Laserfiche WebLink
MR. REDICK STATED THAT THEY HAVE HAD CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION <br />WITH MR. ANSIN WHO OWNS A GREAT DEAL OF PROPERTY IN THIS AREA AND ALSO <br />HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE OWNER WHO HAS THE VESTED INTEREST. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. <br />ATTORNEY CHESTER CLEM SPOKE REPRESENTING THE L. A. DAVIS <br />INTEREST, WHICH OWNS THE AREA IN QUESTION ON THE EAST OF S.R. 510. HE <br />NOTED THAT UNDER THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL,, PART OF HIS CLIENTS TRACT WAS <br />TO BE B-1 AND R-3. HE CONTINUED THAT THEY NOW UNDERSTAND THAT ALL EXCEPT <br />A SMALL AREA OF THE EXISTING C-1 IN HIS CLIENT'S PROPERTY -IS TO BE <br />ELIMINATED. ATTORNEY CLEM STATED THAT THEY HAVE NO REAL STRONG OBJECTION <br />TO REMOVAL OF THE C-1 ZONING ON THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, <br />BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY ON THE TOP NORTHERN <br />CORNER SO THEY COULD BUILD A LAUNDROMAT OR SOMETHING OF THE SORT. HE <br />NOTED THERE IS A MOBILE -HOME PARK THERE NOW RIGHT BELOW THE SOUTHEAST <br />CORNER, AND THEY WOULD REQUEST THE PROPOSED C-1 BE BROUGHT DOWN TO,AT <br />LEAST, INCLUDE THE MOBILE HOME AREA IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY <br />IN THAT CORNER. HE NOTED THIS WOULD MAKE THE TRAILER PARK NON -CONFORMING, <br />BUT IT WOULD BE IN ANY EVENT. HE FELT THIS IS MORE OR LESS OF A COMMERCIAL <br />AREA, EVEN THOUGH IT IS AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE OF THE BARNS AND <br />SILOS OF SHILOH RANCH. HE REQUESTED THE BOARD CONSIDER EXTENDING THE <br />PROPOSED C-1 AN ADDITIONAL 330` ON THE SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE ASKED THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IF HE WOULD HAVE <br /><� ANY PARTICULAR OBJECTION TO THE EXTENSION OF C -I AS REQUESTED, AND IF <br />THERE WOULD BE ANY PROBLEMS IN EXTENDING THE C-1 JUST DOWN TO THE SLOUGH <br />AREA. <br />MR. REDICK.FELT AN ADDITIONAL TWO OR THREE ACRES OF COMMERCIAL <br />MIGHT NOT BE OUT OF LINE, AND NOTED THAT THIS WOULD PUT THE COMMERCIAL <br />AREA IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 50.ACRES, WHICH IS NOT UNREASONABLE. HE <br />•Y` STATED HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTIONS. <br />THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THEN REVIEWED THE STAFFS REASONS FOR <br />PROPOSING C-1 INSTEAD OF B-1, I.E. PROHIBITION OF DRIVE-IN TYPE BUSINESSES <br />IN WHAT THEY FEEL IS A CAR -ORIENTED AREA. <br />52 <br />MAR 71979 <br />BOOK 39 PAGE 207 <br />