11/13/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At the October 16th meeting, -the applicant requested another continuation to allow more time for the applicant to work with staff and come up with specific proposals to address the four issue areas. After much discussion and questioning, the applicant agreed that a continuation of consideration to the November 13, 1990 meeting would allow sufficient time to work with staff and formulate a final position on the four issues. The Board continued the public hearing to its regular meeting of November 13th. •Since the October 16th Meeting Since the October 16th meeting, staff has had several meetings with the applicant, has published a "courtesy notice" advertisement for the rescheduled November 13th meeting, and has requested (but as of the date of this report has not received) specific proposals regarding the four issue areas and related D.O. language modifications. Staff initiated and set-up the first staff/developer meeting after the October 16th hearing; that meeting was held on October 22nd. No progress was made on any of the issue areas. At that meeting the staff again explained its position on the four disputed issues. The applicant, however, proposed a new traffic circulation analysis and schedule of improvements that were not only totally unacceptable to county staff, but would have required Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council concurrence. After the meeting, county planning staff contacted Regional Planning Council staff regarding the proposed new traffic provisions. Regional Planning Council staff indicated that such provisions would be unacceptable. and would require a full re -review of the project to even be considered. Subsequently, the applicant arranged to meet with County staff again on October 25th. The only issue area discussed was concurrency in relation to traffic improvements. While progress seemed to be made in relation to the timing of improvements to 43rd Avenue, the applicant indicated that he had the same concern regarding all other required traffic improvements. Also on October 25th, the applicant's engineering consultants met with County public works staff and the Drainage District engineering staff. Although most of the discussion related to the District's newly adopted discharge rate and its application to road construction projects, the subject of possible 66th Avenue expansion (relocate or boulevard around Lateral "A") was briefly discussed. The Drainage District's engineering staff indicated that their preference would be that 66th Avenue be expanded to the west and that Lateral "A" canal should not be re -located or boulevarded. No Drainage District official position would be taken without the District Board acting on a formal request; the next District Board meeting is to be held November 13, 1990. ANALYSIS Since the October 16th meeting, no new information or proposals by the applicant have been provided which have changed staff's position. Staff's position on the four issue areas• is as*follows: 1. The drainage '.condition (#19, se( the applicant was recommended by to aid An filtration and to stormwater run-off entering ti County staff is in agreement Council condition, especially quality of run-off entering the 19 a attachment#1) of concern to the Regional Planning Council increase the quality of the ie proposed detention ponds. with this Regional Planning since it will increase the on-site ponds.