My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/12/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
11/12/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:46:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/12/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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 />Director Keating explained that while this is a 3 -part <br />request, the rezoning portion will not be considered until the <br />land use amendment comes before the Board for final approval <br />after it comes back from Tallahassee. <br />With respect to expanding the urban service area boundary to <br />include the ±40 acres, Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that <br />when we put in a core line for utilities along certain arterials <br />such as Kings Highway, we seem to be illogical when it comes to <br />land uses and favoring one side of the road over the other for <br />utility service. He believed that major utility lines should <br />extend to and serve the same amount of area on each side of the <br />road. There are several of these situations in the land use <br />designations with regard to allowable densities, SR -60 for <br />example. <br />Director Keating emphasized that it is always difficult to <br />draw a line for boundaries. In this case, when the actual water <br />and sewer lines are put down Kings Highway and available in front <br />of the property, there would be more rationale for it to be <br />considered in an urban service area there. Further, when <br />development occurs to the property to the east of the road, there <br />would be a rationale for increasing the urban service area. <br />Commissioner Scurlock wasn't sure that the line should be <br />drawn at Kings Highway just because it is a physical line that <br />you can see, and Director Keating admitted there is no right or <br />wrong when drawing these boundary lines. However, he felt it is <br />important to remember that the urban service area boundary is not <br />a permanent delineation. It is dynamic, and it is designed to <br />expand when the need arises. Staff doesn't look at Kings Highway <br />as being the ultimate urban service boundary. In fact, we make a <br />point in the staff report here that this property very well may <br />be a candidate for redesignation and expansion just through the <br />normal evolutionary process of development occurring and the <br />County looking at maintaining this residential allocation ratio. <br />If more development occurs, we then can redesignate more land in <br />the urban service area. <br />Commissioner Scurlock just wanted to point out that the <br />subject property where we are going to have to bring water and <br />sewer is only 3 blocks to the south of Pinetree Park, which is <br />designated to be serviced by water and sewer. He noted that <br />Pinetree Park is pretty densely built. <br />Director Keating stated that staff's position has been that <br />if this property is redesignated, it will provide the <br />justification to redesignate all the other property on the west <br />side of Kings Highway. It will have an effect on the residential <br />allocation ratio that we talked about earlier. It also is going <br />0V 1, 2 1911 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.