9/21/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 21 1993 a ,K 54,PAGE 724 community would like in this location some day, and Mr. .Dunford stated that the whole relationship with Mr. Wilson has been antagonistic and nothing positive has been done. The Community feels strongly that it makes no sense to drop 192 multi -family units in 16 acres on top of a 25 unit single family development and that it should be developed at no more than 6 units per acre. Commissioner Scurlock felt that rezoning the subject property to R -2D, which is 6 units per acre, would solve this matter because that then would be the maximum allowable. density. He'asked Mr. Wilson if he would be amenable to having the Board set a public hearing to downzone this property to 6 units per acre. Mr. Wilson stated that he wants to cooperate with the community and he would accept 6 units per acre gladly. A gentlemen from the audience had further questions re an R -2D category, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that the rezoning would require a new site plan and that is where you address such things as ingress and egress. In other words, under the site plan approval, the Community Development Department could say the ingress/egress has to be from U.S.I, and it is not going to be from the backside of the project. All considerations such as where the package plant is going to be located, buffers, landscaping, etc., would be addressed through the site plan. Juanita Blume of Hobart Landing felt that downzoning to 6 units per acre multiple family could still leave them with a three story building overlooking their community. Chairman Bird did not believe a 6 -unit per acre development would necessarily involve three story units, and Mr. Wilson stated that he would undertake to work with two story buildings. He emphasized that he will accept.6 units per acre and will accept two stories, but he does not want the people coming back and then asking for a density of 3. 116 S