Laserfiche WebLink
PROBLEM OF A MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA NEXT TO THE RIVER <br />BEING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AND•UNDEVELOPABLE. IT WAS PSR. BERG'S <br />OPINION THAT BY REZONING TO R-1, THEY WERE GIVING THE APPLICANTS <br />REASONABLE USE OF THEIR LAND AND THAT SINCE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN <br />R-ZA AND R-1 IS WIDTH OF THE LOTS, IT WOULD NOT BE SPOT ZONING. MR. <br />SCHMUCKER CONTINUED THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO LOTS IN KANSAS CITY COLONY <br />NORTH OF THE PARK WHICH ARE 150' OR LESS, AND HE FELT IT IS A SPECIFIC <br />HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER TO REQUIRE ZOO' FRONTAGE OUT OF A 150' LOT TO <br />BUILD ONE HOUSE, PARTICULARLY ON LAND THIS VALUABLE. HE NOTED THAT ONE <br />OWNER WAS ALLOWED TO BUILD ON 60' UNDER A VARIANCE. MR. $CHMUCKER <br />REITERATED THAT THE REASONS HE FEELS THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE GRANTED ARE <br />BECAUSE SIMILAR REZONING HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THIS AREA AND ALSO BECAUSE <br />OF THE HARDSHIP CAUSED THE OWNER BY THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. <br />PETER PECK APPEARED REPRESENTING PROPERTY OWNERS EDWIN AND <br />THELMA PECK, WHO OWN THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH <br />PROPERTY HAPPENS TO HAVE 200' FRONTAGE. FOR THAT OBVIOUS REASON, THEY ARE <br />NOT INTERESTED IN THIS REZONING; THEY AGREE WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR <br />ABOUT THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS; AND THEY WISH THE PROPERTY TO STAY AS <br />PRESENTLY ZONED. <br />HEPBURN WALKER, PROPERTY OWNER OF THE AREA, STATED THAT THEY <br />ARE HAVING A SERIOUS PROBLEM TRYING TO GET WATER DOWN TO THE SOUTH BEACH, <br />AND ONE`OF THE BIG REASONS CITY COUNCIL IS WORRIED ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE <br />THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIGHER DENSITY COMING IN THERE. HE EMPHASIZED <br />THAT WATER IS A MAJOR CONCERN AND THAT HE DID NOT WANT THE BOARD TO <br />TAKE ANY ACTION THAT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE GETTING WATER TO THE EXISTING <br />RESIDENCES SOUTH OF THE MOORINGS. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />SIEBERT, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />LOY, TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO R-1 ON THE BASIS THAT IT <br />WOULD•BE SPOT ZONING AND ALSO WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE KIND OF <br />DEVELOPMENT TO BE PLACED ON THE OTHER LOTS. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE SYMPATHIZES WITH MR. <br />$CHMUCKER, BUT DID NOT FEEL WE CAN -SUPPORT A HIGHER DENSITY THAT FAR <br />42 <br />J U L 51979 <br />Sao . 1� log <br />