PC8 PDD200737 West Coast Collision Center transportation variance
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 3, 2020
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Sep 3, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 3m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 67% of 21 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
On consent, and the applicant is uh virtually present and no one here to object.
Okay. And then uh PC eight.
PC8 is PDD 200737. It's a transportation corridor management variance for West Coast Collision Center. It's a reduction in the right-of-way dedication requirements from 71 feet to 62 feet from roadway center line along alternate US 19. Comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as contained in your packet.
Alright. Yeah, but present.
Applicant is virtually present and we have no one to object.
Okay.
M Mr Chairman Mariano. I do have one question on this one. I think I can ask and keep it on consent, but it's more of a general
Um okay. Yeah.
Is has the county adopted new right-of-way standards? I know we've gotten this is a second time in three meetings, we've gotten a similar request here for reduction in the right-of-way dedication. I is a hundred and twenty four feet now the right away for four lane roads or is it still one hundred and forty two feet?
So I might be able to answer that question. Um The county has adopted new right-of-way cross sections that do narrow the right-of-way, but it's only for county roadways. So DOT has not necessarily agreed to those widths for state roadways. So All of the alternatives, standards, or variances you're seeing Um are on state roadways. So we've not changed the widths on
state roadways yet.
Okay, so just to clarify then if if somebody has a project that's not on a state Roadway. And the D in the right-of-way preservation table say 142 feet. They don't need to come for an alternative standard. They can just
use
the new cross section.
But no, there is an alternative standard required, but it's it's administratively approved. It doesn't come to the Planning Commission.
Okay. Is is there any discussion to get rid of that? It just seems seems like just and then
that's absolutely Yeah
yeah
the answer is yes um but it requires us to amend our tables and our comprehensive plan. The issue is that we haven't yet amended the comprehensive plan tables. So I know staff is working on those amendments to make the comprehensive plan tables consistent with the new cross sections. But they have not yet done that. So we've tried to simplify the process to Have the new cross sections approved by allowing them to be administratively approved. But that's really the best we can do until the comp plan is amended.
Okay, very good. Thank you.
All right. So that remains on consent. Yeah.