Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Scurlock wondered on what basis we could say enough <br />is enough and deny a future expansion, and Attorney Barkett noted <br />that the Board now looks at a Special Exception on a case by case <br />basis, taking into consideration its compatibility with the <br />surrounding neighborhood, its impact on the services available, <br />etc., and then you tailor your conditions on the Special <br />Exception approval to those circumstances. <br />The Chairman agreed that we judge the impact and set condi- <br />tions whereby someone can alleviate the impact by providing <br />additional parking, adding an additional lane of traffic, etc., <br />but he believed when we have these professional office complexes <br />that are close to residential neighborhoods, we want to have as <br />reasonable level of volume of traffic as possible, and he would <br />like to have a vehicle that says while you can have more parking <br />and you can improve the road, in this particular case we don't <br />necessarily want 8 lanes of traffic and the impact that goes <br />along with that. <br />for. <br />Attorney Barkett felt that is what Special Exceptions are <br />Commissioner Eggert pointed out that it is one thing if you <br />are expanding by adding onto a building, but if the business is <br />in a building with other businesses and the real estate office <br />moves out and some other business moves out, and the high traffic <br />business takes those offices over, you don't realize this is <br />going on and all of a sudden, there is a tremendous impact. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed that is why Commissioner Bird <br />earlier brought up the possibility that you would have a <br />percentage, and they could not occupy more than that set amount. <br />Attorney Barkett pointed out while there are some built-in <br />protections already in the PRO District, i.e., increased buffer <br />and setback requirements, and for medical offices you have an <br />increased parking requirement, he did not feel the county has the <br />protection they want in the present ordinance. As an example, he <br />advised that Mr. Kutschinski submitted a site plan for a building <br />AUG 9 1988 <br />16 BOOK 73 F,1r,E 36 7 <br />