1/26/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Since the minimum district size reduction proposal was not a major point of contention at the October 8th meeting, the staff has not readdressed that issue in detail. Instead, staff has focused on the other issues raised regarding the proposed ordinance amendments. Depth Issue Since questions have been raised regarding the potential problems of developing lots fronting on arterials and having little depth, the staff examined the possibility of establishing a maximum depth for the PRO district. Because it is often older, existing platted subdivisions where these problems can occur, the staff analyzed the application of such alternatives to those types of 3.1P'eas. Basically, the option of extending the depth of the PRO diCstrict has a major impact by including lots not fronting on an arterial. The two primary concerns with this are: 1) increased traffic into and through a residential area, and 2) the promotion of multiple small projects being developed. Increased traffic into a residential area would result from the higher trip attraction rate produced by professional offices, 17.7 trips/1000 sq. ft. versus 7.35 trips per residential unit. Such trips would be diverted from the nearby arterial network and routed through the residential neighborhood, increasing traffic within those areas. The current requirement of arterial frontage for all PRO zoned lots attempts to minimize neighborhood disruption by ensuring that access contact will be limited to areas close to the arterial. In analyzing the depth from an arterial issue, the staff determined that properties without arterial frontage could be included within the PRO district without major problems if certain conditions were applied. It is the staff's position that applying a 300 foot depth from an arterial for PRO district establishment would not result in problems being created if PRO district lots without arterial frontage are limited to residental uses. That would minimize.traffic disruption within developed areas and provide a district depth comparable to the distance represented by three lots. As with the present ordinance, this alternative would allow the combination of interior lots with those having arterial frontage to create larger parcels for office construction. Also, as found in the County Code, if a platted lot of record is divided by a zoning district boundary, the lot may be used for uses permitted in the district in which the majority of the lot lies. This clause will avoid situations in which a bisected lot would not contain sufficient area to permit development within either district. However, it should be made clear that this clause only pertains to platted lots, and not to metes and bounds lots. Several other alternatives relating to the depth issue exist. One, of course, would be to set a maximum district depth of 300 feet without any further conditions. This option, however, would increase traffic on local roads. Other alternatives involve increasing or decreasing the 300 foot distance. Staff feels that 300 feet is the preferable distance, because it most closely relates to the distance of three lots. Therefore, the staff's opinion is that the 300 foot maximum depth coupled with a residential use limitation for interior lots is the best alternative. Non -Arterial Frontage Issue The final issue involves the question of whether PRO district Qning should be allowed adjacent to commercial areas even if the 41 ijo1 2 198 , POOK 70 FACE 699