3/9/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 103 F'AGE577 Brian Heady, Vero Beach, advised that the "devil is in the details". He was not opposed to the project, but was opposed to "seizing" other peoples' property to accommodate a new development. He reported that he was at the School Board Meeting; there had been no agreement to put an elementary school in the project, but the real future need is for a middle school. Vice Chairman Adams stressed that the improvement to 16' Street will be done by the County not the developer. That must be kept in mind because the County would need to purchase property if the road is moved (from the original dedication). Julie Stroh, whose home is 98% completed on 74' Avenue property they purchased 1%2 years ago, stated that she had asked a lot of questions about what development was anticipated prior to purchasing the lot from the County. She was unhappy that it was not disclosed to her that the County staff was having discussions with the developers of this project. Another concern was installation of a traffic light at 74' Avenue and 16'h Street and backup of traffic at that light. Leaving the road on the south side of the canal, she felt, would alleviate some of the traffic backup. She also was concerned about the location set aside for the school and where the buffering would be located. She felt the best design would have had the golf course surrounding the development giving buffering to the surrounding properties. She believed that, because the proposed development was still in the design stage, it would be easy to change the design. She also felt the number of units should be scaled back. Director Keating pointed out that the 1199 units puts them into DRI requirements. He then explained DRI requirements and stated that the proposed development does not exceed the allowable density. Director Boling stated the development is at about 95% of the allowed density. Mike Wright, 741116` Manor South, West Lake Estates, has been a lifelong resident of Indian River County and lived in West Lake Estates for the past 10 years. He was opposed to the proposed project since it exceeded his expectations of what could be placed on that property. He took issue with the designation of 16* Street as an E -W collector road. He thought the County's thoroughfare plan was not cast in stone and saw no need for 16t` Street to go through between 66t` Avenue and 82 d Avenue. He told of a meeting with the developers, at which time the developers told them they had requested the County abandon 16* Street as part of their development and the County denied the request. They said they wanted to be a good neighbor, minimize the impact, and would be putting in a landscape MARCH 9, 1999 56