My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/12/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
12/12/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2018 4:30:59 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 5:47:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/12/2000
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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
by development. <br />John Dean, architect, 21 I b 27`" Avenue, has been working with several clients in <br />these areas to try to make their land productive. He thought the previous speaker may have <br />misunderstood because staff has made no recommendation just offered some alternatives. <br />He believed there were four considerations before the Board. He reasoned that Alternatives <br />3 and 4 should be put aside at this time. He was concerned for property owners and thought <br />the criteria presented by Mr. O'Haire was pretty solid and met the localized prolr�lem. He <br />liked Alternative 2 because it was broader and more far reaching, but there is a time <br />requirement in the DCA ruling about which he was unsure. He questioned a 344 -foot buffer <br />as vague, and suggested if the Board moves forward with Alternative 2 that the criteria be <br />reexamined. He thought the separation was good, but there may be a creative way to <br />accomplish it to everyone's benefit. He thought both Alternatives 1 and 2 would -Mork, but <br />non-use was not good for anyone. He felt detail an the criteria needs to be sharpened. <br />Dactar Vincent, who lives across 58t" Avenue, thought that something needed to be <br />done to help the property owners. His position was for the lowest possible densit,� in order <br />to minimize traffic on 16t" Street which is already sufficient. <br />Renee Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, speaking on behalf of the board of the Civic <br />Association of Indian River County, encouraged the Commission to send this matter back <br />to the Planning &Zoning Commission before they vote on any alternative. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn agreed that was a splendid idea. <br />Pat Brown, 1744 21S` Street, favored Alternative 4, which she justified b�� offering <br />a look at the larger picture in trying to encourage infill. She argued that if the Bo�.rd allows <br />development into this area now, they are defeating their purpose by letting the urb�l n service <br />area spread out further, resulting in the County having to provide service to a larger area to <br />the same number of citizens. She believed it was necessary to hold off expanding the urban <br />December 12, 2000 <br />��{ � � � �� � J� � 124 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.