1/14/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In addition, it is staff's opinion that Planning & Zoning Commission members may have operated under a faulty impression during their deliberations at the November 14th meeting. Statements made at the meeting by the project developer and a project agent appear to have left an impression that the Emergency Services Department had no objection to the road name request. The fact is that the Emergency Services'Department does object to the use of road names. Analysis *Road'Designations for the Rosewood Court Subdivision: In general, Chapter 951 sets -forth standards for establishing and continuing a grid pattern of numbered roadways and a logical, properly sequenced residence/business addressing system (see attachment #1). The purpose of maintaining and continuing such a system is to enhance delivery of emergency services, postal services, and navigation of the roadway system by the general public. As with any such system, there are historical patterns and historical exceptions which do not neatly fit within the system. However, new development serviced by new roadways should be made to conform to the Chapter 951 standards; if the standards are not applied, the system looses its integrity little by little. Degradation of the system adversely affects delivery of services, emergency response, and the county's investment in its .911 -EMS emergency response system. As shown on the area graphic (see attachment #2), the proposed subdivision is located within area where a grid pattern of numbered roads already exists. Thus, designating the Rosewood Court subdivision streets with street numbers would merely continue the established pattern in the area of road numbers. Chapter 951 of the LDRs governs the appeal issue and is intended to facilitate timely and efficient emergency response (911) as well as a logical addressing pattern helpful to the general public. In staff's opinion, approval of the street name appeal would adversely affect emergency services response time and the continuation of a logical addressing system. The Director of the Emergency Services department has stated that the department consistently supports the use of road number designations for new projects. Therefore, both planning staff and emergency services staff believe that the Community Development Director's appeal should be approved, that the Planning and Zoning Commission's November 14th decision concerning the use of road names should be overturned, and that the use of road names for the subject project should be denied. *The Dual Designation Compromise At its regular meeting of December 17, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners considered a road name request by the Indian River Country Club Planned Development project developer. Staff recommended denial of the request and noted during the hearing that the Postal Service opposed the use of a dual street designation (eg. 1153rd Drive/Rosewood Drive"). The Board decided that an acceptable compromise between the developer's desires and the staff's position was to allow a dual designation on street signs (the street number would be more prominent), while emergency services would use the street number in its response system and the Postal Service would presumably use the street number designation as well. The Board subsequently voted to allow the developer to use the dual designation compromise. Since the Board's December 17th decision, the Postal Service has written staff and strongly recommends against the use of any dual designations (see attachment 13 SAN 14 1 9S, d