10/16/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M Concern #3.. Concurrency• and a transportation condition that requires certain improvements to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C.O. ) for the mall. The concern related especially to improvements of 43rd Avenue. [9/25/90 PACKET CONDITION #39] Concern #4. Right -of -Way contributions needed to resolve the problems involved in the future expansion of 66th Avenue. [9/25/90 PACKET CONDITION 38a.] •Staff Response and Proposals: Shortly after the September 25th meeting, staff sent a letter to the applicant addressing the four unresolved issues. For each issue, the staff presented its position and requested a response from the applicant. Although the applicant agreed to meet with the staff on October 5, 1990, to resolve these concerns, that meeting was cancelled and has not be rescheduled as of the date of this agenda item. Thus, the developer has not been available to work through any of the issues of concern. Although county staff has not received any written responses as of the date of this report, staff has coordinated by telephone with T.C.R.P.C. staff, and D.C.A. staff and proposes some D.O. wording changes. Concern #1. This condition, recommended by the T.C.R.P.C., is intended to require stormwater runoff from the project to be filtered through grassed swales prior to.entering the project's proposed detention ponds. A re -wording of D.O. condition #18 as specified in the recommendation at the end of the report would meet the intent of the T.C.R.P.C. condition and would give the developer greater design flexibility, allowing the placement of the grassed swales anywhere "upstream" of the detention ponds. [See recommendation condition #1] Concern #2. The project's traffic analysis was based upon a single continuous construction phase to end in December of 1993. Thus, traffic conditions and improvements have been tied to what will be required to be available in December of 1993. In September, after the T.C.R.P.C. had considered and made a recommendation on the D.O., the developer approached county staff with a request to change traffic conditions to allow the mini -phasing or staging of the required traffic improvements in such a way that would correspond with portions -of the project (such as the mall proper) that might be completed prior to December 1993. In essence, the developer would now like the ability to re -analyze traffic in such a way that would demonstrate what improvements would actually have to be available for a mall (+/- 700,000 sq. ft) opening in 1992; the remaining project improvements would still be required to be - available by the end of 1993. Although a specific traffic staging re -analysis and corresponding conditions could be introduced by way of a minor amendment after a D.O. is adopted, the developer has urged staff to insert a , condition into the D.O. that would allow staff approval of a traffic staging plan. County and T.C.R.P.C. would not object to inserting such a condition into the D.O. as specified in the recommendation at the end of this report [See recommendation condition #2]. Although county staff has stressed to the applicant the * importasice of F . D . O . T . and D.C.A. concurrence O 16 1990 43 nc# 8