My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/5/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
3/5/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:32:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/05/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
MAR 5 1966 BOOK 6 3 N�'UE i89 <br />Director Robert Keating explained that the developer has the <br />option of either proceeding under the regular site plan process <br />or going through a PRD. He noted that while PRDs are allowed in <br />Agricultural, the density would be limited to 1 unit per 5 acres.** <br />Commissioner Wodtke asked if both a rezoning and a special <br />exception could be considered at a PRD hearing, and Mr. Shearer <br />confirmed that they could be. <br />Commissioner Lyons stated he would feel more comfortable if <br />he knew exactly what was going to happen. <br />Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked those <br />who wished to speak in this matter to.come up to the podium and <br />give their name and address for the record. <br />William Stewart, attorney representing Wedgewood Park <br />Development, Inc., displayed a plat map and an aerial view of the <br />subject property and surrounding area. He argued that the P 6 Z <br />Commission recommendation for denial of the rezoning request was <br />inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan <br />and the Overall Economic Development Plan. Attorney Stewart <br />stated that there has been considerable rezoning in the SR -60 <br />corridor and explained that the reason Wedgewood did not build on <br />the north side of SR -60 after they received RM -6 zoning was due <br />to a title problem on a small portion of that tract. The <br />applicant intends to develop this project into rental apartments <br />and a congregate living facility. Water and sewer are available <br />through the County. He stressed the need for additional family <br />rental units in this county, and their belief that the SR -60 <br />corridor is the most logical place to locate such a project, <br />because the Comp Plan designates the area as LD -2, Low -Density <br />Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). The adult congregate living <br />area also is badly needed in this area and will be handled on a <br />rental basis. This facility will have to be licensed through the <br />HRS and must also meet the requirements of a special exception <br />under the RM -6 zoning. The facility is not permitted in any <br />zoning less than RM -6. <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.