Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Lyons felt that we did not want to make it too <br />loose either, because we don't want any more curb cuts on U.S. #1 <br />than we can possibly avoid. <br />Attorney Mann requested that the language used on Page 20, <br />or something similar to that language, be inserted on Page 21 <br />where it states " Developments adjacent to arterials and primary <br />collectors "must" utilize frontage roads..." She suggested that <br />the wording not be "must" or "shall", but perhaps left up to the <br />Public Works Director or the Traffic Engineer to allow some <br />flexibility. <br />Director Keating felt staff is just applying the specific <br />policy in the Comp Plan since the Elsmore site plan does have <br />access to a designated marginal access road, which is Old Dixie. <br />On Page 21, under (d) - Frontage Road Systems and Access <br />Easements - the Commissioners agreed to change the language on to <br />"should" instead of "must". <br />Director Keating felt that might make things difficult and <br />Commissioner Scurlock suggested that staff take the position of <br />"must" and if they appeal it, then the Commission will see if it <br />should have been "should". <br />Director Keating felt that would make it easier. <br />Matthew Gore, Chairman of the Construction Industry Council, <br />thanked the Board for having set up the workshop program and for <br />the consideration given to the comments expressed in their <br />letter. Referring to the controversial issue regarding the paved <br />road requirements, he requested that another workshop session be <br />scheduled to discuss the right-of-way issue and consider <br />establishing some kind of credit for the road impact fees and <br />roadway acquisition. <br />MAY 2 2 1985 <br />L- <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously <br />closed the Public Hearing. <br />33 <br />n <br />BOOK ' 33 <br />FtE <br />