Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Zoning Ivc topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs zoning change to raise commercial cap in Interchange Village Center to match comp plan
Summary
The commission recommended approval of a zoning text amendment to align Interchange Village Center commercial‑retail minimum/maximum percentages with a comprehensive‑plan amendment adopted about a year earlier, raising the maximum commercial share from 40% to 65% in the affected IVC parcels; nearby residents urged maximizing retail and flagged industrial‑use concerns.
The Clay County Planning Commission recommended approval of a zoning text amendment to align zoning code language with an earlier comprehensive‑plan amendment that increases the permitted commercial‑retail percentage in the Lake Asbury Interchange Village Center (IVC) from a 40% maximum to 65%.
Susan Fraser of SLF Consulting, the applicant’s agent, said the county adopted the plan amendment about a year ago and the zoning change simply makes the land‑development code consistent with the comp plan. "The county approved a plan amendment, literally a year ago," Fraser said, arguing the revision reflects where access and demand for nonresidential uses exist around the interchange.
Public commenters voiced support for more retail. Gary Schiff, vice president of the Village Park homeowners association and a nearby resident, said he supports increasing retail at the IVC and urged the commission to consider reducing or eliminating the comp‑plan‑required residential minimum, arguing that the area is almost entirely single‑family and limiting residential requirement could maximize retail opportunity.
Resident Helena Cormier praised consistency but cautioned about industrial uses, saying some industrial uses allowed in the IVC could be undesirable near homes. Staff responded that industrial uses are permitted at the State Road 16 interchange (a roughly 150‑acre area) but are not allowed at the Henley IVC and that reducing the residential minimum would require a separate comprehensive‑plan amendment.
The commission moved, seconded and approved the staff recommendation by voice vote; the change will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.
