Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Scurlock informed those present that he never <br />before has had to declare a conflict of interest, but he is a 25% <br />owner in the subject project, and he, therefore, felt it is <br />inappropriate for him even to remain in the room. Chairman <br />Scurlock thereupon turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Lyons <br />and left the room. <br />Staff Planner Jeffrey Goulet made the staff presentation and <br />recommendation of approval, as follows: <br />TO' The Honorable Members DATE: March 12, 1986 FELE: <br />of the Board of County <br />Commissioners f <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />_ APPEAL OF <br />SUBJECT: FOPASCLO DEVELOPERS <br />Robert M. lea ing ICP REQUEST TO REZONE 9 ACRES <br />Planning &•Development Director FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL <br />DISTRICT TO RM -6, <br />MULTIPLE -FAMILY <br />�S THROUGH: Richard Shearer, AICP RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT <br />Chief, Long -Range Planning (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE) <br />FROM: �/� REFERENCES: <br />Jeffrey A. Goulet Jl-0."� Fopasclo Memo <br />Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning JEFF <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their <br />regular meeting of April 2, 1986. <br />DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS <br />Fopasclo Developers, Inc. is requesting to rezone 9 acres located <br />on the south side of North Winter Beach Road and approximately <br />600 feet west of the Florida East Coast Railroad from A, <br />Agricultural District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential <br />District (up to 6 units/acre). <br />The applicant intends to develop a multiple -family subdivision on <br />this property. <br />On February 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted <br />.3 -to -0 to deny this", <br />his request. The commission based their decision <br />on the fact that they felt a rezoning to a multiple -family zoning <br />district was premature and that the existing 300 feet of <br />multiple -family zoning. was adequate to buffer the light <br />industrial zoning to the east from the single-family zoning to <br />the west. They also felt that an increase in the amount of <br />multiple -family zoning was not appropriate due to the <br />single-family residential character of the surrounding area. The <br />applicants have appealed this decision. <br />ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS <br />In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- <br />cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- <br />tion of the current and future land uses of the site *and sur - <br />23 <br />APR 2 1986 BOOK 64 P'A 93 <br />