12/2/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 'i DEC 2 1966 Bou C6 G.a E 548 nature. They just do not want to be treated unfairly, and he would oppose just them being rezoned to R-1. Chairman Scurlock believed that Ralmar is already vested and have all their site plan work, and Director Keating confirmed that they have submitted their PRD. Chairman Scurlock requested that staff explain the PRD procedure and the Commission's latitude in terms of certain conditions that may be placed on a PRD. Director Keating confirmed that a PRD does allow more flexibility in development and certain modifications may be allowed, particularly with regard to minimum lot sizes and setback areas, but emphasized that a PRD is not an entitlement or right. The developer must come in and bargain with staff as to how it can be developed, and this bargaining continues through the hearing process. THe Chairman commented that we do not have an ordinance that calls for architectural review, and Director Keating agreed but noted that the Board can impose certain conditions under a PRD and the developer must display exhibits showing how the project will look. Chairman Scurlock believed with a PRD the public would have a better idea of what is to be developed, and also any future owner of the property would have to adhere to whatever is set out under the PRD. Commissioner Bird felt if we do not have a zoning category requiring something in the area of a minimum 1/2 acre lot, that we may want to look into creating one. He believed some really fine developments have been done on the basis of 1/2 acre lots. Attorney O'Haire brought up the possibility that the pending PRD may not be granted during the public hearing process, and he continued to urge that staff be directed to begin immediately the process for implementing a larger minimum lot size. Mr. Beuttell. inquired if you can downzone arbitrarily when somebody is already zoned, and Chairman Scurlock believed 24