12/16/2003 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Renee Renzi, 343 Waverly Place, said the same conditions apply as before and requested the Board reduce the density to RM -1, certainly not RM -6. Attorney Barkett pointed out this project is immediately adjacent to the commercial mall and to RM -6. He explained that the reason RM -6 was requested was because it allows a mix of uses from a small lot subdivision to single family, and RM -3 does not permit that. RM -6 will result in fewer units than RM -3. He was sorry that the Board denied the last request and he hoped that they would not deny this request because they are shutting the developer out for a year and forcing them to go to court. William Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, saw no reason why 3 or 4 units to an acre is not sufficient for the developers and the property owners to make money. Chairman Macht said he thought the Board made a great mistake by not considering a second motion for a lower density in the previous public hearing. It is one thing to say that RM -6 is too high, but it is quite another to say nothing is just right. The developer does have private property rights. Commissioner Neuberger suggested the prevailing side could reopen that issue again. Commissioner Ginn remained steadfast there are no east/west roads other than SR -60. In order to maintain the grid she felt they need to deny these requests until they have 98th Avenue and 4th Street paved. Chairman Macht assumed the developer would go to court and may get more than RM -6. He felt the Board did the wrong thing to take such a stand. Commissioner Lowther reiterated that this falls within the guidelines of what the developer can do. Unless a moratorium is imposed the requests are going to keep coming. He agreed with Chairman Macht that the developers will take it to court. Commissioner Adams said the "up to" is as much "up to" the Board as it is for the developer. She felt they should have amended the motion for something less than RM -6. DECEMBER 16, 2003 19