Laserfiche WebLink
-I <br />APR 3 1985 BOOK 60 F,1.^E 403 <br />r,+. , i ; +. ; - <br />County water is available for the subject property. A force <br />main sewer may be extended to serve property directly east of <br />the subject property in the near future. However, there is <br />inadequate capacity in the County's wastewater allocation to <br />serve the subject property at this time. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Based on the above analysis, including the existing land use <br />pattern, the fact that the subject property could accommodate <br />19 dwelling units under the current zoning, and the Planning <br />and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that <br />the subject property not be redesignated as Commercial and that <br />it not be rezoned to C-1, Commercial District. <br />Planner Shearer noted that this property -is quite unique in <br />that it runs 900' along 8th Street from U.S.1 on the west to 6th <br />Avenue on the east. It has been cleared recently, and the <br />applicant wishes to develop it with retail stores. Staff did not <br />feel it was appropriate to deviate from the 600' depth of <br />commercial because of the residences in the area. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed this property has a potential <br />substantial impact on 6th Avenue, which already is a stressed <br />roadway. Furthermore, he pointed out that we paid the applicant <br />about $85,000 for acquisition of the right-of-way to extend 8th <br />Street, and he felt money should be generated to mitigate any <br />impact they might have on this stressed area. <br />Some discussion ensued regarding the fact that if the <br />rezoning were denied today, it could not be reconsidered for a <br />year, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that the Board could <br />postpone the appeal until a site plan was presented. <br />Planning Director Keating pointed out that even if a site <br />plan and rezoning were approved simultaneously, there is no <br />assurance that site plan would be built once the rezoning was in <br />place, but Attorney Brandenburg noted that any plan would have to <br />address the traffic impact issue. <br />Attorney Charles Sullivan, co-owner of the subject property, <br />presented arguments in favor of rezoning to commercial, <br />38 <br />® M <br />