My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/27/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
7/27/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:15:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/27/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
J U L 2 71992 0 pAba-705 <br />extent trailers of another era, and staff also found a few <br />questionable uses that need to be brought to the attention <br />,of the Zoning Department. After analysis of the situation, <br />staff agreed that a duplex type development would supply an <br />excellent buffer between the LD -1 and MD -1 and felt that an <br />LD -2 classification on the A.A.Berry Subdivision, Lots 37 <br />and 38, and Haven View Subdivision would be in order. As we <br />get into administrative re -zonings; however, it was felt that <br />the maximum LD -2 of 6 units per acre would be excessive in <br />that area. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, that the Land Use Map be <br />changed to show LD -2 in place of LD -1 for Haven <br />View Subdivision, Haven View Addition #1, and A. A. <br />Berry Subdivision, Lots 37 & 38, basically forming <br />the L-shaped dimension. <br />Commissioner Fletcher stated that his basic concern is <br />the original concern that the Roseland Property Owners <br />Association had about density in that area, and he saw no <br />difference in this and the original request for site plan <br />approval. He noted at that point staff was of the opinion <br />duplexes were too high a density for that area and now they <br />just want to change the designation to make it fit. <br />Mr. Challacombe explained that the process they went <br />through with Mr. DeJoia previously was preliminary plat <br />approval on his subdivision, which has nothing to do with <br />the zoning - the subdivision process and zoning process are <br />two separate entities, one involving the subdivision of land <br />and the other involving the division of uses. <br />Commissioner Bird further explained that by Mr. DeJoia <br />indicating duplex on 1/2 acre lots, he was indicating 4 <br />units per acre which was in conflict with the Land Use Maps <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.