4/11/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 11984 Box 56_ qac 704'A to R-1; and last fall Block B was rezoned to R-1AA. It was then staff first noticed we had a problem because the R-lAA created non -conforming lots. Mr. Shearer continued to review staff's reasons for recommending the redesignation to LD -2 and rezoning to R -2D, noting that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-1 to approve a change of the Land Use Plan to LD -2, but voted 3-2 to deny the downzoning to R -2D. He noted that almost all of Block F, the subject property, is zoned C-1; just the tip of one lot is R-1. When this first came up, staff felt R-1 would be appropriate for most of the land, but since R-1 allows a density of 6.2 per acre, it would not be allowed under LD -1. Chairman Scurlock asked if the residents' objections would have been overcome by R-1, and staff felt that density is not so much the issue as multi -family vs. single family. Commissioner Bird felt that a reasonable compromise, which would allow the owner to use his property would be to go ahead with the LD -2 designation and then rezone the property to R-1 which would allow the lots to be used for single family homes since the density would be all right under the Plan. Chairman Scurlock agreed. He noted that we have tried to address this problem many times, but U.S.I is so unique and there are so many individual situations, it is hard to develop an overall policy. Chairman Scurlock opened the floor to the public and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Attorney David Cairns came before the Board, repre- senting the applicants, Charles and Mary Bardelis, and - stated that he believed the comments made by staff are basically in conformity with their thoughts as well. He hated to say right off that R-1 would be fine because he felt several points should be made. He emphasized that when Mr. Bardelis originally acquired this property it was 20