My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/13/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
6/13/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:45 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:06:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/13/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
K <br />JUN 1.3199U <br />BOOK 8�-y� <br />of Block 44 out to SR60, Block 36 with the exception of the <br />Women's Club, part of Block 28 and part of Block 30. Mr. Schlitt <br />stated that.based on the contracts they have now and commitments <br />from property owners, they feel their real estate purchase price <br />is 1.2 million less than what the County is proposing. Demoli- <br />tion is not included in any of his figures. When he has <br />contracted properties, it included what the MAI appraisal would <br />indicate as well as what the property owner was willing to <br />accept, and he feels their numbers are very accurate. He felt <br />if you added demolition costs to both proposals, it would <br />increase the difference $200/300,000 and further pointed out that <br />by the time you add the cost of relocation of the on-going <br />businesses on the property the County wants, the County's costs <br />become much greater. He is just saying that without condemnation <br />and demolition costs, the property difference is about 1.2 <br />million. <br />Mr. Flick.next introduced Randy Mosby, Civil Engineer, who <br />believed that one important item that has not been addressed <br />tonight by the County's consultants is stormwater management and <br />water quality control. Mr. Mosby advised that he has been <br />involved in a predevelopment analysis of the existing downtown <br />area as related to the proposed plan presented by the County's <br />consultants and the plan as presented by Mr. Flick, and currently <br />comparing the elevated parking proposed by Mr. Flick with the <br />parking surface area required by the County's plan, there is <br />about 400/500% difference in impervious area. This means that <br />the County would have to provide about 3/4 acre of stormwater <br />storage, and Mr. Flick's plan only calls for about .14 acres. <br />That is another factor that will require either the purchase of <br />additional land or require the County to go underground with <br />their stormwater storage. The cost under the County's plan for <br />exfiltration trench would be about $282,000 whereas Mr. Flick <br />would only need $56,000 for trench, or 1/4 million dollars <br />difference. <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.