My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/21/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
3/21/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:44:02 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:44:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/21/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
would provide the parking elsewhere. Administrator Chandler <br />stressed that in talking with the church, he made it plain that <br />if they were talking a short term lease, we would change our <br />plans. They indicated they were looking at a long term relation- <br />ship as they need that parking themselves. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed part of the assurance is that <br />the church is facing the same problem with parking requirements <br />as we are if they wish to expand in the future. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if both the county and the church <br />could utilize the same parking area in their site plans, and <br />Administrator Chandler advised that the City Code has a provision <br />allowing such joint use. <br />Commissioner Scurlock did not know if this is the time to <br />discuss it, but obviously we have made a substantial commitment <br />and are moving ahead with our plans for the library and also the <br />court facilities project in the downtown area, and it seems there <br />is some miscommunication about this in relation to the downtown <br />redevelopment effort. He has seen some things coming out in <br />regard to changing density to 45 upa and the height limitation to <br />87' that he personally opposes. Commissioner Scurlock still <br />believed we can do a redevelopment within a reasonable density <br />and reasonable height limitation, and he believed the Commission <br />has indicated we don't need to go to a height of 87' nor need <br />densities of 45 upa. He emphasized that he did not want the <br />redevelopment that's happening to indicate that the County <br />Commission is in favor of such increases because we want to build <br />our court complex. <br />Chairman Wheeler concurred. He noted that he is not a <br />member of the Redevelopment Committee, but he did mention that he <br />had some serious reservations about such increases when the <br />Motion was taken. He felt they did have some good arguments in <br />favor of raising density and heights for the downtown area, but <br />he personally is philosophically and totally opposed to going any <br />higher than 50' and also to raising density no matter how good <br />27 <br />VAR 21 1989 <br />ROOK 76 FAC[ 41 + <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.