My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/04/2004
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2004
>
05/04/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/23/2022 4:27:55 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:03:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/04/2004
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
2927
Book and Page
126, 909-963
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
421
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Commissioner Macht thought it was a good concept for the developers to all work together. <br /> He hated to see it shot down but also would hate for the County to be left holding the bag. The <br />next owner of the property might not be obligated to follow through with arrangements made now. <br /> Commissioner Adams recalled the Board recently approved a request to delete <br />interconnecting sidewalks. <br /> Chairman Ginn noted there was no mechanism to require that be done, and Commissioner <br />Macht interjected that was also true in this case. <br /> Community Development Director Bob Keating thought the best assurance is that the <br />developers have an enlightened self-interest here. One of the reasons is it would cost hundreds of <br />thousands of dollars to make changes and they also realize by doing what the community wants, <br />they have a good chance of being approved. He agreed we do not have a mechanism available to <br />us to control all projects under one agreement. Staff is also working on similar master plans for <br />other areas of the county and working with different developers to design a project with more <br />community benefits. This is important with respect to how well it is done in another area of the <br />county. <br /> Commissioner Macht inquired if the School Board actually identified this as an area where <br />a school is needed, and Director Boling responded in the affirmative. <br /> Chairman Ginn commented that a school in the area would be a positive marketing tool. <br /> <br />Rod Hyman <br /> , Sunland Development, Inc., assured the Commissioners that, as owners of <br />the Echo Lake property, they are committed to do their part on the common elements and he was <br />willing to commit to a park site at this time. After Echo Lake was denied at P&Z, they decided to <br />do a regional plan and have held back so they can go back to P&Z prepared to make a commitment <br />on road improvements, a bridge and the park site. He emphasized that Indian River County has the <br />best planning staff on the Treasure Coast; they are thinking outside the box and trying to pull the <br />development community with them. <br /> <br />MAY 4, 2004 16 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.