234 in the published record, 7 in the recordings
234 items
Published agendas and the dispositions the approved minutes recorded. Twelve years, whether or not a camera was running.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
Approved minutesApproved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda including the noted correction to the Agenda Memo for the project’s address to state, “at Meadowpointe Boulevard at the intersections of State Road 54, State Road 56, and Beardsley” by a roll call vote.
7 moments
Machine transcription of 283 recorded meetings — 9% of decided items have one. Speaker names are inferred from voice and can be wrong.
Barbara Wilhite Barbara Will Height, 6327, Grand Boulevard for the applicant. We have not heard from the neighbors, so I'm not sure exactly what their comments will be. But just briefly, um this parcel was created because 54 when it was rebuilt and when it was built actually and expanded to what it is today. I replaced Black Lake, was now Black Black Lake Road. So when I was growing up, we used to go down fifty-four. But this parcel was created in between what used to be State Road fifty four and what's State Road fifty four today. a lot of visioning on this property um with county staff and the district commissioner This is a project that they want to see. It's going to add commercial uses, restaurants, and an area where we have a lot of planned residential, a lot of existing residential. Two lighted intersections, lit intersections with lights today, bus service. So it's a it's a very good compliment. I can tell you that a lot of people looked at this parcel for residential development, but both staff and myself discouraged that. So
Barbara Wilhite There's a Swift Mont Code that we're supposed to follow. There's a Capasco County Land Development Code, adopted codes, adopted state regulations that we're supposed to follow, and we have to follow. up new rules at zoning at planning commission is really not fair to this applicant.
Barbara Wilhite we were excited to bring this project forward. My Kevin, my client Kevin Frazier, is here who is looking forward to bringing this project forward and providing some Pretty cool uh restaurant uses, I think. And um Steve Henry is here to talk about traffic if those if that's the issue. Thank you.
Barbara Wilhite That ordinance I'm sure if it was your client's property, you wouldn't want that applied either. That's ordinance has a lot of subjectivity into it. I know it. Very well. And it's not an ordinance that's written.
Barbara Wilhite actually is gonna be. And you're talking about a major parallel road. And we're the red piece on here So we're like missing leg. Um wire grass is only obligated to do The um Vision Road H up until Y Rest Boulevard. So So not only are we at 54, we're actually at a major intersection. Traffic can come from Hillsburg County when the road's finished, come by our project, and then up all the way to State Road 52, as you can see on this exhibit. The other thing that's kind of significant too is that we were not only the we're not only preparing for not only going to do the missing leg that Wiregrass doesn't have to do, but we're also the missing right-of-way. because normally you would split the right of way for such a road between two property owners, but because of the alignment of where Vision Road H will continue north, It needs to be on the my client's property. So we're not only the missing leg on Wire Brass's property, but we're the missing right-of-way on my client's property, about five acres of property to achieve that vision
Barbara Wilhite I could put on the record we have no problem doing that. Our intent is intent is if we can help, we can help. Yeah, we that's what every engineer I know ha always does. I mean they it's always they stand up here and say Well we to the extent we can improve the situation, we can't make it worse, but if we have the opportunity to improve it, we will.
Barbara Wilhite that location, thirty-five townhomes, four hundred and sixty five multifamily The multifamily have to be located behind non-residential land uses along on State Road 54. That is your policy that you've adopted for other areas of State Road 54 that say that those residential uses need to go behind non-residential uses. That policy does not apply in this location. But we have I've made it apply in this location. This is the Mudham Plan. These are the integrated, um vertically integrated mixed use buildings here. You have apartments in a pedestrian friendly um layout. These are the town homes. This is the existing entrance. This way is north. When you look at this, you generally want to go this way is north, but that way is north. Area two, that's the area that's being added. That's a nineteen point five two acre parcel already has it has a res six land use designation on it. We're proposing a maximum of 120 platted townhomes. Um 25,000 square feet of commercial retail office. Again, we're putting the non-residential against State Road 54 and the residential behind. um pursuant to the policy direction, general policy direction that we've heard the Board of County Commissioners express. The only access is to State Road fifty four, as