Laserfiche WebLink
Q 51, R <br />BOOK 100 PAGE � V � <br />a lot of right-of-way. He then presented Option # 1, which was the historical and traditional <br />manner, but least desirable to the property owners. <br />Commissioner Ginn, as a member of the Regional Planning Council, commented that <br />they want Indian River County to keep our grid because problems have occurred in South <br />Florida due to elimination of grids. <br />Director Davis added that many letters have been received from developments on the <br />north side of SR60 thanking the County for putting in 26 h Street as an option for them to use <br />when heading east or west instead of using SR60. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge noted that Option #7 called for the elimination of a portion <br />of SR60, so that would not be desirable. <br />Director Davis then presented Option #2 again, which is the one recommended by <br />staff. He then presented Option #3, a hybrid, which would impact the three easternmost lots <br />and would require right-of-way from them at a cost of about $700,000. He presented Option <br />#4 which would involve the Drainage District approving relocation of the sub -lateral canal; <br />the District was not keen on it and cost was estimated at $600,000. Option #5 would require <br />right-of-way from the south, and would cost about $600,000 and would impact the new <br />development. The estimate did not include right-of-way acquisition. Finally, Option #6 was <br />not acceptable to the homeowners in West Lake Estates as it would require more of their <br />right-of-way. <br />Mary Holmen, a resident of West Lake Estates, questioned the need for continuation <br />of 16' Street because she saw no destination at the end of it. She felt it was strictly for the <br />developers of Pointe West. <br />Frank Coffey, 88 Cache Cay, recommended the Commission follow their competent <br />staff's recommendation and questioned the micro -management of this matter. <br />Commissioner Ginn explained that when the Board had first met on this, they <br />requested the road go south of the canal. She felt that was the reason the Commissioners <br />were giving this matter such a thorough evaluation. <br />Vice Chairman Adams was still not convinced that this could not be improved upon <br />and wanted to hear the cost for the developer to redesign and give up the 30 -foot right-of- <br />way <br />ight of - <br />way by putting the road on the south of the canal. She had only heard it described as <br />"substantial". <br />JULY 27, 1999 <br />84 <br />