01/15/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Regardless of current regulations, the Riverpoint gate was properly permitted and does not violate applicable regulations. To address the referenced concerns, the Board, at its Cctober 16th meeting, directed staff to meet with the Espositos, Mrs. Huber, anc Riverpoint property owners' representatives to develop a solution to the traffic impacts associated with the Riverpoint gate. At the Board meeting, it was mentioned that a turn around might be agreeable to the Vero Shores Property owners if the details could be resolved. Subsequent to the Board meeting, staff developed several alternatives to resolve the traffic impacts and presented them to Mr. & Mrs. Esposito and Mrs. Huber on November 9, 2001. Among the alternatives was the option of constructing a cul-de-sac at the end o f the public right-of-way. This option would regiire acquisition o f a small area of additional right-of-way, probably 0'-15', along a 35' frontage of both the Esposito property and the Huber property for pavement and swale drainage. Neither the Espositos nor the Hubers want to give up this area. Of the staff alternatives, only o ne, the alternative which involved relocating the gate to the e ast, was agreeable to the Espositos and Mrs. Huber. As a result, staff met with the Riverpoint property owners on November 29, 2001. Cal Browr, representing the Riverpoint homeowners, stated that the cost to relocate the gate would be approximately $25,000, and the property owners were not acreeable t o that. Although relocation of the gate was not agreeable to the property owners, the property owrers did propose leaving the eastbound ingress gate open during the daytime hours, thereby allowing vehicles to enter and turn around within Riverpoint subdivision. The ingress gate would be closed after dark for security. As proposed, the egress gate would be closed when vehicles were not exiting. Also, the Riverpoint property owners suggested paying for a chain across Mr. and Mrs. Esposito's driveway, conditioned upon the existing metal fence and current gate that opens at the current edge of pavement being removed. The County could allow the chain to be located in the 23rd Street, SE right-of-way if placed at least 6 feet from edge of pavement. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS D espite having met with the Espositos, Mrs. Huber, and Riverpoint property owners, staff has been unable to get agreement on a plan t o resolve the gate issues. While Mr. Esposito is not satisfied with the Riverpoint property owrers' offer to leave the ingress gate open and requests that the gate be relocated, the Riverpoint property owners are not agreeable t o expend approximately $25,000 (their estimate) to relocate the g ate easterly. Although there does not appear to be a resolution that will completely satisfy all parties, the Riverpoint property owners have proposed several actions that will lessen the gate impacts. These include leaving the ingress gate open during the day, leaving the egress gate closed during the day, paying for an Esposito property driveway chain, relocating the 23rd Street SE fire hydrant, and January 15, 2002 71 CV ii t