2/26/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fr__ FEB 216 1986 BOOK 63 rW.)L 755 few multiple -family zoning districts. The general consensus of individuals at the workshop was that the County should permit offices as a special exception use in multiple -family districts abutting arterial streets. Moreover, some individuals felt that offices should also be allowed as a special exception use in single-family zoning districts that abutted arterial streets and there was discussion about allowing offices along collector streets and permitting accessory retail sales in conjunction with some of these offices. On July 24, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners 'decided not to amend the RM -6, RM -8 and RM -10 multiple -family zoning dis- tricts to allow offices as a special exception use on properties abutting an arterial street. The Board stated that the proposed amendment was too broad and would allow offices along State Road A -1-A which they did not feel was appropriate. The Board in- structed the staff to look at this situation again and prepare another proposal that would be more restrictive. In addition, the Board wanted to know specific areas where this type of development would be permitted. On January 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission con- sidered these alternatives and voted 4 -to -0 to recommend that the County allow professional offices in some residentially zoned areas along arterial streets and that this be implemented through the creation of a professional office zoning district. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The staff has prepared two alternative zoning ordinance amend- ments which would allow general offices to be established on properties abutting arterial streets on the mainland. The first alternative is to adopt a professional office zoning district which would be considered consistent with the LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), MD -1, Medi- um -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre), and MD -2, Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre), land use designations. The advantage of this alternative is that it would give the County a lot of discretion as to where this zoning district would be established. A disadvantage of this alterna- tive is that it could result in spot zoning because individual property owners could apply for rezoning for a small parcel that could be demonstrated to be suitable for office development but was surrounded by residential zoning. However, the spot zoning problem could be alleviated by the County rezoning appropriate areas for offices and not granting rezonings that were not contiguous to these areas. The second alternative is to amend the RM -6, RM -8 and RM -10 zoning districts to allow offices as a special exception with specific criteria to regulate their development. An advantage of this alternative is that it would lessen the chances of spot zoning for offices because offices would be allowed in three multiple -family districts. A disadvantage of this alternative is that it would minimize the County's discretion as to where offices could locate. For example, for a parcel of land located on an arterial street with the appropriate multiple -family zoning, an office would be allowed on the site if it could meet the specific criteria required for offices. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider adopting a new professional office zoning district to regulate office development in areas along arterial streets and designated as LD -2, MD -1, MD -2, MXD or commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. 42