5/23/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. Determine that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation, and 2. Approve the amendments, as recommended and presented by staff. The Board is now to consider the request, and is to determine whether or not the request constitutes a substantial deviation. If the Board determines that the request is not a substantial deviation, it must take action to approve, approve with changes, or deny the proposed amendments. ANALYSIS: *Determination: Not a Substantial Deviation Request The developer has stated that the proposed D.O. amendments should not be considered a substantial deviation request because the amendments will not increase project area or intensity or impacts, and. will not change the timing or configuration of required transportation improvements. County staff agree. Furthermore, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and Department of Community Affairs (DCA) staff have reviewed the proposed amendments and have no objections to the changes. Furthermore, TCRPC and DCA Staff have stated that the request does not appear to constitute a substantial deviation (see attachment #3 and #4). Therefore, it is staff's position that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation. •Effects of Amendments Public works and planning staff have reviewed the request and have worked closely with the developer to structure the amendments in a manner agreeable to county staff and the developer. This agreement commits the county and the developer to performing certain roadway improvements within specified timeframes. The proposed amendments would amend a concurrency finding, and would replace 4 of the 15 transportation conditions contained in the existing D.O.: the remaining 11 transportation conditions would not be changed. The proposed changes would assign developer and county responsibilities as follows: 1. Six-laning SR 60 from 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue would be designed, permitted, secured with posted security, and constructed by the developer. Costs associated with any SR 60 right-of-way acquisition would be borne by the developer. As stated in the existing D.O., the six-laning improvement must be completed prior to the mall opening [issuance of a certification of occupancy (C.O.)]. 2. Signalization of 66th Avenue/SR 60 and SR 60/Access F intersections would be installed by the developer as approved by FDOT. As with signals at other public road intersections, the county would accept maintenance of the 66th Avenue/SR 60 signal. The county would also accept maintenance of the SR 60/Access F (a private, project driveway) signal subject to a maintenance agreement that would, among other things, require the developer to pay for maintenance and operation costs. 3. Four-laning 58th Avenue from 26th Street to 16th Street would be the responsibility of the county, and is already listed on the county's adopted capital improvements program. Under the° existing D.O. and the proposed amendment, this improvement would need to be completed or under construction prior to , issuance of a C.O. Four-laning these segments of 58th Avenue is part of a larger project to design and permit the four- laning of 58th Avenue from 26th Street to a point south of 4th Street, and to accommodate future four-laning from that point 21 FcoK 95 P4GE X79 May 23, 1995