My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/21/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
6/21/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2019 9:47:34 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:19:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/21/1978
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.
/
110
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
MR. BERG INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON <br />THE NORTH SIDE OF 12TH STREET APPROXIMATELY 800' EAST OF U.S. I AND <br />ABOUT 300' WEST OF 6TH AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REZONING <br />FROM R-2 TO C-1. MR. BERG THEN READ TO THE BOARD THE STAFF'S COMMENTS <br />AS FOLLOWS: <br />STAFF CO3TMENT: This property has quite a bit of recent history, including a <br />Board of Adjustment interpretation making property eligible for a <br />non-profit type of use. Now is appears that this is na longer the <br />intent. Planning Department felt that the use proposed by the re- <br />zoning was not in keeping with the use of land in the area. It <br />.-further felt that this was spot zoning in .reverse, (leaving existing <br />residence completely surrounded by Commercial zoning).* <br />This area <br />also did not show Commercial use on the Master Plan. Mr. Zorc felt <br />that because he was contiguous to Commercial zoning, that this was all <br />he needed for rezoning. He further indicated that the area needed this <br />use for the young people in Indian River County. Note: (Staff does <br />not agree against this, but feels this is the wrong area.) <br />MR. BERG NOTED THAT THEY CURD ENTLY HAVE SEVERAL SITE <br />PLAN APPROVALS ON 6TH AVENUE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND FEEL COMMERCIAL <br />USE WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE <br />NEIGHBORHOOD. HE STATED THAT THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL TO THE <br />ZONING BOARD, AND THE REQUEST WAS DENIED. MR. BERG THEN DISPLAYED <br />AERIALS OF THIS AREA, AND NOTED THE CONTIGUOUS AREA ZONED C-1 IS USED <br />COMPLETELY FOR A TRAILER PARK. THE AREA ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS <br />PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL AND WHILE THE AREA TO THE SOUTHWEST DOES <br />HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL USES, IT IS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. MR. BERG <br />FELT IF MR. ZORC'S PROPERTY WERE TO BE REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, IT <br />WOULD BE A FINGER POINTING TOWARDS COMMERCIAL USE ON.6TH AVENUE, AND <br />WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. <br />FRANK ZORC CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND STATED THAT THE ONLY <br />REASON FOR THE REQUESTED CHANGE OF ZONING IS IN ORDER TO GET THIS <br />PROPERTY BACK IN A CATEGORY WHICH WILL CLEARLY INDICATE THAT A RETURN <br />MAY BE MADE ON THE PROJECT SO HE CAN REGAIN HIS INVESTORS. MR. ZORC <br />STATED THAT HE PERSONALLY HAS CONTACTED EVERY PROPERTY OWNER <br />SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND HAS NOT FOUND ANY WHO HAS AN <br />OBJECTION TO COMPLETION OF THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY, WHETHER FOR <br />PROFIT OR NOT, HE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT SOME PEOPLE DID OBJECT TO <br />ANY POSSIBILITY OF AN AUTOMOTIVE FACILITY IN THIS AREA SO HIS <br />70 <br />J u ii 211978 BOOK 35 PAUr- 133 <br />J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.