1984/05/07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

a 199 May] 1984 Sectionin 1 policy A the policy " remained the the orignal a c Planning Commission recommendation except that important Ingle family neighborhoods'was changed to read t low and medium density residential a n 1[polricy A.2, the Planning Commission's recommendation nsays tbat special criteria regulating t concentration, sign a building design should be u allowed G duplexesinR-2a site zoned a Alimited umber o duplexes should be applied when approved through'the " 1 Special property Use Permit process in the ower density single family neighborhoods(R-5 and R-1 zoned areas). The alternative etates single familyached should be preserved ssible. Duplexes,st attached sage housing and • multiple family" using should my in planned developments in lox density residential to o(R-S R-1). Duplexes d be alwed though a administrative process shoulm density residential a e(R-2).n ety o using types d be wed in planned developments in medium density residential allowed 4 ughty,tM1en a other alternative£or Chia s which could state city no using types s d be allowed rin low and medium density v residential areas on appropriate sates. oughty.said in Section 4 C.1 the Planning Commission's"proposal said only single family detached housing should be allowed in single family zoned neighborhoods,R-S,R-1 and R-2 zoned areas.. The alternative states av ariety of housing types should be allowed in planned developmentslow and medium density residential areas (area"zoned a R11 anany n zone" developed to regulate low or medium density residential uses). He said Section 6 A.1 In the Planning cs endignateendations states " aa-1 and R n should bdesignated simple family if thepredominant land use is single family detached residential.. the alternative the reading ispppriately signed s and medium density residential should be preserved by assuring that new residential typeuses and other execially permitted uses in these areae are made compatible with the isting uses.. - pointed out he had passed out a r evision one 12 A regarding implementation of policy A and2 and on page 15 A the implementation on policy,]B.1. He said the Planning Commission will receive written testimony until Pride,Ray lith at 5:00 p.m. Dixon Dahl,-of 4421 a asked i the Planning Commission would be voting o the alternatives or their recommendations or both and he was told it could be a mixture of both, [ then spoke a net changing the single family policy xo es from hat as recommended[he the Planings C Said n he had [chedhis 90 zoned multiple family, felt thie w sufficient c£ available multiple family construction. o had researched a undo that single family dwelling residents alr " stable than those in multiple family dwellings. recommended that[ Planning Commission turn down the alternatives and adopt the original recommendations of the Planning Commission.