My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/4/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
12/4/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:32 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:18:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/04/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
with the developer about the idea of committing his golf course <br />for reuse as one possibility of making utilities available, but <br />there are questions about what can or can't get permitted by the <br />DER. Also, there are significant drainage problems. <br />Commissioner Scurlock did feel, however, that the develop- <br />ment proposed is a quality project with low density, cluster <br />development, equestrian trails, etc., and something that would be <br />positive for our community. He believed what the developer is <br />looking for is some indication from the Board that would provide <br />him with enough confidence to move forward with the very expen- <br />sive process of going through the Regional Planning Council and <br />through St. John's River Water Management District. Commis- <br />sioner Scurlock continued that while he would like to'find some <br />vehicle to encourage the developer, he has not been able to find <br />any legal way without getting into contract zoning, and he also <br />did not feel PRD will accomplish what they really want. Because <br />of the considerable problems to be faced with the drainage, <br />utilities, etc., he would not want to accept the responsibility <br />of rezoning this land and having that much residential leap frog <br />to the west of 1-95 without all the questions being answered, and <br />he, therefore, felt this request is premature. <br />Commissioner Wodtke wished to know the status of our Planned <br />Residential Development, and Director Keating confirmed that we <br />have the PRD Ordinance in effect. A PRD is an allowable use in <br />the RS -1 zoning district, and in this case, based on their <br />conceptual, they would be coming in with a PRD requesting smaller <br />5 <br />lot sizes than normally allowed so they could accommodate the <br />golf courses, etc. They still would be'constrained by the <br />overall density of one unit per acre, however. <br />Commissioner Wodtke asked if you can apply for a PRD in an <br />Agricultural zoning, and Director Keating clarified that PRD's <br />are allowed in Agricultural zoning, but the density would be one <br />unit per five acres. <br />39 <br />DEC 4 1985 <br />gno,� 62 1I. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.