Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Caldwell felt that one approach would be to defer action <br />today and consider both locations on their own merits sometime in <br />August or September. Another approach would be to go ahead and <br />do the rezoning and then let his client submit a request after <br />they go through the Planning & Zoning Commission. He believed <br />this particular intersection is concerned because it is unique <br />due to its proximity to 1-95, and could foresee the need in the <br />future for additional commercial because of higher densities <br />being developed. <br />Commissioner Bird had a problem approving 3 acres at 74th <br />Avenue when it is going to affect the commercial use of the C-1 <br />property to the south. <br />Attorney Caldwell stressed that his clients had submitted <br />their request for an 8 -acre node before the ordinance was in <br />place. <br />Attorney Brandenburg again requested the Board to clarify <br />their position on this matter by adopting a Motion as to whether <br />or not the neighborhood commercial node ordinance is applicable <br />to the petitions pending prior to the date the ordinance was <br />adopted. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted the <br />position that the neighborhood node ordinance adopted <br />last week is not applicable to petitions received <br />prior to the date the ordinance was adopted. <br />Chairman Lyons opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously closed <br />the Public Hearing. <br />23 <br />JUN 12 1985 sooK �;,,F� <br />