My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/27/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
6/27/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:01:02 PM
Creation date
6/15/2015 4:38:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/27/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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
Fr <br />JUN 2 ee 1989 7 <br />BOOK rt�v� '1 <br />developments there would be a big negative and may have already <br />ruined the historical integrity. <br />Planner Boling advised that Dr. Adams, after viewing the <br />Trail just last week, was of the opinion that the realignment as <br />proposed would not have any worse effect than the development <br />that has already occurred at Sea Oaks, Indian Trails, etc. <br />Planner Boling resumed his presentation and proceeded to <br />review the conditions of staff's recommendation and how they <br />differed from those presented to the P&Z Commission. Condi- <br />tions #1, #2 and #5 are the same, and the others differ as <br />follows: <br />3. that the applicant grant to the County and the Town of Orchid <br />a conservation tract and buffer areas between the proposed <br />new Trail and S.R. A.I.A. (except for an area around the <br />project's entrance road not to exceed a total width of 2001) <br />and between the new Trail, and the project's south property <br />boundary located east of the existing Trail, for purposes of <br />preserving vegetation; <br />Planner Boling explained that in the middle of that <br />condition we are talking about the area at the corners of the <br />realignment where the project boundary is very close and asking <br />that buffer area be brought out to the project boundary; he did <br />not believe the applicant has a problem with that. We also want <br />increased buffer at the portion of the realignment near A -1-A, <br />but the developer is asking for an exception to that area because <br />he wants to control their entrance onto A -1-A, and that exception <br />is different than what was presented to the P&Z. <br />4. that the proposed 30' "habitable building setback" instead be <br />established and granted to the County, as a buffer area, <br />allowing only preservation of existing vegetation and the <br />location or construction of: <br />a. vegetative plantings, <br />b. fences or walls located at least 10' from the inner <br />(Trail -ward) boundary of the 30' buffer, <br />C. g.olf cart and/or pedestrian paths= <br />Planner Boling advised that this has been modified to say <br />the 30' setback is to be treated as a buffer area with only <br />certain structures allowed. The applicant objects to this and <br />wants to be able to put some other type of structures in there. <br />46 <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.