11/19/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C Alternatives Pursuant to Section 911.10(a)(b)2.3. of the LDRs, there •are essentially two alternatives available to the Board with respect to the site's neighborhood commercial node designation. These alternatives are as follows: 1. Terminate the neighborhood node designation and initiate a county administrative rezoning to change the zoning designation of this property to its original zoning(RM- 8, Multiple -Family Residential District, up to 8 units/acre) which is consistent with the site's underlying M-1 land use plan designation. 2. Extend this neighborhood node designation for another six months, allowing a limited amount of time for the owner to obtain site plan approval and to commence construction. If no site plan approval is obtained and no construction commences on the property within this six month period, the neighborhood node approval would automatically terminate and staff would initiate a rezoning of the site to RM -8. CONCLUSION It is staff's position that the existing neighborhood commercial node designation and CN zoning of the subject property are, not warranted. Not only is there an existing developed neighborhood node within 300 feet of the subject property, but a general commercial node also exists little more than a half mile from the site. Since no development has -occurred on the property in the six years that the node designation has existed, this indicates that commercial development of the site is not warranted. Forhose reasons, staff feels that node approval should be terminated RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners terminate the neighborhood node designation and direct staff to initiate a rezoning of the subject property to its original zoning of RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential (up to 8 units/acre). The Chairman returned to the meeting and took back the gavel. He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney William J. Stewart, representing Dr. Paul. and Denise E. Minotty, came before the Board to elaborate on the facts and circumstances presented by Mr. Keating and to explain Dr. and Mrs. Minotty's position with respect to this particular parcel. He said Dr. and Mrs. Minotty were not the applicants who secured the site plan. They acquired the property in 1989 after the site plan was approved and after the property was rezoned. That site plan was for a strip center, which Dr. and Mrs. Minotty had no intention of completing. Their plan was and still is to develop a professional office complex; particularly, a medical office complex. Mr. Stewart agreed no activity has taken place and that the site plan has expired. He did not feel the location of this particular parcel in relation to others was a good reason to revoke this zoning because it was a situation that was created. Inl other words, this is not the typical non-conformance which occurs when 45 ®V 19 Iq1 BOOKII