto Geyser Road and addressing two irregular ("finger" or "tongue") lot lines that create odd‑shaped parcels.
Members suggested options to address the board’s concerns: (1) have the applicant revise the drawing (removing the two "fingers") so the lots read as a conventional configuration; (2) if the applicant keeps the current configuration, supply written rationale explaining why non‑straight lot lines are justified under UDO Section 15; or (3) accept an administrative path only if the applicant agrees to a condition barring new curb cuts to Geyser Road and to return for subsequent review if the larger lot is later redeveloped.
No final vote was taken on the application that night. The board agreed to either place the item on the next agenda for a formal public hearing (if County referral or notice is required) or accept a re‑submission that addresses the access and lot‑line concerns. Planning staff and the applicant were asked to work together to clarify whether the County referral is required and to schedule the next steps (administrative review vs. noticed public hearing).
