10/23/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M M stated that there was no notice to the specific owners as the boundaries for that node were never officially set. Commissioner Scurlock commented that staff indicated that part of the reasoning for the 65 acre tourist/commercial node was that there was an existing dredged harbor and he wished to know if the 65 acres was based on 60 boat slips or 600. Planner Shearer believed when the applicant originally applied, they envisioned a lot more than 72 boat slips, but Director Keating stated that staff was just looking at the fact that a tourist/commercial node could go there because of the existing conditions and the size of it wouldn't necessarily be determined by the boat slips. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff still would make a recommendation for such a tourist/commercial node if they couldn't get any boat slips, and Director Keating could only say they looked at this based on some of the elements used when developing a marina siting plan. There already is a channel dredged and a pretty deep basin right there, and this site was looked at as being one of the very few sites where you could put something like this. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know why this area was overlooked when we did the Comprehensive Plan in the first place. Director Keating believed the major reason is that unlike the major nodes which were developed based on the need to serve a residential population, the tourist/commercial nodes were related more to demand. Attorney Henderson informed the Board that the Grand Harbor people are prepared to make a presentation. Chairman Lyons believed it would be interesting to know what they plan to do with the land, but noted that we are not here for a site plan review. Commissioner Scurlock felt we need to limit any presentation to what this land is best suited for, the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes, and the zoning changes. 55 OCT 3 1985 BOOK 62 FAcE 504