4/15/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COMMISSIONER WODTKE AGREED THAT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, LANDSCAPING, AREA FOR SEWER AND WATER, SETBACKS, ETC., IT IS VERY UNLIKELY YOU CAN GET TO THE MAXIMUM, AND PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER AGREED THAT MOST DEVELOPMENTS COME IN SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW MAXIMUM. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK EMPHASIZED THAT HE WOULD STILL PREFER TO HAVE R -2B ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE TRACT EVEN THOUGH IT COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED TODAY, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ZONING ON EACH SEPARATE PORTION COULD REACH ITS MAXIMUM. HE FELT THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND FLOOD PLAIN DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO MULTI- FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE REZONING REQUEST DENIED AND HAVE THE COMMISSION INSTITUTE ACTION TO REZONE THE R-3 PORTION TO R -2B OR R -2D. DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON THE MERITS OF AVERAGING DENSITY. ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HIS OPINION WAS THAT THE PROPERTIES AND DENSITIES THAT ARE ALLOWED WOULD EACH RIDE ON THEIR OWN RATHER THAN BE AVERAGED TOGETHER BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE WHICH SAYS WHAT DENSITY YOU WILL NOT EXCEED. HE BELIEVED WHAT MR. REVER SAID MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE SOME PROVISION THAT ALLOWS AVERAGING AS DISCUSSED, BUT WE DO NOT AT PRESENT. CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT AT THIS POINT THE BOARD CAN EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUEST TO GO TO R -2B BUT AT THIS JUNCTURE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT REZONING THE R-3 PORTION. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD, AND WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM C-lA To R=2B . THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR REZONING AND TO HAVE APR 15 1981 35 BOOK 46 N1GE 253