My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/15/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
4/15/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:17 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:02:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/15/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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
APR 151981 Boos ` �2 <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE FRANCHISE SET UP AND PROTECTION <br />OF PROPERTY OWNERS. ATTORNEY HENDERSON POINTED OUT THAT THEY JUST <br />FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT BY.THE COUNTY AND REGRET THAT THEY <br />CANNOT TIE INTO A CENTRAL SYSTEM. <br />COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED IF MR. HENDERSON'S CLIENT <br />WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY BEING <br />DESIGNATED AT S UNITS PER ACRE, AND MR. HENDERSON BELIEVED HE WOULD. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK HAD SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE <br />PROPOSED DENSITY IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE RIVER BECAUSE OF THE <br />WATER PROBLEM AND STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ENTIRE PARCEL <br />REZONED TO R -2B, OR S UNITS PER ACRE OVER THE WHOLE TRACT., <br />IN DISCUSSION, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ONLY THE C-lA PIECE <br />OF THE PROPERTY WAS ADVERTISED, AND TECHNICALLY THE BOARD CAN ACT <br />ONLY ON CHANGING THAT PORTION TO R-3 UNLESS THERE IS A STIPULATION <br />FROM THE OWNERS ALLOWING US TO ADDRESS A LOWER DENSITY. <br />ATTORNEY HENDERSON CONFIRMED THAT HIS CLIENT DID AMEND <br />THEIR REQUEST TO R-2B;ALTHOUGH,APPARENTLY IT WAS NOT ADVERTISED <br />THAT WAY, <br />11 COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THE SITE PLAN WILL <br />HAVE TO BE ADHERED TO AND THEY DON T NEED THE COMMERCIAL ZONING. HE <br />HAD NO PROBLEM WITH S UNITS PER ACRE. <br />COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO <br />AVERAGE THE DENSITY BETWEEN THE TWO PIECES WHEN THEY COME IN TO <br />DEVELOP THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. HE POINTED OUT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT <br />TO BUILD TO MAXIMUM DENSITY BECAUSE OF THE LAKE, SETBACKS, PARKING, <br />ETC., AND BELIEVED R -2B AVERAGED WITH R-3 WOULD GIVE YOU A LITTLE <br />OVER 10 UNITS PER ACRE; EVEN WITH R-lA, IT WOULD PROBABLY AVERAGE <br />AROUND 9. <br />PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER STATED THAT IF TWO SUCH PORTIONS OF <br />PROPERTY ARE BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND ONE OWNER IS DEVELOPING THE ENTIRE <br />TRACT, IT HAS BEEN THEIR PRACTICE TO AVERAGE BETWEEN THE TWO PORTIONS <br />IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A BETER OVERALL BALANCED DEVELOPMENT. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.