Laserfiche WebLink
G O T 1 <br />In staff's opinion, options 1 and 2 are consistent <br />with past policy and ensure that the proper <br />facilities :will be in place to handle impacts of <br />development that would otherwise, without facility <br />improvements, result in unacceptable levels of <br />service for -the entire community. The issuance of <br />a C.O. is the County's final point of control for <br />a development project and also represents the point <br />after which the development's impacts are allowed <br />to occur (occupancy of units or opening for <br />business). <br />Option 3 allows the development impacts to occur in <br />actuality before required facilities (which are <br />supposed to mitigate and off -set adverse development <br />impacts) are in place and useable. Such an option <br />creates a gap between impacts and proper mitigation <br />and allows impacts to occur and continue without the <br />certainty that facility improvements will take place <br />or be in place in a timely manner. <br />Option 4 places on the County the risks and <br />obligations of getting improvements done that are <br />required and/or triggered by the project. Following <br />this option would require the County to be <br />responsible for seeing that project impacts are <br />mitigated in a timely manner even though the County <br />would not have control over development timing and <br />the timing of impacts. Also, according to the <br />County Attorney's Office, if option 4 is allowed and <br />followed, the County could be sued by any party <br />adversely affected by traffic level of service <br />problems resulting from opening the mall prior to <br />the completion of improvements. <br />To partially address the developer's concern, staff <br />can recommend a change that can reduce the length <br />of construction time necessary prior to C.O. <br />Wording can be added allowing the issuance of a C.O. <br />when improvements are "substantially completed" ... <br />that is, functional and useable for/by traffic even <br />_ though some final work remains (see recommendation <br />condition #3). This wording has been approved by <br />the County Traffic Engineer. <br />Concern #4. In staff's opinion, the developer, at the February <br />1990 comprehensive plan amendment transmittal <br />hearing, committed to dedicating whatever amount <br />of right-of-way is needed to resolve the 66th Avenue <br />right-of-way and road expansion problem. Staff's <br />position, based upon the opinion of the Public Works <br />Director, reiterated and expressed in writing to the <br />developer in a letter sent September 28, 1990, (see <br />attachment #1) is that the right-of-way necessary <br />to accommodate the future ultimate planned expansion <br />of 66th Avenue shall be donated by the applicant. <br />In the opinion of the Public Works Director, a 70' <br />wide strip of right-of-way would be needed to <br />construct the standard ultimate road section planned <br />for the 66th Avenue. Thus, the 70' strip should be <br />dedicated by the developer, unless the developer can <br />produce an acceptable roadway expansion design that <br />can be constructed in less area. The recommended <br />D.O. condition ensures that all of the right-of- <br />way needed for the ultimate 66th Avenue expansion <br />will be dedicated, yet gives the developer the <br />flexibility to demonstrate that the expansion can <br />be feasibly and reasonably accommodated in a strip <br />narrower than 701. [See recommendation condition <br />#4] <br />46 <br />® M s <br />