4/22/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

any possible increases in costs for architectural, materials, or signage requirements would not be meaningful, since there are many variables and options for buildings and signs. However, staff and task force members have noted that almost all.existing buildings and some existing signs along SR 60 would meet the proposed requirements. It should also be noted that, as the proposed plan has been developed over the past 10 months, staff has recommended and applied the evolving proposed standards as part of the "interim SR 60 enhancement requirements". In most cases, staff and developers have worked together to develop project plans that comply with the proposed plan standards. Thus, staff and some developers have already had some real world experience with the requirements of the proposed plan. Throughout the plan preparation process, the task force and staff coordinated with the county attorneys office in regard to legal constraints and the obvious need to balance public interest and private property rights. Legal guidelines furnished to the task force from the county attorneys office are attached (see attachment #6). While the county attorneys office initially had concerns regarding some provisions of the proposed plan (see attachment #7), these have been addressed to the satisfaction of the county attorney's office. As proposed, the plan is structured to allow flexibility in regard to landscape buffer widths and building design. Through public sector requirements, standards for new development and re- development, and non -conformity regulations, the plan should result in an enhanced appearance for the corridor over time. Although staff has expressed some concerns about applying architectural and color requirements to multi -family projects, staff supports the proposed SR 60 Corridor Plan. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, some concerns were expressed and discussed which resulted in minor changes in the proposed plan. Those changes are indicated by "editor's notes" on the proposed plan. Staff will highlight these changes during its presentation at the April 22nd Board meeting. Among its other responsibilities, county planning staff is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and enforcing corridor plan and LDR requirements. In addition to staff review, the proposed plan would establish a volunteer group of task force members and a design professional to provide additional review and ensure that the intent of the plan is carried out. Such commenting would take place during normal pre -application conference and TRC reviews, and would add no additional layer of review. Such an arrangement was approved in the adopted Wabasso Corridor Plan. In regard to SR 60 projects, staff has been informing task force Chairman Gene Waddell of project reviews, and Mr. Waddell has attended review meetings. Staff has coordinated with task force members and the local chapter of AIA (American Institute of Architects) and recommends that, at this time, the on-going project review volunteer group consist of the following: Gene Waddell (SR 60 Task Force Chairman) Tom Foster (SR 60•Task Force Vice -Chairman) Nick Roseland (AIA architect who participated in public meetings). Under the proposed plan, staff would notify those volunteers and invite them to attend pre -application conferences and TRC meetings to comment on projects within the corridor. 30 April 22, 1997