My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/21/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
5/21/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:21:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/21/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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
PooK 83 Fac 405 <br />Commissioner Eggert felt another question was configuration <br />and brought up the possibility that the vacant part of the node <br />east of U.S.1 should not be developed at all. <br />Director Keating said staff addressed that point in the <br />alternatives in his memo. He stated the applicant and staff agreed <br />that the node could be reconfigured instead of expanded. If the <br />node were expanded without taking anything out you have potential <br />for commercial development across the street and then the internal <br />capture advantage is lost. <br />Commissioner Eggert mentioned the hospital node and asked what <br />exactly the hospital owns. Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani <br />.assisted by indicating the outlined areas. Director Keating <br />recounted the hospital area is where the applicant and staff have <br />a disagreement as to what is considered developed. Staff <br />considered a portion west of the hospital developed because it has <br />a residential structure on it. This is not owned by the hospital <br />and staff felt it could be a prime candidate for removal from the <br />node if the Board decided to reconfigure the node. <br />Commissioner Wheeler noted that if the node were reconfigured <br />it would not affect the size of the node. <br />Director Keating concurred and added it would not be an <br />expansion, just reconfiguration; then we don't have to worry about <br />the 70%. <br />Commissioner Eggert was concerned that all the hospital <br />property is not shown as being developed. She felt it is being <br />used for drainage and to meet some of their other needs there and <br />could not understand what use there could be other than expansion <br />of the hospital. <br />Director Keating indicated Bay Street, which is a public <br />roadway, could access the hospital property without going through <br />the hospital property and noted there are other non-residential <br />uses, medical -type uses, such as drug stores. Staff determined <br />that there is development on about two-thirds of it and there is <br />sufficient land remaining that could accommodate additional <br />development. <br />Commissioner Eggert wanted confirmation that it all belongs to <br />the hospital. Director Keating confirmed that to be the case and <br />added that if that is considered developed, then the node would be <br />67% developed. <br />Chairman Bird asked if the 70% is the threshold or a magic <br />number. <br />Director Keating said the threshold is 70%. After discussions <br />between the applicant and the attorneys, our attorney advised that, <br />28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.