Laserfiche WebLink
03 F�,�GE AJC V <br />Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of December 2, 1997 <br />with the aid of an area map and landscape plan projected on the ELMO: <br />TO: James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />; /2'/ AYr <br />Robert M. Keating, AIq.P <br />Community Developm6 DireE or <br />THROUGH: Stan Bolmg, AICP <br />Planning Director <br />FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP/n .'� <br />Senior Planner, Current Development <br />DATE: December 2, 1997 <br />SUBJECT: Hedins' Request to Rezone Approximately 4.64 Acres from CL to PD Commercial <br />and Receive Concurrent Planned Development Conceptual Plan Approval <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County <br />Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 9, 1997. <br />DESCRIPTION & ONDITIONS: <br />This is a request by Karl, Keith, and Norman Hedin, through their agent Mosby & Associates, Inc., <br />to rezone approximately 4.64 acres from CL (Limited Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) <br />commercial. The subject site is located on the north side of SR 60 immediately east of the Citrus <br />Ridge Post Office project. The purpose of this request is to secure the proper zoning to construct <br />a convenience store/fast food restaurant with drive through, fuel sales, a car wash, an office building, <br />and a mini storage facility. <br />Planning and Zoning Commission Action <br />At its regular meeting of November 13, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted <br />unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the 4.64 acre <br />rezoning from CL to PD (see attachment #8). The Planning and Zoning Commission also <br />recommended approval of the conceptual plan with changes to two staff recommended conditions. <br />Those changes allow the opaque feature required at the site's northern property boundary to be 6' <br />above grade at the property line (rather than 6' above the grade of the proposed building), and specify <br />where additional foundation plantings are needed. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission <br />added two conditions. The two conditions include: requiring the plan to meet all aspects of the SR <br />60 corridor plan, and providing an access easement for the interconnected parking. <br />The pending ordinance invoked by the Board in July for the proposed landscape ordinance changes <br />allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to specify the type of material and the measurement <br />criteria for required opaque features. As part of its approval recommendation for this project, the. <br />Planning and Zoning Commission allowed the 6' opaque feature to be measured from the grade at <br />the property line and required the opaque feature to be a masonry wall. While the application was <br />20 <br />December 9, 1997 <br />