My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/31/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
5/31/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:00:10 PM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:18:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/31/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
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
- M M <br />Such an issue cannot be properly addressed in a variance request, <br />but could be more properly addressed during consideration of an <br />ordinance amendment. There is nothing unique about this project <br />in relation to the effect of the sidewalk requirement upon the <br />project and the intended resulting sidewalk system. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the <br />request to waive the requirement for sidewalks in an industrial <br />subdivision. <br />Planner Boling apologized that there was no location map in <br />the backup materials and advised that the project is located at <br />the corner of Old Dixie and 8th St. and the new road to be <br />created will run north and south parallel to Old Dixie. In a <br />future phase the road curves back around and will connect into <br />Old Dixie. Right now the ordinance would require sidewalks on <br />both sides of the street. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the location of the sidewalks, <br />the length of the road, etc., and Planner Boling noted that when <br />the new regulations were passed in February, it was felt that <br />sidewalks would not be required in low density residential <br />subdivisions, but should be required in higher density residen- <br />tial subdivisions and in higher intensity commercial/industrial <br />uses. The subject request is for a waiver for this particular <br />project; however, the variance criteria are set up for specific <br />cases and unique circumstances, and this subdivision is not <br />unique as far as its physical layout or its particular uses. <br />Commissioner Eggert had mixed emotions about requiring <br />sidewalks in industrial developments. For instance, if we have <br />an industrial park out somewhere where you have to drive and the <br />only thing you are doing there is walking from a parking lot <br />into the building, she could not see requiring the sidewalks. <br />However, if you are in an area where you can walk to that place, <br />she felt it is a little different situation. <br />Commissioner Wheeler also noted that most of these type <br />subdivisions that he has seen are commercial from the standpoint <br />that they are working on cars or bringing in or taking out <br />supplies for service type companies, etc., and he questions <br />42 <br />A11980"BOOK 72 f'nE 447 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.