My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/2/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
5/2/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/8/2015 2:09:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/02/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
the next few years, the near future will determine the prospects <br />for S.R. 60 for many years. <br />Although the county's land development regulations are adequate <br />generally, these regulations apply equally to U.S. #1 and S.R. 60. <br />Consequently, the LDR's allow U.S. #1 type of development (eg, pole <br />signs, automobile dealerships, and minimal landscaping) along S.R. <br />60. For example, a Discount Auto Parts store, with a minimum <br />landscape plan and probably a bright yellow sign, is under <br />construction on S.R. 60 west of 43rd Avenue. <br />Several roadways in the state provide contrasting images of what <br />S.R. 60 could be. On the negative side, commercial stretches of <br />S.R. 60 could look like U.S. 192 in Melbourne or Osceola County. <br />Conversely, 60 could have an appearance like Indiantown Road in <br />Jupiter or S.R. 421 in Port Orange. The differences relate to sign <br />control, limited architectural control, enhanced landscape <br />requirements, and public expenditures on right-of-way improvement <br />and maintenance. <br />To address S.R. 60, the Board could direct staff to prepare a S.R. <br />60 corridor plan. This would probably be an eight to twelve month <br />project and would be done in house. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners acknowledge <br />the community support for preparation of a Wabasso Corridor plan <br />and appoint a Wabasso Corridor Plan task force. The task force can <br />be composed of those citizens on -the attached list or others to be <br />appointed by the Board. Staff'" further recommends that the Board <br />direct staff to prepare a S.R. 60 corridor plan. <br />Community Development Director Robert Keating regretfully <br />reported that staff's efforts to implement the Wabasso corridor <br />plan have been stymied by disruptive people at 2 of the last 3 <br />meetings. Staff's recommendation is that the Board direct staff <br />to continue working on a Wabasso corridor study and approve the use <br />of a task force composed of the people listed below: <br />LIST OF PROPOSED TASK FORCE <br />1. Wang Tsen Chen <br />2. Steve Massey <br />3. Thomas P. Lowe <br />4. John C. Atz <br />5. Ruth Meagers <br />6. Beverly Morse <br />7. Steven Parsons <br />8. Kenneth P. Kennedy <br />9. Brenda Bishop <br />10. Marion Stough <br />11. Jim Flinn <br />12. Robert Valentino - <br />13. Steve Lewis <br />14. Jean Crane <br />9 <br />MAY 2 1995 <br />17 900K F�1GE 9® <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.