Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Brandenburg stated that in his opinion, it does <br />not; the Comp Plan states that when you take existing traffic <br />plus background traffic, you cannot exceed the level of service <br />"C" on an annual basis, or a level of service "D" during the peak <br />season. <br />Director Keating confirmed that when a site plan comes in, <br />staff considers its trip generation rates and compares it to the <br />existing traffic. <br />Attorney Brandenburg advised that if the Board decides to <br />let this site plan go because of the timing of the application, <br />then he would recommend that all site plans be let go that were. <br />submitted prior to the date the moratorium ordinance is in place <br />because such Board action would indicate it is felt we have <br />enough knowledge now to assess the traffic situation on this <br />project, and it, therefore, would follow that we would have had <br />enough knowledge to assess the traffic for a site plan that was <br />submitted three days later. <br />Commissioner Bird felt there were three options: 1) Keep <br />the 3 unit per acre moratorium in place as of the date <br />of the adoption of the resolution. <br />2) Put the 3 unit per acre moratorium in place as of the date <br />the ordinance is adopted. <br />3) Drop the moratorium resolution entirely. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the Board <br />keep the moratorium resolution in effect as it is. <br />Attorney Brandenburg advised that they will proceed with the <br />public hearing for the proposed ordinance. <br />Commissioner Bird realized that it does put a hardship on <br />some developers, but he did not know how we could do anything <br />else without having the findings of the traffic analysis. <br />53 <br />FEBLk 6 1985 <br />BOOK Free <br />