4/9/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

THAT THE REQUEST TO GO TO R -2B MAY BE THE ANSWER AND WONDERED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING ABLE TO SATISFY BOTH CONCERNS BY CONSIDERING JUST THE EAST PORTION FOR R -2B AND LEAVING THE WESTERLY HALF OF THE PROPERTY IN THE R-1. IN THIS WAY, THEY WOULD HAVE A BUFFER AGAINST THE COMMERCIAL ON THEIR OWN PIECE OF PROPERTY. HE DID NOT KNOW IF THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER THIS OR WHETHER I.T WOULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE APPLICANT. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE BOARD HAS THE POWER TO REZONE ONE LOT, ALL LOTS, OR NO LOTS. ATTORNEY BLOCK STATED THAT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, THERE ARE LOTS SOLD ON THE WEST, AND THE ONLY AGENCY THEY HAVE TO REPRESENT THEM FOR IS THE R -2B. HE DID NOT FEEL THEY COULD TELL THESE OWNERS THAT THEY GOT THE R -2B ZONING FOR SOME AND NOT FOR OTHERS. COMMISSIONER Loy INQUIRED ABOUT THE PETITIONER MAKING A REAPPLICATION WHEN A ZONING IS TURNED DOWN, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR A YEAR UNLESS THEY COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL. HE POINTED OUT THAT IF THIS PROPERTY WERE REZONED TO R -2B AS REQUESTED, IT WOULD BE TREATED ON A BASIS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT TAKING PLACE. HE NOTED THAT THEY COULD REQUIRE AN ADEQUATE BUFFER BETWEEN IT AND ANY OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WOULD BE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT IT WOULD COME TO THEM EITHER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND THEY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH HOWEVER THEY TREATED IT, WHETHER IT CAME AS AN ENTITY OR LOT BY LOT. COMMISSIONER Loy STATED THAT SHE SHARES COMMISSIONER WODTKE'S CONCERN, BUT WHILE IN MANY AREAS BUFFER ZONES ARE GOOD, THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PROPERTY IS THAT THE COMMERCIAL HAS BEEN THERE SINCE YEAR I AND THE RESIDENTIAL HAS BEEN THERE AS LONG. IT IS DEVELOPING AS A RESIDENTIAL SECTION, AND SHE FELT IF WE START THIS BUFFER REZONING, IT UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD IMMEDIATELY BRING ON OTHER REQUESTS. COMMISSIONER 61 BOOK' 43.PAG' 04 - APR 91980