My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/2/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
4/2/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:36:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/02/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
Vice Chairman Lyons asked if anyone present wished to be <br />heard. <br />Steve Moler of Masteller & Moler came before the Board <br />representing Fopasclo Developers, Inc., and stated that he would <br />like to reserve some time at the end of the hearing to respond to <br />items the residents might bring up. Mr. Moler stressed that the <br />developers met with staff before they started this application <br />and were,told their plans to submit their rezoning application <br />would be strongly recommended by staff. He believed staff is <br />very familiar with the North Winter Beach area, having done a <br />small area plan and map for this area, and he felt their recom- <br />mendation should be weighed heavily. <br />Mr. Moler then discussed the subject property and the <br />relationship of the proposed project to the existing Light <br />Industrial on the west side of the railroad which is followed by <br />300' feet of multiple family zoning. Staff has indicated that <br />300' buffer strip of multiple family is not sufficient, and Mr. <br />Moler also pointed out that 300' is very narrow for potential <br />development as multiple family and would make it very difficult <br />to come up with a very imaginative plan. He felt the location of <br />their project is close enough to the railroad that they would <br />have difficulty marketing it as single family. <br />Commissioner Bird inquired as to their intentions for <br />utility service, and Mr. Moler stated that they do not feel that <br />single family on 1/2 acre lots is a marketable product, and to <br />develop single family on smaller lots would entail the location <br />of a package plant on the site, most probably at the northeast <br />corner of the site directly on North Winter Beach Road because <br />that is where the gravity system would flow. He, therefore, felt <br />the best alternative is multi family zoning where the developer <br />can process an application for a subdivision of 1/2 acre lots, <br />which lots can be developed for on-site disposal and eliminate <br />the need for a package plant on the site. <br />27 <br />APR 2 1986 BOOK D04 PAGE 97 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.