My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/10/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
4/10/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:44 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:58:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/10/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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
F, <br />APR 10 1990 �oo� 79 F��ct $0 <br />Director Pinto advised that the developer wants 3 units <br />total per building and does not, under any circumstances, want to <br />be charged more than that, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that, <br />in other words, it is 6 units versus 8, which is 2 impact fees or <br />$2400. <br />Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing <br />FEDD Investment Corporation and wished to address the difference. <br />He advised that they have been told that they have the potential <br />of subdividing into 16 spaces, but that is not necessarily the <br />developer's plan. How the warehouse is divided into spaces will <br />depend on what the market demands. They have been told by the <br />Utilities Department that the applicant could be charged as many <br />as 16 impact fees if subdivision actually took place in that <br />manner. His client has been trying to convince them that <br />consumption ought to have some relationship to how many impact <br />fees are being charged. They are asking that they pay up -front a <br />total of 3 impact fees per building and that the consumption be <br />monitored to see if more is justified. Mr. Henderson noted that <br />they are running into a problem with the interpretation of the <br />ordinance. Sub -section 21 says for every 5,000' of warehouse <br />space, you get charged one impact fee. That makes great sense <br />when there is one user of the entire warehouse, but when you have <br />warehouses being subdivided, which is a common approach these <br />days, it does not. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt the difference in their approach <br />and staff's recommendation is only about $2400, but Attorney <br />Henderson pointed out that potentially there is a difference of <br />$30,000 per building. They do not mind the up -front approach, <br />but they are asking the county to look not at the number of <br />tenants who move into the building, but rather the consumption, <br />which is what they feel the charge should be based on. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if Director Pinto is recommend- <br />ing a minimum of 8 until the analysis, and then if the tenants do <br />14 <br />-I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.