4/7/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 7 1992 WK quite costly, they recommended paving 80th Avenue (Estes) from the north property line of the development to 126th St. Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that would require the developer to pave in front of property that he does not own and further noted that we have allowed others to bring roads up to marl standards in the past and have accepted them for maintenance. Engineer Davis felt that would not be such a bad situation where you are connecting two roads which the County maintains, but this would make a very bad situation for the grader, which would grade just so far and then have to stop and back out. Considerable,discussion ensued about the roads in this area as to which were graded and maintained, which were dedicated and accepted, etc., and Engineer Davis felt the dedications are very questionable; they were very crude and archaic at the time they were platted and the County did not accept them for maintenance. The same situation exists in Vero Lake Estates. Mr. Davis noted that the tract adjacent to this subdivision is undeveloped and the intent is that - when the owner of that tract wishes to develop, we would request he pave the portion fronting his lots and in that way we could end up with a connected paved road along Estes St. He feared if we start accepting marl roads in this area it will create a burden to the maintenance operation. Question next arose regarding the density of the subject property which is currently zoned R-3 (15 units per acre) but designed LD -1 (3 units per acre) under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that staff is recommending elimination of the wording indicating that these are duplex lots because this is not a transition petition, and, therefore, at the time of site plan review, they would have to recommend denial of duplex sites as being contrary to the CLUP. He commented 42