12/4/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 21, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keati , Planning & Developm nt Director DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC. REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE 15.23 ACRES FROM LD -2 TO COMMERCIAL AND TO REZONE FROM A, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, TO CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. ichard Shearer AICP ZC-152 P&Z Memo FROM hief, Long -Range Planning REFERENCES: RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consid- eration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of December 4, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Development Partners, Inc., an agent for the Beach Bank, trustee, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 15.23 acres from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to Commercial, and to rezone from A, Agricultural District, to CG, General Commercial District. In order to approve this rezoning request, the County would also have to amend the boundaries of the Kings Highway and State Road 60 commercial node. The applicants intend to develop the subject property, and 18 contiguous acres to the south, for a shopping center. Because the County's Comprehensive Plan is structured to concentrate commercial development in nodes, and because of the subject property's location adjacent to the existing Kings Highway and State Road 60 node, this application is considered a request to enlarge the existing node from 160 to, 175 acres and to revise the boundaries of the node to include the subject property. On March 6, 1985, t#e Board of County Commissioners enlarged the Kings Highway and State Road 60 node from 140 to 160 acres. On April 10, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an ordinance establishing boundaries for the 160 acre KJ.ngs Highway and State Road 60 node. On August 22, 1985 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend that the request to amend the Compre- hensive Plan be denied. The Commission also voted 4 -to -0, with one abstention, to recommend that the node boundaries not be adjusted to include the subject property. In addition, the Commission voted 4 -to -0, with one abstention, to deny the rezoning request. The applicant has appealed that decision. The Commission gave as their reasons for recommending denial the facts that there is a considerable amount of vacant commercially -zoned land in this area which does not justify an enlargement of the node, that the node boundary should not be adjusted to accommodate the subject "property, and that based on these recommendations and the fact that the subject property abuts a single-family subdivision, that the rezoning request should be denied. On October 16, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners tabled these 'requests. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application. will be presented. The analysis will include a description of the current and future land uses of the site and surrounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. 29 DEC 41995 - BOOK 62 Exu,c931