9/8/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Plan" (November 1995), and the "State Road 60 Corridor Plan" (April 1997). Both plans were developed and workshopped by Board -appointed task forces, were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board prior to adoption, and required 9-12 months of work to complete. The Board has directed staff to prepare a CR 512 corridor plan. Other major entryways could be considered for special corridor planning efforts. During development of the SR 60 Corridor Plan, there was discussion about applying corridor requirements along all or most major roadways in the county. At this time it is important for the Board to define special corridor areas in the county and adopt an approach for corridor planning. The approved approach will need to balance desires for unique approaches and requirements for different roadways against the creation of a myriad of differing requirements for various roadways throughout the county. Staff has outlined four basic corridor planning approaches for the Board to consider: A. Define all special corridors by Board consensus, appoint a task force for each corridor, and spend 9-12 months of effort for each corridor plan. In essence, this would follow the Wabasso and SR 60 models and would result in separate, completely unique plans and sets of plan requirements. B. Define all special corridors by Board consensus, and adopt (apply) existing corridor plan requirements from either the Wabasso Plan, the SR 60 Plan, or a mixture of both. This approach would take a small amount of time, would share consistency with the currently adopted plans but would not allow unique treatment or local community input. C. Define all special corridors by Board consensus, have staff draft a plan based on the Wabasso and/or SR 60 plans, and hold a few open workshops in the local community for input and adjustments. This approach would take a few months, would share consistency with the currently adopted plan and would allow some local community input. D. Perform no more corridor planning on the order of the Wabasso or SR 60 plans. Rather, rely on upgraded landscaping resulting from the countywide pending ordinance and the public right-of-way special landscaping on designated roads. QUESTION #6 FOR TBE BOARD: WHICH CORRIDOR PLANNING APPROACH DOES THE BOARD WANT STAFF TO TAKE? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board conduct workshop discussion and address the six workshop questions raised in this report. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Chapter 926 (Existing LDRs) 2. Pending Ordinance (Now Being Applied) 3. Estimated Costs of the Pending Ordinance Requirements 4. FP&L Suggested Ordinance Additions and Justification 5. SR 60 Corridor Plan Public Sector Guidelines 6. Proposed Major Urban Roadway "Typical" Landscape Guideline 7. Proposed Major Rural Roadway "Typical" Landscape Guideline 8. Estimated Installation & Maintenance Costs 9. Map of Major Roadways & Corridors 11 September 8, 1997 BOOK _10 r PAGE � 1 t1