1966 247-276 _ 7-25 cont. to 8-22-1966

Browse Search

,2J vJ 8yq ilk TO SAID CITY OF RED1400D CITY, seconded by Councilman Henderson and carried on roll call vote, Councilmen Keekley and Rosselli being noted absent. Discussion of prezoning corner property at Canyon and Oak Knoll (Arthur and Blevins' parcel) Planning Director advised some action on this parcel was scheduled for Planning Commission meeting of August 9th, and he desired guidance from the Council concerning their zoning preference regarding this parcel, because of directive to Planning Commission that this be prezoned commercial. Planning Director again reviewed history and present zoning of adjacent parcels in this area, indicating why there had been reluctance in interest of good commercial planning to consider this one small parcel for straight commercial. He stated consideration might be given to enlarging area to be zoned commercial, particularly in view of Mr. Barnet's request that the frontage of his adjacent parcel be considered for same zoning as that of corner parcel. It was pointed out this parcel is included in annexation proceedings and unless prezoned would come into City with IS zoning. It was also stated parcel at present in unincorporated area of County and held zoning which permitted either commercial or apartment combination development. Councilman Peter- sen felt Council had sufficiently indicated their favoring commercial zoning for this property. Robert Dell'Ergo, Attorney representing property owners, Blevins and Arthur, restated his former position on prezoning of this property in view of long ownership by his clients, and its commercial zoning under County, to prezone to anything else than commercial would be to deprive them of their property rights and would reduce their property values. He stated his clients not interested in either service station or apartment development. Councilman Bury agreed historical record of commercial zoning on this parcel led Council to indicate zoning should remain commercial, although it was also indicated a service station not considered desirable. After questioning of City Attorney as to procedures possible and effects on this property, Councilman Granger moved that Planning Commission be notified Council sug- gested leaving this parcel, owned by Blevins and Arthur, in a commercial zoning, but which would preclude a service station, seconded by Councilman Petersen, if wording changed to state Council "suggested property be zoned commercial, but further sug- gesting provision be included that no service station be allowed." Councilman Bury questioned reference made to Barnett property and his request for rezoning to commercial. Planning Director advised there had been protests received concerning this request, but indicated inclusion of additional area with this corner lot made for better commercial development because of increased flexibility with larger area. After further discussion concerning the procedures open both to Council and to Planning Commission, Councilman Granger's motion was restated to indicate Council — looked with favor on Planning Commission prezoning this property to a commercial zoning which would not permit a service station, seconded by Councilman Petersen and carried on roll call vote, Councilmen Bury, Granger, and Petersen voting yes, Coun- cilman Henderson and Mayor Herkner voting no. (MINUTE ORDER #66-177)