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
AREA 6 (NOS. 10, 11, 12) - PROPERTY DIRECTLY SOUTH OF INTER- <br />SECTION OF 510 AND 512 AND RUNNING SOUTH TO SLIGHTLY NORTH OF THE EAST- <br />WARD CURVE OF 510. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY FELT IT IS VERY PREMATURE TO HAVE ANY R-3 <br />IN THIS AREA. SHE NOTED THAT WE HAVE NO RULES AND REGULATIONS ABOUT <br />HOW IT CAN BE DONE, AND SHE FELT THIS IS WAY FAR AHEAD IN THE FUTURE AS <br />FAR AS REZONING IS CONCERNED. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY, COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />SIEBERT, TO REMAND AREA 6 TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR A PLAN CONSISTENT <br />WITH OUR ACTIONS ON THE OTHER AREAS REZONED TODAY. <br />MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE WOULD BE PERFECTLY AMENABLE TO A <br />LOWER DENSITY AND AGREED THAT R-3 MIGHT BE HIGH. HE FELT IN THE LONG <br />TERM SOME DENSITY SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE USE FOR THIS AREA AND HOPED <br />THAT THE BOARD WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE REZONING THE VAST <br />AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL THAT HAS BEEN ZONED BACK. HE POINTED OUT THAT THEY <br />ARE REALLY DEPENDENT ON AREA 6. <br />IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS MUST BE RESTUDIED AND THAT WE CAN'T <br />TAKE ACTION ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN WAS ADVERTISED.' <br />MR. ANSIN STATED THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS <br />BEEN ARBITRARILY DIVIDED INTO THESE SECTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS <br />MEETING WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY ONE PIECE OF CONTIGUOUS LAND. HE FELT THESE <br />SECTIONS HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY SET. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY DID NOT BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING ARBITRARY <br />ABOUT THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. <br />MR. ANSIN STATED THAT HE ONLY MEANT THE DIVISION OF THE <br />PROPERTY IS ARBITRARY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSALS. HE CON- <br />TINUED THAT THE PROPOSALS IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATED WERE BASED ON THE <br />PROPERTY AS A WHOLE AND NOT BASED ON THE SEGMENTATION THIS BOARD IS <br />NOW ADDRESSING ITSELF TO. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT EVERYTHING HE HAS HEARD INDICATES <br />THAT THE BOARD IS SENTITIVE TO THE PROBLEM, BUT DOESN'T SEE A SOLUTION <br />TO IT THE WAY IT IS PRESENTED. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT NOTED THAT THE MOTION ITSELF STATED THAT <br />THIS BE REMANDED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING <br />41 <br />NOV 2 11978 <br />Boa 37 PAGE N <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.