11/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn recalled when the Laurels came to the Board of County Commissioners for approval of the idea and that 391' Avenue would not have to go through. She was concerned about having a policy to maintain the grid system in the future and thought that perhaps we need to be a little more forceful with developers. Commissioner Adams was concerned that the abandonment would be setting a precedent because there are an incredible number of half streets in the county. If the problem to be solved is speeding traffic, then there is an enforcement problem. If the County closed every road with an enforcement problem, there would not be very much left open. She also felt there was a need for a traffic count on that street before making a decision. Commissioner Eggert believed this was not the first half road that has been abandoned, that it is not a new precedent that was being set. She did not believe it was a big thing to close this half road. She also felt that if developers came in with a traditional neighborhood design, they would not necessarily go out of that subdivision. Commissioner Adams reminded them that once the street is closed, it becomes part of someone's yard and not open to the public for walking dogs and so forth. Vice Chairman Macht agreed with Commissioner Ginn's suggestion to look at the County's policy on roads and perhaps look at them differently and be more reluctant to close them. County Attorney Vitunac advised that it is an option to close the road to motor vehicles and keep it as an easement for walking or biking, if they would like to do that. Chairman Tippin did not think abandoning this half road would set a precedent, but also believed that a workshop on this would be beneficial since this problem exists all over the county and as more growth comes about, it will continue to be a problem. Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that staff has a proposed policy to bring to the Board of County Commissioners as an amendment to the County's land development regulations, which says that a developer can take the option of not taking his development to a half street, acknowledging that he will receive a benefit, but choosing not to accept that benefit. What happened here, he explained, was a combination of a policy decision (made by the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow a modification of a subdivision, which staff recommended against) and a legal determination (because the subdivision did not have access on 10' Street, the County could no longer require the developer to dedicate the right-of-way and participate with the paving). He felt the policy November 10, 1998 ►� -BOUT