7/20/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUL 2 0 198 soy 5;4 fAG an individual choice. He questioned the need for requiring sidewalks in a rural area. Attorney Brandenburg agreed that while you may want sidewalks in a higher density subdivision, you may not in rural ones, but if sidewalks are left the responsibility of the builder and some lots never develop, you may end up with sidewalks that just cross in front of one person's yard. He felt if you have sidewalks, they should be throughout the subdivision, but since he did not think it was feasible to say the sidewalks shouldn't be built until everything is sold, they tried to tie it to a two year period. In further discussion, it was noted that Section 9 does not list sidewalks as required, and, in fact, they are only required if they are required in the zoning district applicable to the particular subdivision. Mr. Davis believed we still will want pedestrian corridors on certain thoroughfares which transverse different zoning districts as we hope in the future to implement sidewalk pedestrian routes on thoroughfares in close proximity to schools. Thomas Culler, Architect, addressed the statement on Page 47 that improvements shall be required as "deemed necessary by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Board ........to protect the public health, safety or general welfare," which he regarded as a "catch-all" paragraph. He stated that he would prefer to have everything spelled out so different requirements are not put on every project by the Planning Department and addressed as staff policy. Administrator Wright felt that some common sense has to be involved as we cannot spell out everything. He noted that our goal is to be reasonable, and in the event a point is reached where something cannot be worked out satisfactorily, then the builder can appeal to the Commission. He believed most of Mr. Culler's concerns will be worked out and felt we should keep the ordinance as general as we can. 48