Laserfiche WebLink
If this alternative is selected, a conflict between the zoning and the proposed <br />Comprehensive Plan would be created. In order to resolve this conflict a new <br />land use designation would need to be assigned to Marsh Island. The LD -2 (6 <br />unit/acre) classification would accommodate a zoning of 4 units/acre as requested <br />for the subject property. <br />B) Deny the rezoning request, leaving the property zoned C-1, Commercial. <br />Commercial development of Marsh Island is not an appropriate land use and [nay <br />create a similar or greater problems than would a multi -family development at <br />4 units/acre. If this alternative is selected, and the proposed Comprehensive <br />Plan is adopted, a rezoning action will be necessary in order for the zoning to <br />be consistent oiith the new land use designation. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Development of an area such as riarsh Island should be at as low of a density as <br />feasible. Due to the clustering effect of multi -family development, in many cases <br />there is less impact and disturbance of land than would occur in similar density, <br />single family developments. The site plan approval process also applies to multi- <br />family developments where single family homes are exempt. Additional review and <br />study of this amended request for rezoning has led to staff's concurrence to recom- <br />mend approval of the rezoning of Marsh Island to R -2A, Multi -Family Residential. <br />The Planning and Zoning Commission by a 3 to 2 vote approved this recommendation <br />in the public hearing of October 22, 1981. <br />Commissioner Fletcher wished to know what was meant <br />under Alternative A by "proper mitigation measures." <br />Mr. Rever stated that he has discussed this with the <br />engineers and Health Department and believes that going <br />through the proper permitting would take care of any <br />problems. <br />Commissioner Fletcher asked if, as a Planner, Mr. Rever <br />felt comfortable in setting density first and working out <br />services and resources later. <br />Mr. Rever stated that is not the best of all possible <br />worlds, but we are dealing with a commercial entity, which <br />would have to rely on these services and obviously would <br />want them right. He felt it would be a far better situation <br />than leaving the property C-1. <br />Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that the R -2A zoning <br />would allow 109 units rather than 190, which apparently is a <br />typographical error. <br />Doyle Rogers, Trustee, and applicant, confirmed that <br />the number of units would be 109 and informed the Board that <br />DEC 16 198 1 49 MOK <br />48 mv-365 <br />