My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/2/1983
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1983
>
2/2/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:00 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:50:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/02/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
IF <br />527�, ,, L <br />K -Mart shopping center still necessary. Mr. Davis stated <br />that D.O.T. approval would be needed for the Luria's light <br />and that they already had approval for the K -Mart light. <br />Commissioner Wodtke felt that a traffic light at Luria's <br />might not be a bad alternative to solving the traffic hangup <br />problem. <br />It was agreed that there is a problem and we must find <br />the best way to handle it. <br />Jim Davis pointed out that staff was not negligent in <br />informing the developer that the subdivision procedures <br />should be followed, and it was noted that the applicant <br />apparently has proceeded on with his site plan knowing that <br />he had not faced up to the problems involved with a sub- <br />division. <br />J <br />Bruce King, Community Development Director, felt there <br />was some misunderstanding on the design in regard to the <br />Ohio engineering firm being used on this project. He stated <br />his staff was authorized to develop a long-time solution to <br />the problem of ingress and egress and that to have only one <br />lane in and one lane out on U.S. #1 for the 3 -in -1 develop- <br />tnent was not sufficient. He explained the 10th Street <br />access is being developed to loop the three developments <br />together on the western end of the development. <br />Mr. O'Haire continued to argue that all three parcels <br />were shown on the site plan submitted in June of last year, <br />and the applicant was then told what was required,'but in <br />January the applicant's representative was handed a report <br />with conditions he had never seen before. <br />Bruce Douglas, engineer from the Douglas Corporation, <br />and Design Services, a design firm, addressed the Board and <br />stated that he felt there was a change in the planning <br />requirement process and that the developers had fulfilled <br />the original conditions of the site plan and that Bruce King <br />was in error when he said they had not fulfilled the <br />36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.