HomeMy Public PortalAbout12.5.1991 Agenda & Minutes Planning BoardPLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 5, 1991 PAGE 2
right-of-way and Stroud said this would involve more right-of-way acquisition and construction expense.
Stroud then showed on the map how the various routes were arranged and how access between the existing roads would be maintained. Abernathy asked if there were any possiblity of providing for bike and/or pedestrian traffic under the new interchange. Stroud said there were five lanes planned, but that by reducing the inside lanes from 12' to 11' some provision could be made. He suggested a letter to Tommy Peacock, a project manager for DOT, who could assist with the request. Olson also suggested contacting the bikeway planning section, but Stroud said these methods were generally reserved for more urban areas. The Board agreed that in the future the area would be more dense and Abernathy noted some planning should be done now since the road would be there for a long time. Stroud said he estimated the bikeways addition would cost about 100 thousand dollars.
Discussion continued concerning the placement of a culvert in place of a bridge. Coe said such a culvert would be about 200 feet in length and the Board was in agreement this would not be feasible. Coe asked about the possiblility of increasing the width under the bridge to accomodate bikes and pedestrians and Stroud said this might be possible if the Town and the County could secure funding for the extra construction required. Coe asked if wildlife corridors had been considered and Stroud said the DOT biologist had determined that most wildlife would use the corridor along Seven Mile Creek. Coe asked if controlled access fencing would be used and Stroud said it would, noting the impact statements for highway projects considered all environmental issues.
MOTION: Crowther moved to reverse Items 6 and 7. Chavious seconded. VOTE: Unanimous.
ITEM 17: The variance request to the Subdivision Regulations was presented by Coe. He pointed out this was being brought to the Board due to requirements for paved streets and access for subdivided lots. He reviewed the staff recommendation that a recorded easement be annotated on the plat prior to approval.
MOTION:
Olson said she felt this request met the findings of fact required for a variance were met and that the ordinance probably overlooked this situation when written. Culbreth said he did not remember this issue being discussed. Olson said the ordinance was based on the assumption that every lot had frontage which was not the case. Knight said the key word was "road" and that it was vague. Crowther asked what the procedure would be and Coe said this was a minor subdivision that could be approved by staff upon the granting of a variance.
Crowther moved to grant the variance.•