1/26/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN 2)6b moos 70 F'AGE 700 property involved does not have arterial frontage. Arguments have been raised that some collector roadways may be carrying more traffic than arterials. It has been stated that parcels fronting these collectors should be eligible for PRO zoning as are comparable lots fronting on arterials. Staff feels that allowing PRO district zoning on non -arterial roads should not be allowed for several reasons. First, permitting PRO zoning along collectors would substantially increase the amount of land available for PRO. As originally approved, the PRO district was only intended for limited use, particularly in areas suitable for redevelopment. Increasing the amount of PRO zoning has the potential for increasing the amount, type, and location of nonresidential uses and increasing potential land use conflicts. Although the specific performance standards for office uses, as listed in the comprehensive plan, require access to arterial and/or collector streets, these standards also state that the location "shall be in neighborhood/office nodes or as specified in the Zoning Ordinance". These standards indicate that, although office uses are acceptable along collector streets under certain conditions, they are more compatable along arterial roads or within nodes. Second, allowing PRO zoning adjacent to existing nonresidential areas for buffering purposes would increase the number of potential PRO areas even more than extending PRO district location standards to include collector roads. Staff estimates that, with this option, more than 800 acres could be zoned PRO. Buffering can be accomplished in several other ways, if that is the primary objective. These include required bufferyards which are already required in commercial districts; another alternative is to rezone existing property already in a node but located on the periphey to OCR in order to create a buffer. The staff's position is that the PRO district is not a district intended for general use. In many cases the impact of PRO zoning would be more adverse than beneficial. Instead of buffering and encouraging redevelopment, the office use would encroach and possibly encourage destabalization of neighborhoods. Therefore, its use should be restricted as originally intended. Conclusion In summary, the staff feels that the minimum district size should be reduced subject to the conditions referenced above. The staff also feels that a maximum district depth from an arterial of 300 feet would be appropriate if interior lots were limited to residential uses. Finally, the staff opposes the proposition of allowing PRO district zoning along non -arterial roads. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached ordinance which amends the PRO District as follows: 1. The minimum district size be reduced from 5 to 2.5 acres as proposed in the attached ordinance; and 2. A maximum permissable district depth from an arterial of 300 feet be permitted, precluding development of lots lacking arterial frontage for other than residential uses permiteed in the PRO district, unless arterial frontage is obtained through unifying ownership of the interior lot with a lot having arterial frontage. 42