Laserfiche WebLink
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Gerald Heck, chairman of the Lake -in -the -Woods condominium <br />association, questioned the capatibility element in the proposed <br />rezoning to RM -8. He would prefer a less dense development. He <br />cited the problems with traffic currently experienced in the area <br />on SR -60 and believed more problems would occur due to the <br />additional development. <br />Warren Dill, attorney representing CED Construction Company, <br />advised that he felt staff had made a thorough analysis of the <br />project. He understood staff is trying to prevent SR -60 from <br />looking totally commercial as on SR -192 in Melbourne. He advised <br />that the proposed project represented a textbook rezoning <br />application, that it met all the criteria in the Comprehensive <br />Plan. He also stated that it was submitted in accordance with the <br />County's regulations and that the Planning & zoning Commission had <br />taken a hard look at it and had approved it unanimously. He was <br />prepared to answer any questions. <br />It was determined that no'one else wished to be heard and the <br />Chairman closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Ginn asked if the project would be eligible for <br />an affordable housing density bonus, and Director Keating advised <br />that the applicant had indicated to staff that they do intend to <br />apply for the income tax credit program, but that they do not <br />intend to apply for a density bonus under the County's program. <br />Responding to further questions from Commissioner Ginn, <br />Director Keating confirmed that a certain percentage of their units <br />have to be for low and moderate income and that the applicant had <br />indicated that the units will be rental. <br />Commissioner Ginn felt that the project, while consistent with <br />the Comprehensive Plan, was not compatible with the surrounding <br />area, that it should be less dense. She also felt that the Land <br />Development Regulations needed to be worked on, that they are <br />inadequate, particularly regarding landscaping and perhaps set <br />backs. For these reasons, she advised she could not vote in favor <br />of the rezoning to RM -8, but later stated that she could vote for <br />RM -6. <br />Commissioner Adams would have preferred it to be RM -6 and had <br />concern that in looking at the minutes of the Planning & Zoning <br />Commission meeting, there was no public input. <br />30 ma <br />January 21, 1997 <br />