12/4/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Lyons questioned the meaning of the second para- graph on Page 2 of the memo, and Director Keating explained that right now you are prohibited from rezoning property within the commercial corridor to residential. This would allow you to be flexible in the delineation of the commercial corridor and also allow you to rezone property in that corridor which abuts existing residential property as residential. Planner Shearer gave an example of property that lies 500' east of U.S.1 which has no access to U.S.1, but has access to a local street that is already developed residentially.- It is not feasible to develop this property as commercial without access to U.S.1, and this would allow the owner to apply for rezoning to residential in order to develop that property. He advised that we do have a number of such situations. Commissioner Wodtke asked why we don't just say that corridor is a major commercial service area and give the flexibility as he felt we might want to make a lot of it residential and he believed we do need to have flexibility. It was pointed out that the problem is that everything is on the bias, and many pieces of property are triangles. Chairman Lyons realized what we are trying to do, but did not feel comfortable with it. Director Keating believed the advantage with the commercial corridor is that it still serves as a good planning function, but It allows some flexibility along with pretty stiff criteria. Commissioner Scurlock felt the strict criteria is what provides the comfort Chairman Lyons is looking for; he agreed that while he wants some flexibility, he does not want it to mandate something regardless of adjacent uses. Commissioner Bird did not believe a rigid 600' line is practical in that area for either commercial or residential. In further discussion, Commissioner Wodtke noted that even if someone meets the criteria listed, it will just be considered; it is not an entitlement. This was confirmed by staff. 21 BOOK