7/17/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ M M roadway as it is now and the volume of traffic that this proposed project would generate, it was determined that the level of service probably would be reduced from "C" to "D", but that is considered adequate in our Comp Plan. It was felt that it would not go to LOS "E", based on just the general look that we took. What we have been looking at in drafting a concurrency ordinance that will be part of the land development regulations is that when we apply concurrency to a project at the rezoning stage, there would be no reservation of any capacity at that time because there is no commitment to allow that project to go forth. Therefore, the bottom line is that there would have to be another traffic concurrency determination done for this piece of property whenever they came in for development approval, and that would involve a detailed traffic impact analysis which would be a lot more specific as to the magnitude of the impacts and where they would occur. Returning to his presentation, Director Keating advised that in the overall analysis staff looked at the three major issues of compatibility, consistency and concurrency before coming up with this recommendation for approval of the RM -6 zoning. The Board can either approve or deny this request for RM -6 zoning or approve another zoning that is less intense, between the current RS -1 and RM -6. Chairman Eggert inquired how the lack of capacity of wastewater affects staff's attitude towards concurrency and their recommendation for approval of the RM -6 zoning, and Director Keating believed that the Board couldn't approve this rezoning if the capacity isn't available and it doesn't meet the criteria in our Comp Plan which states that it must be programmed and provided for in a capital: budget. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that it doesn't meet those characteristics because we don't even have a request for proposal to design a south county plant. We only have authoriza_tion.to JUL 17 1990 26 � F�;F. 6P 6