11/17/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rNOV 1 1992 � BOOK 52 issue. He agreed that the Plan does show a large commercial/industrial node at the subject intersection surrounded by MD -1 land use designation, which is a medium Y density residential use. He noted that one of the central conflicts in this, however, is that the Land Use Plan does not specifically define the limits of the commercial/ industrial node; it was set up on a node concept specifically to maximize flexibility in its utilization. Mr. King further emphasized that the Zoning Ordinances does not differentiate between industrial and heavy commercial uses. Mr. King submitted that the primary issue in this is the land use, and the process of analysis for all rezoning requests involves the evaluation of all the urban systems and their interrelationships. He then went on at length to summarize the detailed information presented in his memo re historical development pattern, existing land use, existing transportation facilities, utilities, environment, drainage, and fiscal impact, etc. Mr. King then reviewed Attachment B, a map of Existing Land Uses, which also includes committed land uses, stating that the primary area within this entire 3,H0 acre plan is the southwest quadrant. He believed that - if the proposed property were to be approved for mobile home development, it would dictate a major shift in policy, and the node would convert primarily to a highway commercial center rather than a commercial/industrial area. Considerable discussion followed on the flexibility allowed in the nodal concept with Mr. King contending that the problem arose when this flexibility was set up. He stressed the need for more guidelines about what can be developed in a node and the need for small area plans. Question then arose as to how much the size of the subject node had been expanded at the time of the Land Use hearings. Planning Manager Challacombe stated that the node in question had not been expanded. Mr. King discussed the 55