7/27/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK l PAGE tv"` In response to Vice Chairman Adams' inquiry, Director Davis advised that the cost of the piping for one of the options was estimated by staff to be between $200,000 and $300,000. He then displayed a drawing of the plan (Option 2) with which the majority (4 of 6) of the West Lake Estates property owners directly affected by the frontage seemed to be in agreement. Director Davis responded in detail to several questions of the Commissioners concerning this plan. In addition, he advised that this plan also provides some traffic calming features. Then, in response to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Director Davis advised that the developer had major concerns if the road were to go south of the canal. Director Davis pointed out that a G masonry wall along the north of the road to provide additional buffers to the West Lake Estates lots is included in the recommendation. In response to Commissioner Stanbridge's inquiry, Director Davis explained staff's continued strong objection to eliminating this stretch of 16'hStreet as it has been an integral part of the thoroughfare plan from the early 1980's and has been part of the modeling of the County's transportation system. Also, if sections of these east -west roads are abandoned, it would cause an impact on other roadways and create other concerns withrespectto ingress and egress for homeowners and subdivisions that front on SR -60 and 161` Street. Inresponse to Commissioner Gin's inquiry about culverting the canal, but taking 30' from the south side to make the roadway, Director Davis advised that was considered as option #5. He explained that it would disrupt the water retention area and the golf course and the applicant objected because it would dramatically affect his plans. It also would mean the range -line canal would have to be bridged south of the sub -lateral which would impact the alignment to the east. Chuck Mechling, representing the Pointe West project, explained this option would further complicate everything that had been previously designed. If they went to this plan, they would be losing 30 feet on both sides (lVh and 16t` Streets) of their property. Staff has convinced him of the importance of continuing 16' Street and he was unwilling to abandon that section of 16' Street. He stated the developers were willing to put the road within the existing right-of-way in the Comprehensive Plan, take no property from the homeowners, and cause no great additional expense for redesign/engineering work. Chairman Macht understood that the majority of the parties were in agreement with the recommendation and acknowledged that not everyone is completely satisfied with any JULY 279 1999 82