1/16/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN 16 1985 BOOK FA F � residential next to your other single family even if it were all single family. He asked if they would object to that. Attorney O'Haire did not feel they would, but stressed they do not want the overall gross area any denser. Vice Chairman Scurlock felt what they are looking for apparently is an orderly transition. Attorney Brandenburg did not feel we object to that and believed we have language to accomplish it on Page 3, 3 b., More Than One Zoning District; Interpretation of Allowable Uses. - which says: "Whenever a PRD is proposed which includes land having more than one zoning district or Comprehensive Plan Use map designation, the applicant shall have the opportunity to develop the PRD as a unified project. Each portion of a PRD with different underlying zoning must comply with the density and use requirements of the underlying zoning district, and can distrib- ute the density and use throughout that portion of the PRD with such zoning subject to approval of the site plan." The Board felt that was reasonable. Vice Chairman Scurlock inquired what staff felt about a minimum of 25 acres for PRD. Director Keating informed the Board that staff does not feel there should be a minimum size for a PRD because some of the things we want to accomplish would be inhibited by a size limitation. He noted that we have land condos that want to come in less than 25 acres, and transfers to,upland area will only be allowed in PRDs. Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that going through PRD is a more expensive process, and, therefore, if a person with a small piece of property could develop any other way, he certainly would. If, however, he has a situation where he is near an arterial, he might want to cluster. There are some unique little situations, we would hope could be dealt with through PRD. Robert McKnight, 49 Royal Palm Boulevard, appreciated Mr. O'Haire's remarks, but wished to point out that the intent of the 50