My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/19/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
11/19/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:47:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/19/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
laws are changed; this was non -conforming when it was created. As <br />far as the node across the street, Mr. Stewart felt the Board <br />established that node with full knowledge of Dr. Minotty's CN node. <br />He stated that it is unlikely that Dr. Minotty within the next six <br />months will come forward with a site plan to develop this property <br />for professional office becauseit could not be done adequately in <br />that period of time. He also recognized that the Board has the <br />choice of either rezoning or a Isix-month extension. Mr. Stewart <br />pointed out that if this neighborhood commercial node is lost and <br />the property reverted to multiple family, there does not seem to be <br />anyway professional offices would be permitted in a higher density <br />residential zone. Mr. Stewart'Ifelt, with the location of this <br />parcel in close proximity to Indian River Estates, it would be a <br />perfect place for professional office. He further suggested the <br />Board should consider allowing professional office in higher <br />density residential zones because they are not that dissimilar. <br />Mr. Stewart agreed with staff,'s factual presentation and agreed <br />this project certainly falls in the category of "use it or lose <br />it." He said he could not telll,the Board that another six months <br />would make a difference, but he asked the Board to consider <br />retaining the zoning for this parcel because he felt it would be <br />appropriate for this situation.! <br />Chairman Bird asked, if the CN zoning were eliminated, would <br />this site ever qualify again for POI or any other type of zoning <br />that might allow professional medical office or something similar. <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating advised the PRO <br />district, like the CN district, can be established in a residential <br />area as delineated on the comprehensive plan if it is at least five <br />acres. The exception is a PRO can be two and a half acres if it <br />abuts a commercial zone or corrildor. The Minotty parcel does not <br />meet that criteria, even though there is a neighborhood commercial <br />node across the street. <br />Commissioner Scurlock rec'lled when this was originally <br />discussed the property was ownedby ACTS, Indian River Estates was <br />going to be developed, and this neighborhood commercial node would <br />serve the residents of Indian River Estates because there would be <br />internal access to this particular site. The.owner was told the <br />circumstances of the time limit. In the meantime, there have been <br />other requests for this type of development which have been denied. <br />Commissioner Scurlock found it difficult to allow this zoning to <br />remain forever because the original people did not live up to their <br />agreement. They built residential units instead, lessening the <br />parcel to three and a half acres rather than the necessary five <br />acres. <br />46 <br />W <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.