Laserfiche WebLink
r NOV 171992 <br />BOOK 88 F'rE 4127 <br />that we looked at how much area we needed in each node to <br />accommodate the market and we also looked at existing commercial <br />uses and certain constraints such as the narrowness between U.S. #1 <br />and Old Dixie Highway. These parcels were not included in the <br />commercial node because they were large enough to accommodate <br />residential development, they did not have an existing commercial <br />use, and they were not needed in the node based on the estimates of <br />the size of the node. Director Keating disagreed with Attorney <br />O'Haire's argument that U.S. #1 should be strip commercial because <br />no new residential has been built along there in the last 20 years. <br />He emphasized that staff is not advocating driveways off of U.S. #1 <br />to access single-family homes, but is projecting a subdivision <br />roadway off of 73rd Street establishing an internal development <br />pattern. A residential development might front on U.S. #1, but the <br />property is big enough to support a berm wall and other buffering. <br />There are certain design options with the Planned Residential <br />Development (PRD). <br />Chairman Eggert emphasized that this was not an oversight <br />because she recalled that this matter was debated back and forth, <br />and Commissioner Adams remembered that the P&Z talked about Light <br />Commercial rather than Heavy Commercial. <br />Director Keating explained the differences between Heavy <br />Commercial and Light Commercial, one being that CL can have no use <br />larger than 40,000 square feet. The CL is a buffer between the <br />heavier types of commercial. Outside storage is allowed only in <br />CH. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that this is not an easy call since the <br />Board has tried diligently to avoid strip commercial along U.S. #1. <br />Residential has worked on the southern end of U.S.#1, but here the <br />owners do not have a large section or the depth. He felt Attorney <br />O'Haire makes a point in saying that this property really has no <br />use for residential. <br />Commissioner Macht asked about the environmental conditions on <br />the RS -3 property northeast of the subject property, and Attorney <br />O'Haire explained that the property to the east is in groves and it <br />is anticipated that use would continue for quite some time. <br />A MOTION MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by <br />Chairman Eggert, that the Board approve staff's <br />recommendation of denial, failed by a vote of 2-3, <br />Commissioners Tippin, Adams, and Bird dissenting. <br />38 <br />