My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-1986 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
02-26-1986 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2013 12:03:33 PM
Creation date
3/19/2013 12:02:15 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />Feb. 13, 10£36 <br />Goff Goff further explained that the buildings located on the south would <br />Development be about 60 feet apart and the buildings along the ditch would be about <br />(Cont.) 30 feet apart. <br />Mr. Costa asked if there were any plans for developing the property <br />across the ditch. Goff replied that there were not and he would like to <br />leave the property as is. <br />Costa commented that the City may require a playground of some type. <br />Goff replied that the type of people buying these units do not have children. <br />Timmons asked how wide the street was. Goff replied that it is proposed <br />at 60 feet wide. The Planner pointed out that a 60 foot width is <br />required in an R -2 area. <br />Mr. DeLonais recommended approval of the rezoning to R -2 as proposed <br />by Mr. Pat Goff except for the strip along the west which would <br />remain R -1. <br />Judd <br />Property <br />Division <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Perlinger. <br />Motion carried 5 - 1. Mr. Davison was opposed. <br />Davison stated that he was opposed to the upzoning of any R -1 property <br />in the City, and felt that it should remain R -1 if at all possible. <br />Mr. Costa pointed out that the property has been for sale as R -1 for <br />years with no interest shown in the property. <br />Mr. DeLonais stated that he felt the Goff proposal served as a transition <br />between R -3 and R -1. <br />Mrs. Timmons stated that she,too, was opposed to upzoning of R -1 to a <br />greater density, but given the power lines and the R -3 zoning across <br />County Road 0, she did not think that the property would develop as R -1. <br />The Planner stated that if the Council approves the rezoning, then <br />the proposal will cone hack to the Commission for action on a conditional <br />use permit PUD. <br />Mr. Thomas Judd of 95 Bluwood appeared before the Commission requesting <br />approval of a lot split and a variance for side yard setback. Judd <br />reported that he would like to split a lot off the southern portion <br />of his property. Access to the lot would be from County Road C. <br />Mrs. Timmons felt that rather than grant a variance for side yard setback, <br />the City should vacate Jackson Street. <br />Page -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.