Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 207 <br /> April 30,1980 <br /> • <br /> PUBLIC HEARING,WOODRIDGE REZONE DENIAL APPEAL_(CB 805-192) <br /> Gerry Ervine,of the planning Department,said on March 11,1980 the <br /> received e, ight,Hare s <br /> n <br /> b <br /> eh <br /> their clients, alf <br /> ofeeBuell,and W. <br /> at they <br /> were arequest for ppealing c March the P PlCommission <br /> anning <br /> oqfr - - property <br /> nWood na approximately reviewed c <br /> chronological regarding <br /> gt proposed rezone. These were as follows: <br /> October 6,1978 application <br /> one received <br /> November 1,1978 —Plannig Commission hearing <br /> December <br /> , 9J8 Environmental required <br /> November) 118 -Final /impact StatemeNovembent 14, 89-Planning thissued <br /> 2],190 - y hearing postponed pending decision <br /> alit Planning CommtO ission appeal processeebary 13,19110- iCouncil lazonePlanning Commissionr5 1980 Planning <br /> Commission <br /> ies <br /> one <br /> MArc ,1980 PplicatappealsPlanning Commission <br /> decision <br /> President Overstreet then interrupted t0 explain rules 0 the <br /> he <br /> so to to <br /> ariypeak. He indicaie tolt Council <br /> lnentthe woulreasons <br /> nsPeakfor t ould Theyhave <br /> w would <br /> have Y the health,w safty of <br /> in the area whizens ichwnecessitatednding the area athe rezone, beenconsiderablechange c e • ,. <br /> Following this;the opponents would <br /> issue. <br /> A <br /> f <br /> ter t <br /> h <br /> a <br /> t,thepublic Wold closed Councilwould haveion. One of three was available. <br /> t <br /> h <br /> ethe C could send it back to the Planning con <br /> clarificationfurther cions,o Council could <br /> concur with the Planning Commission and deny he request. <br /> e theexplained they wished to rezone R-1 single family <br /> w density,wnichallowed 5 wellingunits p t •• <br /> o R67 multiple <br /> familY d nsity,which a 29 d its peracre, <br /> specificsite plan b submitted selcationo structures, <br /> parking, ct <br /> south <br /> nspace,etc.and doaccompanyingfhopthan <br /> roposal the deVelopment .0Thea Wod ., <br /> west Elm a e 87a of w 4. a acres had308 slope. <br /> property <br /> sed a athe <br /> con-ulvPlfaravine,with <br /> m surrounding: <br /> said <br /> struction would be <br /> duplexes adjacent to <br /> e single <br /> • <br /> • <br /> „Planning Commission at their public dMarch 5th <br /> vote deny t requesth following rre s. <br /> 1It seems to be <br /> IY <br /> he <br /> the <br /> tting feeling of <br /> people Iilneighborhood topreseve their <br /> ualidoflife their health, <br /> iwelfare,that incz gensitiea in this s ,A <br /> ear. <br /> 2. The inappropriateness of the existing <br /> zoning <br /> been zh0wn. ',s <br /> ] The prorim ject tudyOea s not correspond now v. theComprehensivePlan,the <br /> 4 There preseatly exists <br /> ofduplex and ' <br /> multi-family housinge area un existing <br /> 5. rodosed B- intrudes a boundedgby R-1 •• <br /> one-halfzoning d <br /> with the R-1 zone,and therefore does not ach <br /> tas a buffer be zone. <br /> • <br /> •0 <br />