Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board 3 August 12, 1992 <br />Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. On roll call: <br />AYES: Gelbman, Landers, Robinson, Slatten <br />NAYS: Meisch, Nordine <br />Motion carried. <br />B. 92 -36 -Z, 92 -37 -P, Apollo Meadows, Rezoning & Subdivision <br />Mr. Brixius explained that this is Public Hearing to review a <br />request to plat 42 single family lots and rezone a five acre <br />parcel from R1 to R4, High Density Residential. The Planning <br />Report recommends approval of the subdivision with the <br />elimination of Item 3, as 100' of right of way dedication has <br />been approved by the County, some variances outlined in the <br />staff report concerning lot width at the building setback <br />line and the adjustment that this setback line be maintained <br />at 35' for this plat and realignment for Lot 42 to correct <br />depth deficiency. It is recommended that the property be <br />rezoned to R3, Medium Density, rather than the R4 proposed by <br />the applicant. At this time there are no specific plans for <br />the multiple parcel, however, three alternate site plans <br />submitted more nearly conformed to the medium density <br />classification than the higher density use, thus the <br />recommendation to go with R3. <br />Mr. Mesich asked what type of housing is proposed for this <br />development and was advised that it would be low to moderate <br />housing. He also asked why not rezone the property to a <br />business use as business is needed in the area. Mr. Uhde, the <br />developer, explained that in working with the extension of <br />Apollo Drive and the neighboring residents that the proposal <br />submitted seemed to be the most acceptable to all concerned <br />including the City, County, and Neighborhood. <br />Mr. Gelbman asked about Alternate G in the Staff Report as a <br />consideration for the site plan. Mr. Uhde explained that it <br />was not a good idea because lots back onto Apollo Drive. The <br />plan proposed is the best alternative and the access points <br />have been ok'd by the County. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Huntington of 140 Marvy Street were present and <br />asked if a park was proposed for the site and if the rezoning <br />is approved could anything go in at that location. Mr. <br />Brixius explained that the Park Plan does not call for park <br />area in this location as there is a park a few blocks to the <br />north. In regard to the rezoning, any proposed construction <br />would require site plan review and approval by the Planning <br />Board and the City Council. <br />Mr. Meisch stated that he was not comfortable approving the <br />rezoning without any plans for development. He stated that <br />if it remains an R1 Outlot, Mr. Uhde can request the rezoning <br />when he is ready to further subdivide or build on the site. <br />Mr. Uhde stated that economics dictate the rezoning at this <br />time. <br />