Laserfiche WebLink
TO: James E. Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />15bert M. Re t ,AIOT <br />Community Deve(�lopmen irector <br />THROUGH: Stan BolingACP <br />Planning Director <br />FROM: John W. McCoy <br />Staff Planner, Current Development <br />DATE: January 6, 1992 <br />SUBJECT: The Community Development Director's Appeal of the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission's Decision to Allow the <br />Use of Road Names for the Florida Baptist Retirement <br />Center <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 January 14, 1992. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: <br />On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved <br />a site plan submitted by the Baptist Retirement Center to construct <br />15 duplexes adjacent to and north of the old retirement center <br />facility. The site plan proposed an extension of 10th Parkway to <br />provide access to the proposed duplexes. During the initial review <br />and approval process, the use of road names was not a contested <br />issue. In accordance with section 951.05 of the county's land <br />development regulations (LDRs), street numbers were automatically <br />assigned to the proposed street extension. At the time the street <br />numbers were assigned, the applicant did not appeal the action to <br />the Community Development Director as provided for in LDR Chapter <br />951. <br />The approved plan was released for construction on May 5, 1991, and <br />construction commenced. The street layout and numbers were placed <br />on the 911 maps pursuant to standard procedures. Staff have <br />assigned addresses using the appropriate street number designations <br />in accordance with Chapter 951 standards. <br />On August 28, 1991, the applicant submitted an administrative <br />approval application to use road names; this request was <br />subsequently denied by the Community Development Director on <br />September 5, 1991 (see attachment #1). On November 18, 19911 the <br />applicant appealed that decision for the reasons listed in the <br />attached letter (see attachment #2). Despite the fact that the <br />appeal was not filed in a timely manner, staff felt that the <br />request should be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission <br />for its consideration. <br />19 <br />JAN 14 1992 IQ00K <br />