7/29/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

commercial area. He pointed out that if this went to court and the applicant prevailed, it would result in 22 acres of C-1 zoning, a broader and much more liberal commercial zoning, and he stated that 5.5 acres represents the minimum the property owner is willing to accept. Commissioner Bird asked, as far as permitted uses and inten- sity of use, if staff feels CN is a compromise between OCR and the CL zoning originally requested. Planner Shearer clarified that CN is more restrictive than CL but a bit more flexible than OCR in its allowedrangeof uses; it was designed to provide for neighborhood commercial uses such as grocery stores, drug stores, etc. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he was opposed to the size requested at the last hearing and was looking for a reduction in that intensity. He believed Parcels 1 and 2 are located so that they are sufficiently buffered to keep all the activity on the north side significantly away from any of the developed living units, but stated he would not vote for rezoning Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4, to CN because of his concern about attracting traffic to the entranceway. Also, he still was of the opinion that the multi family area on the south is of sufficient size to provide the ability to develop it in multi family use with enough buffer from U.S.I. Attorney Henderson emphasized that the developer is just trying to develop what he originally planned to deliver and represented that he would deliver as shown in the sales brochure from their original development. The golf course was designed around the commercial area as a buffer, and if the County had not allowed that commercial zoning back then, the property would have been redesigned. Commissioner Bowman wished to know exactly what kind of stores would go in Parcels 1 and 2, and what some of the pro- hibited uses are. 29 BOOK DD Ft�1,E251 L- J L 2 9 1906