9/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Engineer Dudeck noted that we have beefed up the section on Traffic Control Devices. One other change brought to our attention by the engineers was that in the trip table there was no mention of what they should do for the AM/PM peak hours, and we have added as a note at the bottom of the second table that they should use the ITE trip generation report for those generations. Attorney Collins referred the Board to (4) on Page 39 - Frontage Road Systems and Access Easements. He noted that we are on notice from Carl Hedin that we would be sued unless we amended our requirements to allow a traffic impact fee credit for a the dedication of a marginal access road easement. Staff is adamant that this is a concept that is consistent with state practice, but Attorney Collins noted that he is contending this may not be a legal requirement, and he believed we may end up going to court over this. Mr. Hedin contends this is not site related to his property but that it is to benefit an adjoining property owner. At Collins stated that unless this is substantially advancing a public purpose, it is not legal. Chairman Eggert believed that it does advance a public purpose, but Attorney Collins felt it would only if there were a next developer coming in and we had a positive plan in place. Director Keating stressed that there is a benefit because clients can move from one property to another without going to a major arterial, and further noted that we have a similar type provision in the Subdivision Ordinance where you have to stub out a road. Commissioner Scurlock felt the question isn't what you do but whether you pay them for the easement or take it. Commissioner Wheeler had a problem paying them because he d. believed it benefits them as business people. Discussion continued at length, and Commissioner Bowman suggested that we put some frontage roads in our 20 Year Plan and provide for this in 'our Capital Improvements Program. SEP 111990 41 L� R,L,- 1 13 �Dff . �A,,.ra,