My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/6/1983
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1983
>
4/6/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:00 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:53:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/06/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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
APR 6 1983 <br />need to maintain the dedicated street and at the same time relieve <br />the County of any potential liability. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff recommends the County abandon its rights to that portion of <br />3rd Street lying between 17th & 18th Avenues as shown on the plat <br />of Indian River Heights Subdivision, Unit 3 and authorize the <br />Chairman of the County Commission to execute the Resolution in <br />Attachment 5. <br />Mary Jane Goetzfried, Planning & Zoning Department, <br />explained the past history of this right-of-way. Using.a <br />subdivision plat, she pointed out that the road does not <br />lend itself to good traffic patterns through the subdivision <br />and staff recommended that this right-of-way be abandoned. <br />Commissioner Wodtke asked if the owner of lot #1 shown <br />on the plat map would acquire what would be the equivalent <br />to 161 foot frontage and could that owner split that lot and <br />build a home on it. <br />Bruce King, Director of Planning & Zoning, explained <br />that a minimum lot frontage is 75 feet in that zoning <br />district and the owner could subdivide. However, there is a <br />provision about further subdividing of lots within existing <br />platted subdivisions. <br />Attorney Paull stated that in order to subdivide this <br />,particular lot, the owner would have to comply with the"very <br />last revision of the subdivision ordinance which requires <br />that division of any lots in a recorded subdivision have to <br />be in a manner that they are not creating any lots that are <br />smaller than or inconsistent with.the surrounding building <br />.;.x nr.� r.si:s��_ ,,��x4:, :, n"'°g0 &i.�„"»v'L"` <br />sites. If that owner was going to split that lot andcreate <br />a lot that is compatible with what is already there, he <br />could do so without recording a new plat or anything of that <br />nature. <br />Commissioner Wodtke felt that in this particular case, <br />it certainly would be a windfall of considerable value, and <br />perhaps there is a way the County could be compensated. <br />49 <br />�J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.