9/20/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Scurlock had a procedural question. We had to have a public hearing and send out notices on the original application for the special exception, which did pass (he wished to note that he did vote against it), and he wondered if we should send out the same notices again if Mr. Wheeler is contemplating changing the conditions of the Special Exception. Commissioner Wheeler emphasized that he had no intention of changing his position. Commissioner Bird noted that he also had reviewed the Minutes and the tape, and he had not remembered how strongly he spoke in favor of a traffic light. He felt, in fairness to the people who attended the meeting, he could not change his position on that at this point; though, in fairness to the people at the children's center, he had not realized that it would take this long to get the intersection improvements done. Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that the hold up is that the engineering companies have been tied up with other work. Engineer Luethje interjected that Kimley-Horn did go through a considerable amount of work making their study of the intersec- tion and he would like to have Engineer Tony Trammel address the Board about why he feels the 4 -way stop sign should be there. Chairman Scurlock wished to know if we did put in a 4 -way stop whether it would meet the requirements of the Special Exception and the intent of the tape, and County Attorney Vitunac advised that the original Motion said that a C.O. could not be Issued until improvements were made to the intersection to improve it to a certain level of service, i.e., turning lanes, traffic signal, etc. - "i.e." meaning "that is" and not "for example;" so, those two items had to be there to meet that condition, and they aren't there. Chairman Scurlock noted that, therefore, the item for discussion is just a 4 -way stop and we are off the subject of the 17 BOOK 74 PA,GE 301