My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/15/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
8/15/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:01:03 PM
Creation date
6/15/2015 4:50:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/15/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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 M <br />and agreed the question is compensation. He continued his <br />argument that the corner property doesn't benefit. <br />Director Davis made the point that there are certain code <br />requirements in regard to separation of a driveway from an inter- <br />section, and this site plan actually doesn't meet that code <br />requirement He explained that staff has been trying to work with <br />the property owner on his site plan to make certain things work, <br />and one of the things we relaxed a little bit was the distance of <br />the driveway to the intersection because we understood marginal <br />access connection was being provided for. Now, if you are <br />taking away that marginal access easement provision, he felt we <br />need to readdress the whole site plan. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if the applicant still gets to <br />figure the marginal access easement footage in on his density <br />calculations, and this was confirmed. <br />Commissioner Eggert further noted that with the marginal <br />access easement, they can park on both sides, and they would have <br />to change their parking without it. <br />Planner Boling explained we are just overlaying an easement <br />on pavement they are already proposing in their site plan. <br />Attorney O'Haire pointed out that they might want to have <br />that driveway somewhere else entirely and again stated that all <br />his client wants is credit against the impact fees"if the Board <br />is going to take the property. <br />Planner Boling informed the Board that there is a special <br />setback provision in this district which allows going to zero <br />setback where you have interconnected parking areas, and they are <br />going to a lesser setback on the mini storage building. If the <br />marginal access easements are taken away, they will need to <br />redesign the site because there won't be interconnected parking. <br />Chairman Wheeler believed that he is hearing from staff that <br />without the marginal access easement, the site plan need to be <br />redone, and that was confirmed. He personally agreed that <br />further down <br />the road as the county develops, <br />it would <br />be <br />to <br />I r. <br />R� ell 19®9 <br />2 7 <br />noF <br />�" F., <br />Y <br />,. „I <br />F' uc �2. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.