4/21/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 211982 80°K9 Fr56 mistakes have been made in developing when you don't put people in a configuration where you can have tennis courts, lakes, etc., and do it all under one guidance. Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. Jackson if there is a change in their feelings and 4 units an Acre will be acceptable rather than a higher/density. Attorney Jackson stated that la density of 4 is acceptable, and Mr. Richardson would not mind being tied to that. It was noted that R -2A is a 41,unit per acre multiple family zoning. Commissioner Bird inquired if,Mr. Richardson would amend his rezoning request to R -2A, and Mr.!, Richardson stated that he would. Attorney Brandenbgxg stat-bd there would be no problem with this. Planning Manager Challacombe wished to clarify any point of confusion Mr. Jackson might have found in the staff memo. He then went into a detailed discussion of the proposed density compared to the surrounding properties, pointing out that Mr. Jackson is assuming that the bordering B-1 zoning will be - retained under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but that is yet to be determined by this Board. Mr1. Challacombe felt use (single family vs. multiple family) is the ll major question rather than density and stated that it is staff's contention that R -2D multi family is not compatible with the property to the west, south or east, all of which has single family usage. Commissioner Bird asked if the amendment of the application to R -2A would have any effect on stuff's recommendation. Mr. Challacombe did not feel he was in a position to make a recommendation on the densities at,this time right off the cuff, but noted, however, that it still !would be multi family in a predominantly single family area; the bordering mobile homes actually are single family dwelling s, and the subdivision to the