1/26/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN 2 6 e988 MU ' 70 Oa 698 DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS On October 8, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the most recent set of proposed amendments to the PRO district. These amendments had been requested by the Board of County Commissioners in order to enhance the usefulness of the PRO district. With general direction provided by the Board, the staff drafted specific amendments which were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 8th. At that meeting, the Commission expressed the need for additional flexibility in the PRO requirements and discussed several alternatives to the PRO requirements. By unanimous vote, the Commission tabled action on this item and directed staff to hold a public workshop on PRO district alternatives. One alternative was establishing a maximum depth from an arterial for PRO district zoning; a second alternative was eliminating the need for any arterial frontage. As directed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff held a public workshop meeting on PRO district alternatives. This meeting was held on November 12, 1987. At that workshop, most of the discussion focused on the arterial road frontage requirements of the PRO district, with several participants suggesting that the frontage requirement be changed to allow collector road frontage. Since the depth issue was not discussed in detail at the workshop, the staff analyzed various depth alternatives seperately, and that analysis is included in this report. On December 10, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to unanimously recommend approval of this amendment. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In addressing the Board's mandate to reexamine the PRO district and make it more useful, the staff considered several alternatives and then developed the recommendations presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 8th. As with the original ordinance, the objectives were to create a district which would be usable, would not promote spot zoning, would buffer residential from commercial land uses, and would provide an incentive for redeveloping deteriorating areas. District Size Issue One alternative considered was the reduction in minimum district size. Since the minimum district size was intended to preclude spot zoning, any reduction in the five acre standard would contribute to a spot zoning problem. However, staff determined that, if additional conditions were included, a reduction of the minimum size would be possible without creating adverse effects. The staff determined that, if such a reduction were conditioned upon the location of the property contiguous to existing commercially or industrially zoned property, a minimum size of 2.5 acres would not result in such problems. To promote additional flexibility while still meeting the stated objectives, the staff assessed the possibility of a further 10% reduction from the minimum 2.5 acre requirement. The proposed additional 10 % reduction in minimum size is predicated upon the following criteria. 1) The 2.25 acre parcel is located within a substantially developed area. 2) The additional traffic attracted/generated will not cause a substantial decrease in the level of service of the arterial road or intersection at which the district is located. 40