Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press for outreach, legal analysis on EDC’s business‑park zoning proposals
Summary
The Board discussed six Economic Development Corporation proposals to change Business Park zoning — including reducing minimum acreage and raising height limits — and commissioners urged more public outreach, binding development concept plans, and legal study of interactions with Live Local provisions before adopting code changes.
Planning staff summarized six proposals from the Economic Development Corporation aimed at making Business Park (BP) zoning more flexible: limiting fast‑food uses, reducing the 10‑acre minimum (discussion ranged to 2–5 acres), revising buffer requirements (withdrawn), authorizing higher building heights (amended request: 45 feet by right, up to 65 feet by special exception), modifying warehouse/freight language (withdrawn), and allowing research and light manufacturing in the same park.
Aaron, an EDC representative, told commissioners that an inventory of about 40 candidate parcels showed an average parcel size just over 5 acres and 13 sites in the 2–5 acre range, and that market pressures (land prices up ~85%, construction costs up ~35%) have driven demand for smaller footprints. “At any acreage between 2 to 10, it certainly opens up more opportunity,” Aaron said.
Several commissioners urged caution. “I would really encourage the EDC and their board do some public outreach,” Commissioner Mast said, arguing community input is essential before changing minimum acreage or height standards. Commissioners also proposed procedural protections—such as requiring binding development concept plans or special exceptions for height increases—to prevent unintended outcomes, including making properties vulnerable to Live Local projects.
Staff noted that some amendments (for example reducing minimum acreage) would trigger both Unified Development Code and comprehensive‑plan amendment processes and that legal review is needed to determine whether any change would run afoul of Senate Bill 180 or otherwise create unintended preemption or procedural exposure.
The board did not take final votes on the EDC items; commissioners directed staff to coordinate further analysis, consult the County Attorney, and have the EDC expand community outreach before the proposals return for formal consideration.
Next steps: staff to study acreage thresholds, buffering and height tradeoffs, and whether binding concept plans or other conditions could be used to protect the county’s intended business‑park character; EDC asked to conduct community outreach and return with revised language.
