Laserfiche WebLink
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 7/31/89: <br />TO: The Honorable Members of The Board of County <br />Commissioners <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />Robert ea g, P <br />Community Deve�jopme Director <br />FROM: St%n Boling ? <br />Chief, Current Development <br />DATE: July 31, 1989 <br />SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDER <br />AMENDMENT AND PRD SPECIAL EXCEPTION CONCEPTUAL PLAN <br />APPROVAL FOR A GOLF MAINTENANCE SITE AND FACILITY <br />ADDITION TO THE GRAND HARBOR PROJECT. <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular <br />meeting of August 8, 1989. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: <br />Proiect Requests , <br />Grand Harbor, Inc. is requesting approval to add a ±4•acre site to <br />the overall Grand Harbor project. The subject site, adjacent to <br />=:the existing Grand Harbor golf course and the planned POD I <br />area, is to be used for a golf and grounds maintenance <br />:•_;facility. To officially add the site to the project, both the <br />project development order (D.O.) and the existing overall PRD plan <br />need to be amended to include the addition. 'Approval to construct <br />the facility would require preliminary PRD plan approval and the <br />`'issuance of a land development permit... normal steps in the PRD <br />process. <br />Grand Harbor, Inc. has applied for the necessary D.O. amendment <br />and the PRD plan amendment, and has also applied for preliminary <br />PRD plan (site plan and plat) approval. Pursuant to State regu- <br />lations, the D.O. amendment has been reviewed by the State and the <br />Treasure Coast Regional Planning Coun_cil. Neither the State nor <br />the Planning Council objected to having the amendment handled <br />purely on the local level. Subsequent to State and Planning <br />Council review, at its February 28, 1989 meeting the Board of <br />County Commissioners determined that the amendment request does <br />not constitute a substantial deviation and can be reviewed and <br />adopted on the local level as a minor D.O. amendment. <br />At its regular meeting of June 13, 1989, the Board initially <br />considered the subject requests and voted to deny them (see <br />attachment #8). Subsequently, upon a request by the developer, <br />the Board voted at its July 11, 1989 meeting to reconsider the <br />requests to allow the applicant's engineers (absent at the June <br />13th meeting) to make a full presentation. The requests have been <br />re -advertised and noticed; the Board may now reconsider the <br />requests. <br />23 R;,riK l l �.,�r 54 <br />i <br />