My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/16/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
1/16/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:11 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:05:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/16/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
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
study they did to uphold that ordinance, and it was upheld. That <br />is one of the basic reasons for our starting out with that <br />criteria. <br />Discussion continued as to the amount of acreage this would <br />require in various size projects, and the Board generally agreed <br />they would stay with the way it is now written. <br />Attorney O'Haire then referred to Paragraph 9.c.ii. - <br />Minimum Residential Floor Area Requirements. He noted that Solin <br />& Associates did a survey of ten jurisdictions, and what they are <br />proposing for our PRD is smaller square footage requirements than <br />the City of Sebastian, for instance. We are coming out lower <br />than any of the other jurisdictions surveyed, and he did not see <br />why a PRD should permit smaller per unit sizes than the <br />underlying zoning would permit. Attorney O'Haire suggested there <br />is no rationale for that and asked that the Board keep the <br />minimum sizes to what they adopted this morning in the underlying <br />zoning categories. <br />Commissioner Bird and Vice Chairman Scurlock agreed. <br />Director Keating explained that the only thing different <br />here from what we did this morning was put in provisions for an <br />efficiency unit. Otherwise, it is more restrictive because we <br />have square footage related to the number of bedrooms. Staff <br />feels strongly that single family units that are free standing <br />affect the property value of those next to them, but when you <br />talk about smaller apartments in a large building, it allows more <br />housing choice; it will not increase density; and it will not <br />affect anyone looking at it from outside. <br />Vice Chairman Scurlock noted that, in other words, all we <br />are talking about is eliminating efficiences. <br />Mr. McKnight stated that he personally does not disagree <br />with Mr. O'Haire on this, but noted that Mr. Robinson made the <br />suggestion this morning that the Board leave some latitude for <br />changing economy and affordable housing. <br />55 <br />JAN 1 1995 <br />goo '.9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.