My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/15/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
4/15/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:17 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:02:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/15/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
Alternatives and Analysis <br />The present road design does not provide adequate access to Citrus Road <br />nor 6th Street to the �!orth. Two alternatives are present <br />A) Redesign the road network to provide better access and internal <br />traffic circulation and the T.R.C.recommendation honored. Lots <br />�. facing 43rd Avenue should have non -access easements. This alter- <br />native would be in compliance with Section 4 Paragraph.l(b) and <br />(c) Subdivision Regulation 75-3. <br />B) Accept the proposed plat and request escrow funds for paving a half <br />road on 6th Street right-of-way. This alternative would be in <br />compliance with Section 4 Paragraph 1 (d) and (e) Subdivision <br />Regulation 75-3. <br />Drainage revisions have been made and approved. <br />Recommendations <br />Both of the above alternatives have features that comply with the <br />Subdivision Regulations. It is the TRC and staff recommendation, however, <br />to recommend as first preference, alternative A, thereby, requesting the <br />owner to redesign the road network to provide better access to existing roads <br />and additional connecting streets. If alternative B, approving the existing <br />road network, is accepted, it is recommended that the developer post a cash bond <br />to pave , a road along 6th Street =.Y <br />OWNER GEORGE FREDERICK APPROACHED THE BOARD AND STATED <br />THAT HE PREFERRED TO HAVE JUST ONE ACCESS INTO THE SUBDIVISION AS <br />TWO ACCESSES MIGHT CREATE A HAZARD. <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT THE DEVELOPER DOES MEET <br />THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AT THIS TIME - HIS RECOMMENDATION TO <br />THE BOARD WOULD BE TO 'USE ALTERNATE B OF HIS MEMO. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMI-S- <br />SIONER SCURLOCK THAT THE BOARD GRANT PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF <br />WESTWIND SUBDIVISION, SUBJECT TO ALTERNATE B OF ADMINISTRATOR <br />NELSONS MEMO DATED APRIL 8, 1981. <br />MR. FREDERICK STATED THAT THIS -WAS THE FIRST TIME HE HAD <br />s <br />HEARD ABOUT PUTTING UP ESCROW FUNDS. <br />PAUL F. ROSSKAMP, SURVEYOR, EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAD <br />DEDICATED 35' RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 6TH STREET. <br />LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT DEVELOPERS PUTTING UP <br />ESCROW FUNDS FOR PAVING OF HALF -ROADS. <br />R.111 iss� <br />15 <br />46 <br />gem- <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.