My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/02/2013 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2013
>
07/02/2013 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2018 2:20:22 PM
Creation date
3/23/2016 8:58:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
07/02/2013
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
376
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000E\S0004NF.tif
SmeadsoftID
14220
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
376
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
Dr. Day noted Mr. Rohani had stated policy 5.6 was structured to be <br /> somewhat restrictive and he assumed it was purposely done so. He wondered <br /> what had changed between when the policy was first structured and the present <br /> time. <br /> Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Community Development Director, did not think <br /> there had been any change; however the policy was structured to be the very <br /> strictest and when a real project came in and staff looked at it they could see <br /> some opportunity for changes. <br /> Vice-Chairman Hamner felt 2.5 acres was fairly restrictive and thought five <br /> acres was probably more realistic for this site. <br /> Mr. Joseph Paladin, representing the applicant, said he supported the <br /> changes as proposed today but added he would like the members to consider <br /> extending the 2.5 acres to three acres. <br /> Mr. Keating said he had no objection to three acres. <br /> Vice-Chairman Hamner opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. <br /> (W Attorney Bruce Barkett indicated he supported the application. He related <br /> he represented two property owners of 27 and 37 acre parcels respectively, and <br /> while he allowed 2.5 acres was something he would like to see it increased to <br /> five acres, or possibly 25%, especially for the larger sites. <br /> Attorney DeBraal inquired why the allowable figure was 2.5 acres versus <br /> 25% of the total. He pointed 2.5 acres would be one half of a five acre parcel <br /> and if person had a larger parcel, perhaps more should be allowed. <br /> Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, said it was staffs intent to allow a <br /> developer to put in convenience-type retail store that might be equivalent to an <br /> out parcel or two when a larger development was to be done later on. He <br /> pointed out the idea was not to allow all the commercial development to be built <br /> up front but at least allow the applicant to obtain some cash flow if commercial <br /> was what was demanded by the market at that point in time. <br /> Discussion followed. <br /> Chairman Hamner closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> PZC/Approved 4 March 14,2013 <br /> F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2013—AGENDAS& MINUTES\P&Z-03-14-13.doc <br /> ATTACHIAUff 1 109 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.