Laserfiche WebLink
r'- <br />juN 51985 <br />BOOK 1 P -E 95 <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed <br />the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked how the Board would feel about <br />changing the size of a neighborhood node from 0 to 6 acres to 0 <br />to 3 acres, and the Chairman asked if that was a Motion. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed <br />to designate the size of a neighborhood node as <br />0 to 3 acres. <br />Administrator Wright stressed that what we are talking about <br />today is a neighborhood commercial node, not to be confused with <br />a general commercial node that the Board might want to create on <br />SR 60. <br />Chairman Lyons discussed the phrase requiring that "the area <br />of the proposed neighborhood node must be densely populated <br />(e.g., a land use designation of LD -2 or higher)..." and <br />suggested it be reworded to require that the neighborhood node <br />must be in an area that has the "potential" of having dense <br />population, e.g., a land use designation of LD -2 or higher. <br />Commissioner Wodtke suggested that it just be required that <br />it be in a land use designation of LD -2 or higher, and delete <br />"potential population." This was agreed upon. <br />It was further noted that the language re traffic impact <br />should be made consistent with the Comprehensive Plan re not <br />downgrading below Level of Service C or D. <br />Chairman Lyons brought up Commissioner Bowman's suggestion <br />requiring that the neighborhood node must be compatible both in <br />function and appearance with the surrounding area, and it was <br />agreed this should be required. <br />e <br />54 <br />L-1 <br />