12/19/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr - DEG 19 1984 BOOK 9 r MU 22 f these developments would not be grandfathered in to escape the impact fees. Chairman Scurlock understood that the study will analyze what impact new development will have on the traffic capacity, but felt that the backlog still needs to be addressed. Attorney Brandenburg stated that the backlog cannot be taken care of with impact fees, and that other funding mechanisms must be found for that, such as assessment districts, ad valorem taxes, gas taxes, etc. Commissioner Bird asked if we currently require a developer to mitigate the traffic flow if his development fronts on AIA and would generate significant traffic. Director Keating stated that they do require that for developers on that part of AIA that is in direct proximity to an intersection, but we seldom ask developers to make any improvements for projects built down a mile or so from an intersection. He noted that at tomorrow's meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission is considering approving one development on the north barrier island which is in excess of one unit per acre, but Attorney Brandenburg stated that the resolution is still in effect and that, unfortunately, the developer will have to wait until this designation matter with the DCA is resolved. Chairman Scurlock believed that we need to have an orderly transition period between now and when this matter is resolved. Attorney Brandenburg did not feel that the requirement for roadway improvements should be tied in with the size of the developments. In other words, if the road system is over capacity, the project should not be approved until the roadway system is corrected accordingly. The developer would have a choice; he could either make the necessary improvements or wait for the County or someone else to make the improvements. Commissioner Wodtke asked how we would get money if we don't accept a development, and Attorney Brandenburg explained that we would then get the money through impact fees or whatever 8