1/13/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Scurlock felt that we could go ahead and approve the PRD conditioned at 2 upa and in a separate motion instruct staff to go ahead and start the advertising to include this area __ in the downzoning and not accept any additional subdivisions within the area until that rezoning takes place. Chairman Scurlock asked Attorney O'Haire if he had considered the impact of 2.5 upa, and Attorney O'Haire felt that it still would not be compatible with what is in place. Commissioner Bird recalled that when he suggested that we create a RS -2 zoning district, he did not expect it would be applied to this particular project because at t1.d dame they requested the RS -6 and it was downzoned to RS -3. He had a problem with downzoning it again, and emphasized that he is trying to look out for the interests of the people who live there and honestly believes the PRD, even at 3 upa, is better for the neighborhood than just a standard platted subdivision. Commissioner Eggert said she looks at it differently, because there was no actual downzoning; while the request was for RS -6, it was upzoned from Agricultural to RS -3. Chairman Scurlock believed that the reasons why that area was designated LD -2 at the time the Comp Plan was written was because of the canal and because there wasn't any activity in that area. Furthermore, there wasn't any intent by the residents to do anything negative to the community. He emphasized that the Commission is not supposed to consider economics; the question is compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Chairman stated he would support a Motion to allow this PRD at 2 upa and immediately instruct staff to proceed with downzoning the Rosewood area to 2 upa. Commissioner Bowman wanted to put in more conditions than that. She preferred the PRD because of the cloister concept and the open space, but she wanted to eliminate the jogging trail and the walls completely. 45 JAN BOOK 8