My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/28/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
11/28/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 9:59:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/28/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
BOOK 59 PAGE 62 <br />Section II adopts for the purposes of the interim ordinance <br />the transportation section of the HIMP so that we do not have to <br />restate it completely in this ordinance since the DCA has indicated <br />that we must use those assumptions and trip generation rates as a <br />basis for the moratorium until such time as we can come up with <br />something better that they can approve from a technical standpoint. <br />Barton Ashmann & Associates have been hired to do just that and, <br />hopefully, within the next few months they will come up with <br />something the County can view as a better transportation plan for <br />the barrier island. <br />Section III defines the barrier island, development approval <br />and a residential unit. <br />Attorney Brandenburg advised that the real meat of the <br />ordinance is in Section IV, which indicates that no development <br />approvals for any projects on the barrier island shall be granted <br />by any of those boards or the County Commission at a density <br />which exceeds one residential unit per acre. It goes on to <br />indicate that when you consider the maximum density on a particular <br />piece of property, you view it on the gross acreage of that <br />property, which would then allow properties to be phased in under <br />the concept that Chairman Scurlock outlined earlier. For instance, <br />if the gross acreage was 100, a developer could put 100 units on <br />10 acres.as Phase I with the hope that at sometime in the future <br />the transportation network and plan would be in place to allow <br />them to go on to Phase II or III. He noted that this restriction <br />does not apply to projects that previously have received site <br />plan approval, final plat approval, or have gone through the <br />planning process and have achieved the level of obtaining a land <br />development permit. <br />Attorney Brandenburg advised that commercial land is not <br />affected by the restriction as it is categorized as a use that <br />does not generate traffic, but he suggested that when commercial <br />developments are reviewed in the future, consideration be given <br />to the trips that would be generated and where those trips would <br />62 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.