10/31/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

alternatives and the 4 -part recommendation is mainly to continue the policy of getting all the right-of-way from one side of the road and give compensation/credit through the impact fee ordinance. Part 1 recommends the adoption of an impact fee ordinance, and Parts 2 and 3 could be changed depending on how the impact fee ordinance is structured with respect to giving credit for right-of-way and how we formulate the value of a piece of property. Part 4 is really a reality clause in that extraordinary measures would have to be taken in some existing situations where there are a lot of houses and a very narrow road right-of-way. Ruth Stanbridge questioned the timeframe for acquiring dedication on laterals running north and south when 10 years down the line we might find those are not the roads we figured would handle the traffic in that area. She asked if that might be the case with 12th Street. Director Davis reported that Barton-Aschman has taken a hard, unbiased look at our Thoroughfare Plan and seem to be comfortable with it. However, for staff to say that the plan would not change in the future would be rather naive. Staff does not anticipate that 12th Street will be classified as a lesser road. Mrs. Stanbridge was concerned that traffic flow might shift after developers dedicate right-of-way, especially in the north county area. Director Davis pointed out that right-of-way is needed for many more functions than just a roadway, i.e'. utilities, water, sewer. By setting a minimum setback through a 20 -year plan, instead of requiring dedication, we could at least protect that corridor for the future. We may not take a dedication, but it would be there. Mrs. Stanbridge believed the reservation of a setback probably would be best, especially when we don't know how the rural areas will develop. 21 BOOK PAGE 607