4/2/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� APR 21986' BOOK 64 F'}AGE 34 Commissioner Wodtke did not believe RS -6 is an escalation of the request that was heard and he did not believe the community is going to oppose RS -6, especially since everything around that area is RS -6. He noted we can go through the whole process all over again and spend more money and have people take off from their jobs, but he felt it would be preferable if we can accomplish this today. Attorney Block believed this would cut an option away for the people to come in in July and revisit the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Bird stated that he would be hard pressed to deny the RS -6 if that were the issue before us, and if it were legal, he would withdraw his support of the Motion and favor a Motion to go to RS -6. Discussion continued re a change to RS' -6, and Attorney Vitunac pointed out that would not only involve a change in density numbers but also a change in type of use. Chief Planner Shearer noted that, as far as staff is concerned, this can be run back through as a county -initiated rezoning if that is the way the Board wants to go. Vice Chairman Lyons stated that he would be inclined to go with our Attorney's interpretation even though it might be a little more awkward, and he felt the safe step is to have the rezoning from A-1 to RS -6 as a separate item. Commissioner Bird advised that if the applicant would agree to withdraw their request for multi family zoning, he then would make a Motion to instigate a county -initiated rezoning to RS -6 to bring this into conformance with the rest of the area. Commissioner Bowman did not believe a density of 6 is really consistent with what is in the area, and Commissioner Bird understood that, but noted that if we do restudy the area, this property would be included the same as anything else. Attorney Vitunac believed situations such as this could be avoided if the applicant, when applying, was advised to ask that 34 � � r