1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

was prezoned to two classifications, 7 lots classified as R-1-7 and others as RH. It was also reported how this area could lend itself to a "planned develop- ment" as requested. Protest petition signed by 12 property owners in imme- diate vicinity of property being considered for rezoning read, citing the reasons for their protest, as area had been single family residential when property acquired for "rural" advantages offered; area in County for many years prior to their seeking annexation in 1966 and of assumption area would continue to be maintained in single family zoning as confirmed by the prezoning. Summary of protest against "P" Combining District proposed without benefit of specific plans for its development. Planning Director advised of the meeting which had been held with applicant _ prior to the Commission's public hearing to indicate zoning should be held of the property to utilize a planned unit development concept which could be granted, modified or denied when presented to the Planning Commission for evalua- tion. Discussion and questioning held as to controls possible under "P" combining dis- trict for density restrictions. City Attorney advised this was similar to situa- tion which had prevailed in the Windsor Gardens planned development project, approved by Council, and further clarified changes which could be made in course of granting a Planned Development permit. Councilman Henderson expressed her opposition to granting requested rezoning under "P" Combining District until review of this has been made by Staff as previously requested. She also discussed importance of protest petition sub- mitted because of facts stated concerning their willingness to annex to City and the prezoning which had already been attached to this area. Councilman Peter- sen expressed his agreement to concern expressed by adjacent property owners after prezoning hearings before annexation, and indicated because this hillside area was now under a moratorium for study purposes, that action not be taken for rezoning but referred also for study. Councilman Bury also favored referring the request back to Planning Commission in view of protest petition submitted, but also questioned whether a time limit possible on such applications for planned development because of other similar applications which had been granted, but not constructed. City Attorney advised it was not possible to condition a zoning change but possible for Council to re- zone from a "P" Combining District, where granted, back to original zoning within a reasonable length of time, which would in effect cancel a permit granted. The following appeared: Property owner at 815 Villa Vista, recent purchaser in area but not in the City limits protesting change of den- sity, and requesting a chance to sign the protest petition. Mrs. Carol Fillmore, 819 Vista Dr., owner of property in area but not in;' the City, stating her intention to oppose future annexation if this rezoning granted. Mrs. Josselyn, 855 Vista Drive, protesting plans proposed by applicant to permit two-family rental units which would permit influx of a transient type neighborhood. SPA 24 '87 35