9/2/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

impact of the increased traffic and the safety of the children along that narrow road. He stressed that if more than 3 upa are allowed, there will be a great demand on the resources in that area. Mr. Mank urged the Board to preserve the dignity and beauty of this street by limiting the density to 3 upa. George Beuttell, 5480 16th Street, also wished to have the dignity and beauty of the area preserved. He emphasized that if this parcel is allowed to develop to its maximum limit at 6 upa, then Dr. Ames would have to be allowed that same density on the 25 acres that he owns immediately to the east. In addition, Mr. Beuttell noted that his mother's 25 -acre parcel -is is a little_ further east and with Ralmar's 25 acres, there would be approxi- mately 85 acres that would be able to develop at RS -6. He urged the Board to consider the impact that would result and limit the density to 3 upa. Jim Sharp, 1616 51st Court,_ pointed out that the canal running in back of this area to the north provides a natural buffer to the commercial property along SR -60. The area is unique in that access is very, very limited. He noted that when he built his home he had to appear before this Commission to get permission to build on a lot that was less than one acre_, and now we are talking about 6 upa. Mr. Sharp emphasized that the area has developed at 1 or 2 units to an acre, with the exception of one subdivision in back of Winn Dixie. Dr. Donald Ames, owner of 25 acres east of the subject property, felt that the parcel in question should not be allowed to develop at 6 upa because of the character of the neighborhood, and stated that although his property has RS -6 zoning, he does not intend to develop it at those densities. Chairman Scurlock entered into the record a petition which has been signed by approximately 72 residents and owners who are opposed to the RS -6 zoning. PETITIONS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 24 E 2 1986 BOOR 65 561