Laserfiche WebLink
TO: James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE <br />Obert M. Reat g, P <br />Community Development Director <br />THRU : Sasan Rohani S • Q • <br />Chief, Long -Range Planning <br />FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek <br />Senior Planner, 4 -Range Planning <br />DATE: April 2, 1992 <br />RE: GIFFORD ELDERLY HOUSING, LTD., REQUEST TO REZONE <br />APPROXIMATELY 4.8 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO RM -10 (RZON-92-02- <br />0093) <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular <br />meeting of April 28, 1992. <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd. has submitted a request to rezone a <br />parcel of land from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to <br />6 units/acre) to RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to <br />10 units/acre). The subject parcel --consists of approximately 4.8 <br />acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of 43rd Avenue <br />and 45th Street (North Gifford Road). The property is currently <br />owned by Bryant and Ann Carter. The Gifford Elderly Housing, Ltd. <br />partnership is planning an affordable elderly housing project for <br />the subject property. <br />On March 12, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to <br />recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the <br />rezoning of the property to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential <br />District (up to 8 units/acre), instead of the RM -10 as requested by <br />the applicant. <br />Background <br />Back in 1989, a similar application to rezone this same piece of <br />property to RM -10 was submitted. That request was heard by the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of October <br />26, 1989. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted <br />6 to 1 to deny the request. Although specific reasons for the <br />denial were not cited in the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting <br />minutes, the issue of compatibility between the then proposed RM -10 <br />zoning and the adjacent RS -6 zoning was raised at the meeting. <br />Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission's action, the <br />applicant appealed the denial to the Board of County Commissioners. <br />Prior to the Board's consideration of the appeal, however, the <br />applicant withdrew his application. <br />23 <br />APR 2 81992 L) � <br />