My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/21/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
10/21/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:19 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:50:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/21/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
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
2. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: <br />A) Approve the request to rezone the 160 acre parcel from A -Agricultural <br />to R1 -MP Mobile Home Park. Under the Rl-MP zoning district, the <br />maximum allowable gross build out is 1,392 units. However, under the <br />Development Order (81-59) the project shall not exceed 803 units <br />(approximately 5 units/acre). The development impacts have been <br />reviewed through the DRI.process. The subsequent Development Order <br />provides midigating measures and financial compensation to,offset <br />anticipated significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed <br />land use. The proposed land use is compatible with adjacent resi- <br />dential uses and represents expansion of the areas existing mobile <br />home park development. <br />B) Deny the rezoning request, leaving the present zoning configuration <br />in tact. <br />3. RECOMMENDATIONS: <br />A) Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request and adoption of the <br />ordinance enacting that rezoning. On January 22, 1981, the Planning <br />and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. <br />B) That the ordinance effecting rezoning be adopted. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that when discussing the <br />Development of Regional Impact; he did not ever remember <br />information being submitted that this property was not <br />already properly zoned. <br />Attorney Collins explained that this property was <br />submitted for rezoning prior to the DRI. It subsequently was <br />recognized that this property combined with the previous <br />development would exceed the threshold of a DRI, and the DRI, <br />therefore, was held prior to considering the rezoning so <br />there would be a full assessment of all the impacts before <br />proceeding with rezoning. <br />Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if approval of the <br />DRI was not a commitment to the rezoning, and the Attorney <br />felt that it is a step in that direction. <br />Commissioner Fletcher stated that he also was under the <br />impression that the property had been properly zoned, and <br />Commissioner Scurlock continued to emphasize that he had been <br />totally unaware that this 160 acres would have to be rezoned, <br />and this information would have been another element in his <br />consideration at the DRI. <br />BOOK 4 7 PAGE 8, <br />OCT 211991 29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.