My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/21/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
11/21/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:09 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:46:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/21/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
m <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF, IN HIS PROFESSIONAL OPINION, <br />HE FELT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS PREMATURE. <br />PLANNER REDICK STATED THAT HIS FEELING IS THAT THERE IS ROOM <br />FOR SOME COMMERCIAL, DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION, BUT HE WOULD NOT AGREE <br />WITH THE AMOUNT BECAUSE THERE IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF POPULATION TO <br />BE SERVED IN THIS LOCATION AND THERE ALREADY IS A SHOPPING CENTER BEING <br />DEVELOPED AT ROSELAND ROAD, HE FELT THE COMMERCIAL SHOULD BE LIMITED TO <br />SOMEWHERE AROUND THE INTERSECTION. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED IF WE COULD CONSIDER AREA 4 UP TO THE <br />NORTHERN EXTENSION OF THE LINE ON THE WEST SIDE OF B-1 AS A UNIT SINCE <br />THERE DOESNIT SEEM TO BE ANY BIG CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THAT. HE POINTED <br />OUT IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION ON THAT, WE COULD DISPOSE OF AREA 4 WITH <br />THE EXCEPTION OF THE EAST 1320'. HE THEN STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO <br />SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE THE WHOLE INTERSECTION THERE AS A RESTUDY FOR <br />ANOTHER SHOT SINCE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED, AND THE <br />ATTORNEY HAS INDICATED IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO READVERTISE. <br />MR. ANSIN STATED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO OBJECT TO ANY ELIM- <br />INATION OF THE EXISTING ZONING UNLESS THEY, AT THE SAME TIME, HAD A PLAN <br />FOR THE REMAINING PROPERTY, HE FELT, JUDGING FROM THE SIZE OF THE <br />ATTENDANCE AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS, THERE CLEARLY IS AN <br />EXISTING AND INCREASING NEED FOR FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION. HE CON- <br />TINUED THAT THIS WAS VERY THOROUGHLY STATED AT -THOSE MEETINGS, AND HE <br />DOES NOT FEEL ANY SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE NEED DOES <br />NOT EXIST. MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE CERTAINLY COULD NOT AGREE TO ANY <br />ZONING DRAWBACK ON ANY OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT SOME FAIR AND EQUITABLE <br />PROVISION AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. HE AGREED THAT POSSIBLY THEY DO NOT <br />NEED THE R-3 DENSITY, BUT MULTI -FAMILY WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF <br />AN INTEGRATED PLAN. HE POINTED OUT THAT THEY ARE, IN FACT, THE ONLY <br />PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 510 IN THIS AREA AND SUGGESTED IT <br />WOULD SUFFICE IF THEY WAIVED NOTICE FOR A REDUCTION FROM.R-3 TO ANOTHER <br />MORE'SUITABLE DENSITY, IF THAT IS THE BOARD'S WISH. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF MR. ANSIN WOULD CONSIDER IT <br />REASONABLE IF, ON THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BY NEXT JULY, IT <br />SHOWED BASICALLY WHAT IS UP THERE NOW, BUT THE REZONING ACTUALLY TOOK <br />PLACE AT A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME? <br />36 <br />NOV 2 1 1978�R � �cr <br />o 7 p���30 <br />{ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.