My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/15/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
7/15/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:02 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:42:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/15/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
limited commercial district providing for most retail uses as <br />well as office uses; and OCR is primarily offices. <br />Commissioner Bowman wished to know if OCR permits boutiques, <br />and Planner Shearer advised that any retail use would have to be <br />accessory to an office use. The Zoning Code states; "Any <br />authorized accessory retail use shall be permitted providing that <br />no such use is free standing and that all such uses combined <br />comprise no more than 200 of the ground floor area of the <br />structure in which they are located." Uses listed are carry -out <br />restaurants, limited retail sales, and personal services. <br />Chief Planner Shearer then gave the history of the subject <br />property, noting that in 1957 it had a 600 ft. strip of commer- <br />cial zoning on U.S.I which was in place for years until Vista <br />Properties came in with their plan. They developed based on a <br />master plan (something like we do with PBDs today) and rezoned <br />the property leaving two commercial areas for all their frontage <br />on U.S.I. Planner Shearer continued to review his memo, noting <br />that the Planning & Zoning Commission and Planning staff both <br />telt this particular area would be suitable for a neighborhood <br />commercial node type activity. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if any representative or individual <br />wished to be heard. He noted that the applicant has said they <br />would prefer to make their presentation last. <br />Attorney Vitunac felt it would be more appropriate if the <br />applicant made his case first to give the public something to <br />discuss and rebut. <br />Attorney Henderson, representing Vista Properties, did not <br />object to that procedure, but asked to have an opportunity to <br />rebut later. He informed the Board that he is representing Vista <br />Properties as to parcels 1, 2 and 4 and Barnett Bank is parcel 3. <br />These parcels combined comprise about 51 acres, and he believed <br />there has been some contusion about this. The request only goes <br />to 5.5 acres, which is a little less than halfway in on Vista <br />Royale Boulevard. <br />13 <br />JUL 15 1996 BOOK 65 PACE 13 <br />l <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.