My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/11/2006
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
04/11/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2018 1:23:46 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:01:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Migration
Meeting Date
04/11/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3098
Book and Page
130, 527-559
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
300
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
<br />Administrator, as recommended in the memorandum of <br />March 27, 2006. <br /> <br />8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL <br />AGENCIES - NONE <br /> <br />9. PUBLIC ITEMS <br />9.A. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />1. TREVISOLLC’SREQUESTTOREZONE±19.48ACRES <br /> <br />FROMA-1TORM-8(QUASI-JUDICIAL)(WR <br /> AS EZONED TO <br />RS-6) <br /> <br />PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE <br />OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br /> <br />Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the memorandum of March 31, <br />2006 using a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) showing the existing land uses in the area, and <br />advised this was an appeal of a denial of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant’s <br />intent is to get zoning to build multi-family housing at RM-8. The property is located at the <br />thth <br />northeast quadrant of the intersection of 16 Street and 74 Avenue. Staff felt there would be no <br />significant environmental impact to this apparently abandoned grove. Staff’s position is that the <br />request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the requested RM-8 zoning <br />conflicts with Policies 1.41 and 1.45 of the Future Lane Use Element. He presented three <br />alternatives the Board as follows: (1) to approve as RM-8 as requested, (2) to deny the requested <br />RM-8, or (3) to approve with a lower density such as RM-6 or RS-6. Staff and the P & Z <br />recommended RM-6. <br />April 11, 2006 8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.