SIDEWALK WAIVER DENIAL (2)
t...,.-~
~-~
::>~
I
August 18, 1978
MEMO TO FILE:
FILE
FROM:
Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager
Copies to: Mr. Clarence J. Kercher, 7501 142nd Aven, No., Largo, Fl. 33541
Mr. Ed. Blanton, Building Director ~
Mrs. Lucille Williams, City C1erk"""""'--
Mr. Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: MEMO ORDER - Waiver of Sidewalk Installation -
Mr. Clarence J. Kercher - North 80 feet of
Lots 33 and 34, South Haven Subdivision, i,' 'J l' 1(,
1501 South Haven Rd.
In response to a request from Mr. Kercher, for a waiver of City require-
ment for installation of a sidewalk at the above-desc ribed property in
conjunction with new construction as required by City Ordinance, I have
examined this property and the following are my findings:
1. There are sidewalks, or paved areas, existing within 200 feet of the
subject property.
2. A sidewalk on this property would form a part of a route leadmg to a
school.
3. 'Ilreabsence of such sidewalk would present a pedestrian hazard.
In my judgment, the above findings do not meet the conditions prescribed
in Ordinance 1624, Section I, paragraph (4) (a), and therefore a waiver
of installation of the sidewalk is denied.
-~,,,,;,,,,~,,"U.1.cl....- ~
EXHIBIT A.
(jr-tl
~.t;J
.,.("'Ii
~ ~.,.v
.,' "0..' '~ \~/'
~S">"
\S01b
1('> .L
<-~....
'~vy
-' ~
C,s\.'>-
~!~ {)~j__O() (3)
..... ,- .,-
I
cl T Y 0 F C LEA R W ATE R
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
TO: Mr. Mike Paroby, Asst. City Manager
FROM: Keith Crawford, Director of Traffic Engineering
COPIES: Ed 81 anton
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Waiver Request 1501 So. Haven Drive
DATE: August 17, 1978
We have'reviewed this location on the street and detennined that
there is no physical condition at this property which would prevent
the sidewalk from being built. Further, there is a sidewalk located
on Nursery Road directly in line with the sidewalk which is required
for this property and separated only by the pavement of So. Haven
Drive. This places it well within the 200' limit established in
the Ordinance. The sidewalk which exists presently was provided
as part of a school route sidewalk program. It is our belief that
this property fails to meet the criteria established in the Ordinance
and that the installation of the sidewalk is required.
'K~