7/24/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUL 2 4 1990 eOCIF - The Board expressed some confusion as to exactly what Mr. Barkett was talking about, and Administrator Chandler commented that he had felt this item still was tracking through the staff level. Director Davis advised that this relates to Item 8 on the priority list, which is U.S.I. R/W Acquisition in concert with new development. Attorney Barkett further clarified that he has an applica- tion in for his client. They are ready to pull a building permit with the City for a site plan on U.S.I and 19th Place. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan shows a R/W deficiency on U.S.I. of 401, and as part of the site plan process, the comment came back from the County that the applicant should dedicate 20' on U.S.I., and so the City asked his client to dedicate that R/W. His client is ready to dedicate the 201, but submitted an application for impact fee credit because he is donating $36,000 worth of property. He believed staff recommendations were generally favorable, but apparently there have been other similar situa- tions, and it caused Jim Davis to question whether the County should be in the business of buying R/W on U.S.I. Attorney Barkett stressed that the only reason he is here today is because he would like a decision on this particular site on U.S.I. Administrator Chandler did not see how the Commission can make a decision as they do not have the specific facts before them. Director Davis explained that this item actually was directed towards the DOT and what their feeling was on such advance R/W acquisition. He believed that what Attorney Barkett is talking about needs to come back to the Board as a specific agenda item. Commissioner Bird asked what our policy has been in regard to giving impact fee credits. Attorney Vitunac advised that we have always given credit. If they owe us money and we owe them money for the land we are 28 - 4