Laserfiche WebLink
STAFF POSITION: <br />1) The lots in the proposed subdivision are a minimum of <br />1/2 acre. A density of 2 lots/acre is consistent with <br />the Land Use Designation, zoning, and existing land uses <br />in the area. <br />2) Using Kelly Road for primary access to the site will <br />create adverse impacts on the road and on the County's <br />maintazance operation. In the past, County Commission <br />policy has been that the paving of Kelly Road and related <br />drainage improvements shall be by Special Assessment Or- <br />dinance (81-27) or by inclusion on the County's 5 year road <br />improvement plan, funded by the Transportation Trust Fund. <br />RECO11IMNDATION: <br />Staff recommends a motion including the following: <br />1) To grant preliminary plat approval to Dixie Terrace Sub- <br />division and; <br />2) As provided in Ordinance 81-27, the County Commission <br />initiate action resulting in the improvement of Kelly Road <br />between Old Dixie Highway and the subject property. - <br />Harlan Peterson, Engineer for Dixie Terrace Subdivision, <br />reported that this 34 acre property is planned for 50 half acre <br />lots, which gives a density of 1.5. It is located four blocks <br />south of Oslo Road and is on the ridge. <br />Discussion ensued. as to the fact that 13th St. SW (Kelly <br />Road), which will be the entrance to the proposed subdivision <br />from Old Dixie, is unpaved, and County Engineer Davis reported <br />that 13th St. SW is nothing but a sand road, and in Dixie Heights <br />Subdivision immediately to the east, many of the roads are not <br />maintained; some actually are mowed. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if the developer had any problem <br />with staff's recommendation re improving Kelly Road as provided <br />in Ordinance 81-27,.and Mr. Peterson stated they did not. <br />Lengthy discussion followed regarding the need for planning <br />for the future when Kelly Road may be a major thoroughfare and <br />how best to deal with the problem of improving this road. It was <br />noted that this is not a high economic area and further noted <br />that we have in the past required the developer to improve a road <br />out to the -nearest travelable road. <br />81 <br />1 •• <br />The possibility of having <br />