7/26/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Finally, the applicant wishes to resolve the right-of-way defi- ciency issue -as soon as possible, since by ordinance [Ord. 88-4], no site plan can be released and no building permit can be issued prior to satisfaction of the right-of-way dedication /re sezvation requirement. The developer has stated that required permits from other jurisdictional agencies should be obtained shortly, and that the right-of-way issue could slow -down building permit issuance. S.R. A -1-A Bikepath The approved plan also showed a required 8' bikepath along the site's S.R. A -1-A frontage. Pursuant to County requirements, this bikepath is either to -be constructed, or (in -.certain cases) funds escrowed for its future construction, prior to a ---certificate of occupancy being issued for this project. In conjunction with the request to delete the condition for the dedication of the 10' right-of-way strip, the developer desires to delete this bikepath from the approved plan. Section 23.3(e)(6) specifically states that "bikeways shall be installed on all arterial and primary collector routes;..;, and as specified in the zoning district regulations applicable to the parcel". Section 19(L) states that "site plans for development within the CL zoning district shall provide the.following improve- ments,..., bikeways (as specified in the county bikeway plan, as currently exists or may be hereafter adopted)". The existing bikeway plan, formulated in the 1970's, calls for a bikeway along S.R. A -1-A from the south county line to the 17th- Street boule= yard. The developers would either have to obtain a permit from the DOT and construct the bikepath within the A -1-A right-of-way or construct the bikepath on their development site and grant the county a pedestrian easement over the bikepath. - The alternative of escrowing monies toward the future construction of the bikepath is acceptable to staff. The developer will have to escrow funds prior to issuance of a C.O. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative to provide for the required bikepath by escrowing for future construction is acceptable to staff. However, it appears that the dispute over the right-of-way dedica- tion/reservation requirement can only be resolved through one of the following means: 1. court action regarding the developer's challenge of the requirement's legality; or 2. changing the requirements by requiring dedications only where T.I.F. credit or density transfers can be given. yi It is the opinion of the County Attorney's office that the County ;would probably lose a court challenge in this case, since the -:disputed,10' strip is along a roadway segment that is not covered m�� a `-a;' in the a County's 20 -year Capital Improvements Program (C. I. P. ) MY In the opinion of the Planning Department, the dedica- '¢ tion/reservation requirement could be. changed to cover only situations where dedications could be compensated by either T.I.F. credits or density transfers. In effect, only roadway segments -included in the 20 year Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.) , -or segments adjacent to residential project sites where density transfers are used, would be covered. The result: only the C.I.P. would be fully implemented; the Thoroughfare Plan would only be partially implemented. The only way *to expedite the developer's wishes would be if staff were directed by the Board of County Commissioners to: ,JUL 2 6 1988 4 BOOK 7 P,au 160