1968 339- 485 _ 1-8 to 4-15-1968

Browse Search

358 Because of absence of Fire Department personnel, Councilman Petersen moved to continue this public hearing to 8:30 p.m., until such personnel was present to respond to the points raised concerning fire protection, seconded by Councilman Keekley and carried. PUBLIC HEARING, Resolution of Intention of the Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Map to rezone property consisting of Lots 23-26, Block 502, Highlands of Emerald Lake No. 5, from "IS" District (interim Study) to "RH-12" District (Residential - Hillside, 12,000 sq. ft. (minimum bldg. site area); and to rezone property con- sisting of Lots 10 and 11, Lynda Lake Gardens, from "IS" (Interim Study) District to 11RH-40" District (Residential Hillside, 40,000 sq. ft. minimum bldg. site area) declared open and affidavits of publication and mailing ordered filed. Report of Planning Commission read in which it was stated Commission had voted unanimously to recommend the rezoning as described in their Resolution of Inten- tion. Staff report read in which it was noted area under consideration was re- cently annexed to theCity, (Lakeview Annexation #1); presently subdivided into 6 lots having separate ownership, 4 of lots being less than 6,000 sq. ft. Zoning proposed for the 4 lots from "IS" District to "RH-12" District and other two lots being over 40,000 sq. ft. recommended for the RH-40 District. It was also noted that some of the property owners in the Lynda Lake Gardens Subdivisinn had expressed a desire to retain the 40,000 sq. ft. lot size standard that now exists in the subdivision's restrictive covenants. Council questioned length of access and egress to these properties; possibility of requiring an access road before finalizing rezoning; questions as to whether any problems anticipated because of variance of lot sizes in this area. City Manager and Planning Director advised Lakeview Way cul-de-sac is now essentially a dead-end street, but it is possible to cross the present dam, for emergency purposes. It was also noted that when earlier portion prezoned to RH-12, original application had been for R-1 but in recognition of the inherent cul-de-sac problems, Council had determined RH-12 should be the minimum development in the area. Council was also advised that it would not be possible to condition zoning to include road requirements, but it might be possible at such time as construction is proposed on either of the two large lots and a Use Permit involved as anticipated, con- sideration could be given to requiring a road for additional egress. In reply to Council questioning as to any problems anticipated because of varying lot sizes, Planning Director advised 4 parcels recommended for RH-12 were all under separate ownerships and although they were under the recommended size, they are legal building sites having been subdivided by the County prior to annexation. It was reported two lots only were in the RH-40 proposed zoning recommendation because of being over an acre in size, balance of 11 lots adjoining this area still AN is IN