02/14/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert Bennett, owner of property in question, indicated a letter and site plan had been provided to the eouncil showing a variance from the existing staff recommendation. He felt this particular site could accommodate more than ten units per acre, and would request that the Council approve the request for more than ten units per acre. e Public Hearing was closed, with no further testimony being presented. Ms. Smith questioned staff as to the surrounding property devel- opments and the density per acre. Mr. Saul replied that the city zoning in the property surrounding the requested development has ten units per acre, and this was the reason the Planning Commission had recommended approval with ten units per acre. He further explained the area is seen by the eity as a low-density area, which is defined as one to ten units per acre, therefore being consistent with the surrounding development. He also said the City has, since 1967, been following a policy of allowing up to ten units per acre in such developments. He felt the staff posi- tion of the Planning eommission should be upheld. Councilman Lieuallen asked James Bernhard, Planning Commission, what things were talked about in the public hearing on the zone request in regard to increasing the density per acre. Mr. Bern- hard replied that discussion concerning the site review included a procedure sufficient to handle the site review proposals, re- sulting in the limitation of ten units per acre, saying that this was compatible with the surrounding property. Mr. Lieual1en then asked if it would make any difference to the area if more units per acre were added, to which Mr. Bernhard replied he could not say. - Mr. Bennett reiterated the arbitrary density rate should not apply in all cases. He said in his development he would try to meet all criteria set forth by the Planning Commission, and that his proposal for more than ten units per acre should be given some consideration. He said he understood the request for variance could be made at this time. Mr. Lieuallen said he felt this might be an arbitrary decision, to which Mr. Delay replied he presumes any limits in regard to rezoning an area are arbitrary. He asked whether this would be the appropriate procedure or appropriate time to look at the variance and the zoning issue, but said that he would rather deal with the zoning issue at this time. Mr. Saul questioned what the meaning of variance should,be, and indicated that if the Council takes action different from the Planning Commission, he reminded Council the issue would then go back to a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the eouncil for resolution. Mr. Obie indicated his support for Mr. Bennett's position and said perhaps the decision of ten units per acre is an arbitrary one, but that the density should be kept at a norm for the neighborhood. Mr. Delay indicated he was e 2/14/77--2 18