My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/27/1999
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1999
>
7/27/1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:11:57 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 12:49:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/27/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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
property owner funding along the project frontage between main <br />intersections and 100% county funding along sections where the <br />developer has no frontage. <br />On July 7, 1999, staff and the developer met with the West Lake <br />Estates property owners to present 6-7 options for paving 16th <br />Street west of 74th Avenue. Staff recommended an alternative which <br />provided for 16th Street being constructed in the existing 30' canal <br />right of way and 30' road right of way with no additional right of <br />way being required from West Lake Estates lots, culverting of the <br />canal and constructing a 6' masonry wall. Four of the six property <br />owners fronting the road accepted this design. Two property owners <br />objected and wanted the road placed completely south of the <br />existing canal. Staff has included the existing right-of-way <br />alternative that the majority of property owners have accepted in <br />the developer's agreement. As an alternative, the developer may <br />pay 100% of the cost of paving 16th Street between 74th Avenue and <br />82nd Avenue and seek Traffic Impact Fee credits, since this road <br />does not exist and it is on the County 20 Year Road Improvement <br />Program. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />Since several impacted roads do not front the developer's property, <br />the cost to the County is significant. The alternatives provided <br />are as follows: <br />Alternative No. 1 <br />Approve the developer's agreement. <br />Alternative No. 2 <br />Deny approval and request staff to renegotiate. <br />RECOMMMATIONS AND FUNDING <br />Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. County funding to be from <br />Local Option Sales Tax (Right -of -Way acquisition and 12th Street <br />Improvements), Traffic Impact Fees (16th Street), and Local Option <br />Gas Tax ( 74th Avenue and 16th Street east of 74th Avenue. <br />ATTACMCMgT <br />Developer's Agreement <br />JULY 279 1999 <br />81 <br />BOOK 1 0, 1 OFAGE F'I` <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.