My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/14/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
1/14/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:30 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:54:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/14/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
Under discussion, Director Davis advised that when the fast - <br />lube mini -warehouse facility went in, a special assessment project <br />was developed for that facility and to include any additional area <br />that received benefit from the turn lane; as a result, the fast - <br />lube mini -warehouse facility escrowed $3,000. If that philosophy <br />is not continued with other development as it occurs, then it is <br />not fair to the fast -lube mini -warehouse facility. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt it was not fair to force one party <br />to make the intersection improvement when the whole area is <br />impacted by this particular intersection. He realized that we want <br />to use our resources as best we can and try to get someone else to <br />pay, but this intersection of U.S. 1 and 99th Street services a <br />larger area than just the fast -lube mini -warehouse and the subject <br />warehouse site and it is a very dangerous intersection. <br />Commissioner Bird asked about plans for funding the <br />intersection improvement. <br />Director Davis said his plan was to proceed with surveying and <br />design and engineering. If the warehouse facility's timing to do <br />the improvement and get his CO is ahead of ours, we would drop the <br />project. If our timing is ahead of his, we would get permits for <br />the project and come back to the Board for funding, estimated at <br />about $20,000 for the turn lane; signalization is not warranted. <br />Commissioner Scurlock stressed that the County has a <br />responsibility for making improvements rather than putting the <br />burden on the last guy to come along. He cited examples of people <br />who had plans that were thwarted because of requirements that were <br />too costly. <br />Director Davis explained the negative implications of looking <br />at new development as it occurs in the community is that you shift <br />priorities so rapidly that you cannot focus on the long-term <br />expansion system. If we put $20,000 here because of development <br />that is occurring on this street when tomorrow, down the street, <br />there may be some other improvement that necessitates improvements, <br />there goes your funding for the major transportation improvements <br />like Indian River Boulevard. The County does not have revenues nor <br />staff resources to respond and to change our priorities so quickly. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. <br />It was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />Commissioner Bowman was in favor of the rezoning but was <br />concerned about the nature of the business planned for the subject <br />warehouse site. <br />35 <br />JAN J4 1992 <br />BOOK 0 F, GES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.