Laserfiche WebLink
Gerald Kaufhold, Case A 1830 <br />0 Page 3 <br />f) The <br />scale and the location of the <br />park make <br />it incompatible with <br />the <br />purpose and function of the <br />property as <br />originally planned in <br />the <br />park system plan adopted by <br />the City in <br />1960-61. <br />B. We understand that the proposed use of the northerly portion of the <br />site for school purposes by District 916 is proposed to continue for <br />approximately two years. There remains a very important question as <br />to the future use of this land. It would be .bad public policy to make <br />a land use commitment and change any portion of this relatively small <br />site and leave the remainder unknown for the future. It is simply <br />delaying an important land use decision and likely making it more <br />difficult to achieve a compatible development on the northerly portion <br />of the site after additional single-family home owners occupy the <br />southerly portion. There is also, of course, a minor regulation detail <br />that requires a public school building not to be less than 30 feet from <br />a contiguous single-family lot. That regulation is violated. <br />9. Though the land is zoned single-family (R-1), the land use plan which <br />controls the future land uses of the City still designates the land as a <br />public school. If a portion of the site is to be developed. for low <br />density residential, the land use plan should be changed accordingly. We <br />suggest that such a designation of low density residential for the area <br />of the land proposed to be platted now and leaving the remainder as a <br />public school would be very bad land planning since the days for the <br />use of the land for public school purposes are numbered. Therefore, it <br />is reasonable on the part of the City (hopefully working with the land <br />owner) to achieve an overall land use plan and development proposal <br />that , will be compatible with the considerable concentration of <br />single-family homes in the immediate vicinity and the community as a <br />whole. <br />10. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to consider an action <br />that Would provide for: <br />a) A more appropriately scaled and located park site consistent with <br />the original parks plan in the overall community interests; <br />b) A long range look at the overall land use, zoning, <br />and development of the site; <br />c) Elimination of an inadequately sized and located park for the <br />reasons as listed in this report; and <br />d) Development that would be compatible with the single-family <br />homes in the area, the traffic capacity of the street serving the <br />site, and the land use pattern as established in the contiguous <br />quadrants of the county road serving this site. <br />