Laserfiche WebLink
JUL 28 1987 <br />Igo v <br />!tL'l. i�,0 <br />River Club golf course. He did not feel that public safety <br />considerations are necessarily present here as they would be in a <br />subdivision in a busy school district, for example, and he <br />believed this must be looked at from a practical point of view. <br />Commissioner Bird inquired about the financial impact of <br />this requirement, and Attorney Henderson stated that it would be <br />..roughly $10,000. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked staff what benefit is derived <br />spending this amount of money to have sidewalks benefiting 8 lots <br />as he felt this is a prime example of cost versus benefit. <br />Chief Planner Boling noted this requirement for sidewalks on <br />both sides of the street was made part of the ordinance before he <br />came to the county, but he believed it is essentially meant to <br />provide convenient access for those lot owners or children to use <br />without having to cross the street. <br />Planning Director Keating commented that if you go PRD, <br />there can be a good deal more flexibility. <br />Commissioner Eggert stated that what she has trouble with is <br />that the plan shows such a big space with no sidewalks, and all <br />of a sudden, we are asking for two, and Commissioner Bird wished <br />to know just where we require sidewalks. <br />Chief Planner Boling advised that sidewalks are required on <br />both sides of the roadway where it is determined that it is not a <br />dead-end cul de sac segment. On secondary collectors, sidewalks <br />are only required on one side of the street. <br />Commissioner Bird did not understand why we only require <br />sidewalks on one side of thoroughfares which he felt constitutes <br />a more dangerous situation. <br />Commissioner Eggert noted that when you look at the plan of <br />River Club, it seems the whole thing consists of cul de sacs. <br />26 <br />M <br />M <br />