Laserfiche WebLink
M M . <br />developer has no objection to amending his request for a node to <br />the size of the area to be rezoned, or 5.5 acres. <br />Chairman Scurlock was interested in the cumulative effect of <br />what <br />will <br />happen <br />in this area <br />between the impact <br />of the OCR and <br />the <br />node, <br />and he <br />asked if the <br />applicant tried to <br />meet with the <br />property owners' group to go over their proposal. <br />Attorney Henderson believed the developer tried to communi- <br />cate with them before the last meeting, but due to the comments <br />made at the last meeting, it did not appear there would be much <br />benefit derived from meeting with them again. He informed the <br />Board that the applicant would have no problem with reducing <br />their request to CN, which is more restrictive than CL; they now <br />understand that CN does not have to be within a neighborhood <br />commercial node. The CL allows a lot of the same retail uses the <br />property owner was seeking, but in many instances it does require <br />administrative permits. Attorney Henderson stated that the Board <br />can consider their application to be changed to request CN zoning <br />and further pointed out that the applicant already has recorded <br />restrictions on the property to eliminate some of the uses the <br />residents found objectionable. <br />M <br />Commissioner Bird referred to the following map of the sub- <br />ject property and asked if the parcels marked 1, 2, 3 and 4, are <br />the areas where they would request the CN zoning. <br />27 <br />UFS©R 65 I ,�u M <br />L- JUL 2 9 1986 <br />