My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/21/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
5/21/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:53 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:27:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/21/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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 staff recognizes these and other areas of concern, and the potential for positions <br />of opposing viewpoints in the preceding list. It is the staff's belief that these <br />aims can be effectively handled at some point during the management process of zoning, <br />site plan and/or subdivision review. <br />The staff has taken the aforementioned factors into consideration for the parcel <br />presented here for rezoning and the other surrounding property, including that which <br />is part of the 365 acres being held for a unified development. The following is a <br />synopsis of those considerations: <br />1) That there is a need to be flexible in management of the land use. <br />Spot zoning should not be used to delineate or gain the best possible <br />density designations. The present zoning requirements are sometimes <br />too rigid to gain equity between economic use and protection in areas <br />such as this. <br />2) In cases such as this, it is the intensity of use in specific areas <br />rather than the overall density which is really important. Therefore, <br />variations in density by zoning is not the best approach but better use <br />of management controls (e.g. site plan, subdivision, etc.) may be most <br />effective.. <br />3) The present parcel is zoned R-1 and is encompassed by properties zoned <br />R-2 and C-1. <br />4) The beach and shoreline should be protected as best as possible both <br />on the ocean and river. <br />5) The R -2B designation does allow for some flexibility in design intensity, <br />and therefore from a management perspective is a better tool for develop- <br />ment in such areas as this. <br />6) This type of request could be more appropriately handled under the proposed <br />Future Land Use Plan. However, should more flexible guidelines not <br />materialize, the staff would in the future recommend that rezoning be <br />initiated in the overall area to reflect the general density allowances <br />of the existing R -2B zone. <br />Thus the staff would not recommend the rezoning from R-1 to R-2, but would support <br />a change to R -2B. <br />���� <br />aU Vid M. Rever <br />Planning and Zoning Director <br />DMR: j t <br />cc: Cairns <br />PLANNER REVER ADDED THAT DR. HERBERT KALE WAS CONCERNED <br />WITH PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONCURRED WITH THEM THAT THIS <br />WAS THE MOST REASONABLE MANNER IN WHICH TO HANDLE THIS PARTICULAR <br />REQUEST. <br />ROBERT CAIRNS, AGENT FOR JONNIE DAHLSTROM, APPROACHED THE <br />BOARD AND SHOWED A SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF THEIR PARTICULAR PARCEL. HE <br />CONTINUED THAT THEIR INTENTION WAS TO CREATE A BEACH CLUB IN THE AREA, <br />—17— <br />�. a <br />Y 2 119 80 Boca 43 PAGE1. <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.