Laserfiche WebLink
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board <br />unanimously closed the Public Hearing. <br />Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Brandenburg what the <br />proper action would be if the Board agreed to allow this <br />property to be used for commercial, and Attorney Brandenburg <br />stated that it has to be determined not only that the <br />property has some unique circumstances which make it <br />unsuitable to include it within a node, but also that, <br />because of those circumstances, it should be used for <br />commercial purposes. It is a two-pronged determination. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that the first premise would be <br />fulfilled by its proximity to the other node at U.S. #1 and <br />the second premise would be satisfied because even though it <br />is not suitable for being designated as a node, there are <br />special circumstances unique to this property and its <br />location that make it suitable for commercial development. <br />Chairman Scurlock pointed out that those were the same <br />reasons that the Planning and Zoning Commission found for- <br />recommending <br />or <br />recommending that the property be redesignated to <br />commercial. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that this Commission, the <br />Planning & Zoning Commission, and staff are making a valiant <br />effort to eliminate strip zoning, but they have inherited <br />some situations that make it very difficult to draw the <br />line. <br />Director Keating believed that this property is a good <br />location for R-2, multiple housing, as the tract is <br />sufficiently large enough to provide a buffer from the road. <br />25 <br />JUN 2 0 1994 <br />L_ <br />BOOK 7 F�„E486 <br />