6/5/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 5 1985 BOOK 61 P,�,E �. point that he could turn and then back around to get to that property. Director Keating disagreed and stated what we would be considering is the extension of that property line along the right-of-way. Administrator Wright noted that the standard re alcoholic beverages is to go from front door to front door by the most direct pedestrian route on public rights-of-way, and Commissioner Bowman felt what we actually are saying is that if you drive up the westbound lane, when you get opposite the boundary line of the property on the south side of Route 60, you site where it is and look at your odometer and that is it. The Administrator agreed. Commissioner Scurlock inquired about any variance proce- dures, and Attorney Brandenburg stated that there are no variances to the Plan unless specifically written in. The Board has the flexibility of 10% and flexibility re the boundaries, and the only permanent thing is to establish the boundaries up front. Commissioner Bird asked if any thought was given to differ- entiating the separation distances on different types of roads. Director Keating commented that in their first workshop, they were thinking of keeping these nodes off the arterials and more within a neighborhood, but they did not differentiate between arterials and collector roadways. Commissioner Wodtke believed the way the ordinance is written, we will not have a request for a neighborhood node unless there is existing population, and he asked if we have defined what would be considered "densely populated." He noted it says LD -2 or higher and asked if it can be measured just because it is platted or if it has to be built; Director Keating stated that it would be based on potential. Commissioner Wodtke stated that the way he reads it, it says it must be densely populated, and he felt that means existing. population. 50 M i