6/5/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r___ , JUN 5 1985 BOOK 61 F'+HF 87 across the right-of-way wherever that node ends to the boundary line of the other entity - whether it be another node, a commercial corridor, MXD area, or something of that sort. Commissioner Scurlock noted that section lines run every mile, but property is not divided that way generally. Chairman Lyons asked what we basically are trying to accomplish - avoiding traffic or -avoiding strip zoning? If these nodes are set up so they are well protected from the road, he felt it would not constitute strip zoning. Director Keating stated that the objective that the neighborhood node was trying to accomplish was a major considera- tion when the workshops were held. Before those meetings, the staff thought there were primarily two objectives - avoiding strip commercial development, and providing a means of having limited commercial within residential areas to keep a lot of traffic off of the major arteries. What evolved in the workshop meetings, however, was a kind of mini node concept. The idea was that these would still be neighborhood commercial areas and that they would provide an outlet, primarily composed of neighborhood services, between the major nodes and still prevent strip commercial from occurring. Director Keating did want to point out that that staff is workshopping drafts of the non-residential districts of the Zoning Code, and there is a specific neighbor- hood commercial zoning district which would apply to the neighborhood nodes. Commissioner Bird entered the meeting at 9:40 o'clock A.M. Commissioner Bowman commented that conceivably these type nodes could occur every .9 of a mile, but she felt this has been dealt with by the statement that the node must be compatible in function and appearance. If it blended in, it would not be objectionable. Commissioner Wodtke referred to the wording "contiguous" acres, and asked if the nodes don't have to be all on one side of the road. Director Keating confirmed that it would. 46