My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/21/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
5/21/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:27:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/21/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MAY 2 11986; BOOK 64 PA F 517 <br />impact of a project or accumulation of projects would be deter- <br />mined by the number of trips generated by the project or projects. <br />The impact would, in turn, determine the need for immediate paving <br />or escrowing for future paving. <br />The ordinance also establishes criteria for the Board of County <br />Commissioners to use in determining whether a scenic or historic <br />road is to be paved or not. Also, the timing of paving <br />Thoroughfare Plan roads is tied to the County's long-range road <br />improvement program. The Board would be able to approve <br />exceptions to the long-range program. Criteria to use in such <br />decisions are included in the ordinance. Overall, the ordinance <br />establishes paving standards for the various circumstances that <br />arise in the site planning process. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the <br />proposed ordinance establishing section 23.3(d)(3): Paving <br />Requirements. <br />Planner Boling noted that they also addressed access road <br />frontage as opposed to abutting road frontage - access road <br />frontage is what is to be paved up front and in some situations <br />abutting road frontage can be escrowed. He suggested a sentence <br />be added to two portions of the ordinance. At the beginning of <br />the ordinance, the bottom of Page 1, they refer to Thoroughfare <br />Plan Roads. Improvements of the Thoroughfare Plan Roads are <br />guided by general requirements that are spelled out on the next <br />page. In situations where a project abuts a Thoroughfare Plan <br />Road, impact fees are set up; so, they would like to.add a <br />sentence whereby traffic impact fees can be substituted for <br />escrowing requirements where they abut Thoroughfare Roads. This <br />would also be added to 1.(c). <br />Discussion arose as to whether the proposed ordinance is <br />significantly different than what came out of the workshop, and <br />Planner Boling stated the main change the Board wanted out of the <br />workshop was to tie things to traffic generation and not distance <br />from a paved road. He agreed that this does get complicated <br />because there are a lot of situations that need to be covered. <br />Administrator Wright advised that he would like to continue <br />this item; it has been reviewed by the attorney but not been <br />signed off on, and he suggested it be continued for several <br />weeks. <br />60 <br />M M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.