My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/19/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
1/19/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:17:58 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:02:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/19/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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
JAN 19 198& <br />BOOK 70 FAc 6'i26 <br />under analysis Section B) 1-7. This section also <br />differentiates between right-of-way dedications/reser- <br />vations needed along a project site's existing road <br />frontage, and the newly dedicated roads created via <br />plats. Dedications/reservations augmenting existing <br />rights-of-way are treated the same as for site plan <br />projects. Newly dedicated rights-of-way are not <br />credited or compensated for because such rights-of-way <br />are project related. <br />To summarize, the proposed amendments codify dedication, reser- <br />vation, and compensation arrangements already utilized by the <br />Board of County Commissioners in a few specific cases. Protection <br />of thoroughfare road rights-of-way from single-family development <br />is new but necessary to save the County significant amounts of <br />time and money for future road projects. The County's 6th Avenue <br />road improvements project attests to the need for such protection. <br />This protection also apprises single-family homeowners of future <br />road needs so that appropriate setbacks may be applied now, to <br />ensure that the normal open spaces and buffering typical of single <br />family neighborhoods is preserved. Such long-range planning will <br />help to ensure that single-family character and viability con- <br />tinues into the future along thoroughfare roads. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the <br />proposed ordinance amendments. <br />Planner Boling noted we now have no requirement for single <br />family development to conform to RIW requirements, and he esti- <br />mated the change would affect about 50 building permits per year. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed we asked Public Works Director <br />Davis to look at impact fees because we have underestimated the <br />cost of acquisition of the RIW that the county wilt be required <br />to pay for under the new legislation. <br />Public Works Director Davis reported that he has reviewed <br />what has been done in recent projects in the nine districts in <br />the impact fee program. He did not feel Districts 1 and 2 will <br />change. The CR 512 improvements near Sebastian will be the <br />first construction project in, District 3, and we don't have the <br />new figures right now. In Districts 5 and 6 where the Boulevard <br />South project has been completed, staff found that the cost of <br />the 6.4 lane miles of construction came out to be $612,000 per <br />lane mile. The impact fee program had anticipated road costs at <br />$385,000 and $286,000 in Districts 5 and 6; so, what they are <br />finding is that the impact fees in Districts 5 and 6 relative to <br />the actual lane mile cost are about half what they should be. <br />66 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.