Laserfiche WebLink
CPAR114 <br />o t <br />CW�o r% <br />SUB <br />.-.. tT. sw <br />UNIT 4 �� <br />M L <br />OSLO RD <br />.Stw 3?D� � <br />\ _ <br />' <br />ISTM Pi.." aw <br />5 UNIT 3 <br />i,o \ „� r <br />IIT" L.A. 1 {w IT <br />,.y <br />,Y. %. �s DIXIE I"HEIGHTS <br />NTN ST. Sw y <br />r__�?NIT 2 T <br />T +� S K <br />— I4TN ►c tw t <br />O \ P <br />IST" ST. <br />...... ..... <br />1eTN ►L. ■r <br />SUBJECT PROPERTY <br />.. .` ..�:r le <br />14TH .. IT. aw <br />UNI I -A <br />I <br />:11tTN .'L. tw <br />E <br />I <br />I <br />RS -6 <br />N - <br />L-2 <br />r <br />RM -6 <br />w .....•_.UNIT 2 <br />_. i iH e% -SE <br />-RIVER SHORES ESTATE, <br />' <br />RS <br />UNIT 1 <br />' !'- <br />GROVE ISLE nl 10 <br />« RN <br />—AAi�— tee.. •;. . <br />1 Proposed <br />ZONING BOUNDARIES <br />....... LAND USE BOUNDARIES <br />Attachment "3" <br />Director Keating noted that the subject property is probably <br />one of the few blocks in the county that doesn't have a conform- <br />ing use on it. The DCA did have some substantive objections, :and <br />one was whether the staff representation that this was inappro- <br />priately designated L-2 because of an oversight would be extended <br />subsequently and be a reason for including the block to the north <br />in a later amendment. Director Keating pointed out that the <br />proposed Ordinance includes a WHEREAS clause in which the Board <br />acknowledges that the area around this is appropriately <br />designated as residential right now but that this block because <br />of the unique circumstances is worthy of consideration for <br />redesignation to commercial. Staff is recommending approval. <br />'Jul 18 1991' <br />is <br />119 RUCK: ��:) Fti�;E ii <br />