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